Trump, not Canadian auto industry, may be the threat to U.S. national security: Don Pittis

Things have officially becomevery frightening when the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, sounds more reasonable and peace-loving than the president of the United States.

But after another wacky week of flip-flops by U.S. President Donald Trumpand policy statements characterized by Canada's level-headed foreign minister Chrystia Freeland as "frankly absurd,"many especially those in the southern part of the Korean peninsula were thinking exactly that.

Canadian cars a security threat?

To be clear, Freeland'scomment was not related to the Koreas but to the idea expressed by Trumpjustifying a 25 per cent duty onCanadian-producedcars on the grounds that they were asecurity threat.

The idea, she said, was "frankly absurd and that is a point we are making very clearly to our U.S. partners and allies."

A critic might say Freeland'scomments were shaped by her role as Canada's minister in charge of the NAFTAtalks and that she has a vested interest in contradicting the president. But independent observers agree that playing the national security card will be dangerously destabilizing for international trade, and thus international security.

"If you do this then everybody else in the world is going to go down the same road," Jennifer Hillman, a former U.S. trade negotiator and World Trade Organization (WTO) judge, told the Financial Times.

It would seem that this is Trump's strategy: Invokingnational security allows a country to abrogate other rules of the WTObased on the idea that countries in dire conflict cannot be expected to allow their own factories to supply the potential war effort of anenemy.

Revised facts

In the kind of factual revisionismwe've seen in the past from this administration, U.S. economic welfare and the loss of domestic jobs arebeing construed as a threat to security, which may be true, but clearly not the intent of the WTO provision.

As implied by Hillmannow a specialist in trade law at Georgetown Law school in Washington, D.C. equatingeconomic well-being with security could offercarte blanche to any other countrywanting to protect a local industry from global competition.

And you know if the U.S. actually uses it for their benefit, other countries will want to do the same for their own benefit.

Part of the through-the-looking-glassnature of Trump's latest trade gambit is that in all likelihood it will be bad for the U.S. economy and thus potentially bad for security. Markets tumbled followingthe presidential announcement.

Economists almost universally agree that free trade is good for everyone andtrade wars can turn into something worse.

Trade war vs real war

If it's a real war you want instead, maybe Trump's flip-flop on talks with North Korea is the answer. Heralded as amove toward peace when he surprised the world with the announcement that he would meet withKim, last week the U.S. president surprised the world again by changinghis mind.

The announcement that Trump would not be attending the planned Singapore summit came on the same day that North Korea blew up its nuclear test site in the presence of the world's news media, which made Trump's change of heart seem like a dirty trick.

The whole episode, particularly after Kimcalled for renewed talks, may have left the U.S. the loser.

Despite his odd haircut, it will be hard to put Kim back into his clown suit as the crazy bomb-throwing dictator, especially in South Korea where his peacemaking visit that ended the long war, plus his humorous comments, were met with widespread approval.

Contrariwise,Trump's change of heart was greeted with disappointment in South Koreawhere a recent Pew study of global indicators shows confidence in the U.S. presidency already at a low ebb of 17 per cent.

The litany of security mistakes continues.

The U.S. president's renewed trade attacks on Europe and China seem to have had the opposite effect from that intended. Chinaand Germany responded to Trump's trade scares with talk of friendlierties.

If that wasn't enough for one week, Trump also lifted important rules on banking meant to prevent another taxpayer bailout. And he alienated a significant portion of the U.S. population by demanding a ban on kneeling during the national anthem to protest against racism.

Week of insecurity

All in all, it's been a startlingly insecure week for a president worried about security.

Building toward another bank bailout could lead to domestic outrage and revolt, not security. Inciting conflictbetween flag-waversand the country's African-Americanswill make everyone less secure.

As the Washington Post has pointed out, Trump has managed to offend some 90 countrieswith his on-again, off-again nuclear tough talk. It makes you wonder if the purpose is not security, but insecurity, as part of a justification for more military spending.

Breaking free trade, especially with Canada, will inevitably hurt the U.S. job-creation economy. Smashing theWTOcould welldamage economies everywhere leading to global insecurity as weakened governmentscrumble.

Perhaps the worst thing Trump did last week was to undermine the world's confidence in the leadership ofWesterncapitalist democracy, helping to inspirea risky and possibly destabilizing search for leadership elsewhere.

Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis