Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A dangerous loss of trust

Opinion

A dangerous loss of trust
Getty Images

William Natbony is an attorney and business executive specializing in investment management, finance, business law and taxation. He is the author of The Lonely Realist, a blog directed at bridging the partisan gap by raising questions and making pointed observations about politics, economics, international relations and markets.

In a recent editorial in the New York Times, Tom Friedman focused on how trust has evaporated. Although his subject was U.S.-China relations, the sad fact is that the 21st Century’s loss of trust is broader and far more dangerous, internationally and everywhere in between. However, the consequences of the ongoing global contest between America and China is an appropriate starting point in addressing the question of how best to rebuild trust.


Friedman’s thesis is that with the U.S. and China exchanging dual-use imported and exported goods and services, that are both products and potential weapons, neither side trusts the other to refrain from using the aforementioned for military, cyber, geopolitical and other hostile purposes. Assurances by one appears disingenuous to the other. Reasons for America’s mistrust include Communist Party control over Huawei, TikTok and other international champions, China’s aggressive militarization of strategic islands in the East and South China Seas, its accelerated take-over of Hong Kong, resistance to investigating the origins of COVID-19, its unprecedented peacetime military build-up, its suppression in Xinjiang, and its flaunting of World Trade Organization rules.

Examples of the United States’ untrustworthiness rest on its broken promises and inconsistency (including with respect to the Iran treaty), the weaponization of the SWIFT Dollar payment system, America’s imposition of economic sanctions against countries, companies and individuals that don’t “kow-tow” to America’s demands, and Presidents Obama’s and Trump’s “tough-talk-with-no-action” in places like Syria and North Korea, as well as America’s military and economic response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, America’s “pivot to Asia” intended to suppress China’s rise, and the reversal of President Nixon’s one-China policy in the face of China’s avowed intent to absorb Taiwan.

Put another way, the U.S. views China’s Communist Party-run authoritarian police-state as antithetical to the democratic principles and world order championed by the U.S., while China sees America as a decadent democracy desperately trying to hold onto power, wedded to a post-WWII world order that it is incapable of leading, with inconsistent policy-execution and a deteriorating ability to counter rising Chinese power. Each country’s actions thereby are intended to respond to the perceived threats posed by the other’s perfidious policies in a cycle that generates escalating distrust, and that suggests that the two countries indeed may be Destined for War (as Graham Allison has warned).

A Russian proverb warns not to trust without verification. “Trust but verify” was a 20th Century geopolitical prescription for de-escalation of incipient conflicts, successfully pursued by President Reagan in the 1980s to reduce Cold War tensions and achieve bilateral nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, “trust but verify” is not a workable solution in the 21st Century. There is no effective method for verifying the purely peaceful use of digital information, technology and data and no means today for confirming what is going on behind the proverbial curtain. Although compliance with potential disarmament agreements might be made effective by remote monitoring of nuclear weaponry, missiles, and troop deployments, doing so with respect to information, technology and data would require a level of mutual cooperation impossible with China’s Orwellian police-state.

America consequently needs to focus on keeping its Chinese adversary closer, and its friends terribly close, as Sun Tzu advised in his textbook for tactical success, The Art of War. The sad fact is that America’s international influence has waned, largely due to inconsistent policies alternately pursued by the G.W. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. Rebuilding international trust therefore will require consistent policy execution coupled with slow and arduous dialogue, a gradual pulling back from confrontations, and an increase in political and military communications.

China has built its strength by increasing its global presence as America has withdrawn from global commitments, reduced its international military presence and beggared its diplomatic outreach. China not only has pursued its Belt and Road Initiative, but has become the primary trading partner for a majority of Asian, African and South American countries, today being the leading lender to many of them.

China’s international influence-building has insulated it from the pressures necessary to require cooperation and the negotiation of appropriate verification mechanisms. Where America stepped back from international relationship-building, China has stepped forward and, by doing so, bought for itself international influence that has empowered its Orwellian militarism. Without foreign policy consistency, America will continue to erode its international influence, alienating friends and empowering enemies. Without a consistent policy of international economic influence-building, America will continue to cede leverage to China. America’s failure to build bridges with China – with the type of carrot-and-stick diplomacy employed by the Reagan Administration in the 1980s – and, at the same time, draw clearer red lines that would trigger American retaliation (which the Biden Administration admittedly has begun doing), have empowered China and its Axis allies. The fact is that the combination of America First isolationism and American cultural puritanism have undermined American power and influence. Examples abound: Although America’s NATO allies were not fulfilling their military spending obligations, that did not alter their importance as strategic and geopolitical partners; however, it did alter the Trump Administration’s European and Russian policies, and although Saudi Arabia’s ruler ordered the dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, that did not alter the economic and geopolitical importance of Saudi Arabia. However, it did alter Biden Administration policy. U.S. foreign policy must focus on national priorities without applying political or moralistic filters. The task is to build bridges that both increase America’s international influence and create economic, political and cultural commonalities that align interests and deter conflict.

Not surprisingly, trust-building has become a lost American art. Democrats and Republicans are consumed by political, moral and cultural distractions rather than with policy-making that furthers the nation’s welfare. The two parties have abandoned joint international and domestic bridge-building in favor of flag-waving and internal confrontation. Trust flows from finding commonalities. If America’s politicians cannot bridge their domestic trust chasm, there is little hope that the U.S. will be able to prevail in its escalating global conflicts, including those with China.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less