Donald Trump

Donald Trump has discovered the virtues of fighting forced labour—provided he does not look too closely at America’s record.

This week he slapped tariffs of 10-12.5 percent on 60 countries—including the UK—because they imported goods from countries that used forced or abusive labour.

Well, so does the United States. In fact, several of its home-grown companies have, in fact, been prosecuted for using forced labour. And this is according to reports from America’s State Department, the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour.

But first the issue of importation. Trump is on reasonably firm ground using the issue of abusive labour practices to try replacing his first illegal round of tariffs with a fresh batch. Since 1930, there has been a law prohibiting the importation of goods produced by abusive labour practices.

However, that law is almost impossible to enforce. If it was it would result in a wide ban on Chinese goods. America’s chocolate manufacturers would be unable to import the cocoa from Ghana and the Ivory Coast that it needs to satisfy millions of sweet tooth Americans. There would be virtually no rubber or palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia nor sugar from the Dominican Republic. And the above list is only a small sample of the affected products.

The fact is that today’s world of complicated supply chains involving multiple countries makes it virtually impossible to identify products that involve forced labour.

But on to the United States where employers exploit the legal vulnerability of undocumented workers to indulge in abusive labour practices in agriculture, hospitality, construction and domestic service. Every year the Department of Labour and the Justice Department prosecute numerous cases involving migrants. American employers use their illegal status to hold them in debt bondages, confiscate their passports, threaten them with deportation and force them to work up to 17 hours a day.

Not all the offences involve immigrants. The DOJ reports rising incidences of child labour, particularly in meat processing plants. One of the recent high-profile cases involved more than 100 children working overnight to clean dangerous meat processing equipment. The company was fined $1.5 million.

Perhaps  the most controversial labour abuse involves American prisons. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery “accept as a punishment for crime.” Many American prisons are managed by private companies who use the prisoners to secure production contracts for which the prisoners are paid miniscule wages or nothing.

When it comes to labour abuses, the United States is living in a glass house, and President Trump has just thrown a set of bricks through several panes.

Iran

Trump’s Iran War may yet claim another strategic victim—nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East.

For decades it has been an unshakable tenet of US—nay, Western—foreign policy that everything possible should be done to prevent the spread of nuclear technology in the strategically vital but highly unstable Middle East.

Israel was the exception. It is believed to have an estimated 60 nuclear weapons. They have served their purpose in deterring an Arab state attack since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. And besides, there was little that the US could do to prevent Israel from acquiring the bomb.

Nuclear non-proliferation in the region is the stated main purpose of America’s current war with Iran. And Trump’s apparent failure to stop the Iranians must be behind this week’s announcement that Washington will help Saudi Arabia develop a nuclear industry.

The Saudis’ Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has made it clear on several occasions that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon than Saudi Arabia must also have one to protect itself from attack from its age-old on the opposite shore of the Persian Gulf.

The Washington announcement said that the provision of the technology would be accompanied by regular visits from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that the Saudis are not using the expertise to develop a weapon. But then, the IAEA also conducted regular checks on the Iranians.

There are suggestions that the initial announcement may—at the likely behest of the Israelis—be nullified by Trump’s follow-up announcement that the nuclear technology was tied to Saudi acceptance of the Abraham Accords.

The Saudis have been on the cusp of joining the accords which involves formal recognition of Israel and the establishment of diplomatic relations. But Riyadh has refused to sign up without an Israeli commitment to the two-state solution which Benjamin Netanyahu vehemently opposes.

However, the Abraham Accords are likely to be more of a bump in the road rather than a brick wall. The door to Saudi Arabia acquiring the technology needed to build a nuclear weapon has been opened. And this opening could prove to be the most consequential and dangerous result of Trump’s attack on Iran.

Iceland

Icelanders go to the polls next month. The issue? Whether to start talks on joining the European Union.

This will the second go at discussing EU membership. The first was initiated by the need for economic security following the 2008-2009 banking crisis. It collapsed in 2013 overfishing rights.

During the Anglo-Icelandic Cod Wars of the 1970s, fish were responsible for 90 percent of the island’s exports. Economic diversification has dramatically cut that figure, but finny friends still account for 40 percent of Iceland’s exports.

To allay the concerns of the Icelandic fishing industry, Brussels has hinted that it is prepared to discuss exemptions from the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.

This time around, however, the issue is less about fishing and more about sovereignty and security.

Icelanders have a strong political, economic and cultural links with the US. But at the same time, they are an intensely patriotic people. They only became independent from Denmark in 1944 and continuing that independence is vitally important to every Iceland.

Events over which Iceland has no control are seen as an increasing threat to Iceland’s independence. The Ukraine War threatens to escalate into a major conflict,  and Iceland guards the strategic Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap through which Russian ships and submarines would have to sail to threaten North Atlantic sea lanes.

But on the other side of the scales is Donald Trump’s threat to annex Greenland. This is exacerbated by the American president’s tendency to confuse Iceland and Greenland in his public pronouncements.

Membership of the EU is seen by many Icelanders as affording a certain amount of protection from both America and Russia. But others argue that Brussels is a third threat to Iceland’s independence.

The geopolitical equation is further complicated by the fact that Iceland is too small for a standing army. Since 1949 it has relied on NATO and American troops for its defence, but the increasing fragility of the transatlantic alliance is calling into question the wisdom of total reliance on NATO.

The latest opinion polls show that 52-53 percent of the electorate favour a resumption of talks with Brussels. They want to see what the EU is prepared to offer. However, 54 percent said they oppose membership of the EU if a Yes or No vote was held today.

For half a century Iceland’s strategic dilemma lay between economic independence and European integration. Today the choice has become more complicated. Icelanders are weighing not just the economic costs of joining Europe, but whether membership offers the best guarantee of preserving the independence they fought so hard to achieve in 1944.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”