The Diplomatic Implications of Renaming the Gulf of Mexico
What’s Gulf? It is nor wave nor tide
Nor fish nor whale nor any other part
Belonging to a sea. O be some other name.
What’s in a name? That which we call a Gulf
By any other name would still spill oil;
So Gulf would, were he not Mexico call’d,
Retain that dear wealth which he owes
Without that title. Gulf, doff thy name,
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Be claimed all by America’s First.
From cartographic corrections to $40 billion in frozen foreign aid, the White House’s rewrite of these star-crossed waters reveals more than just maritime nomenclature – it comes with a diplomatic price tag and a clear message about America’s new global role.
The Gulf of America
Among the 45 executive orders President Donald Trump released during his first two weeks in office was the Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness, released on January 20.
“It is in the national interest to promote the extraordinary heritage of our Nation and ensure future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of our American heroes,” said President Trump in the order.
The order called for the renaming of some notable natural wonders, including Mount Denali and the Gulf of Mexico.
By no means is this the first time a president has rewritten a national monument. In 2015, President Barack Obama renamed what is currently called Mount Denali from its previous name of Mount McKinley. The name had been in place for over 100 years before Former President Obama revised it to Denali, a word from the Koyukon Athabaskan language of the Native peoples of Alaska.
While Mount Denali has faced several revisions in the past decade, the Gulf of Mexico has been previously untouched. The sea has used the name as far back as the late 16th century and has had no controversy surrounding the name since.
Debates over the naming of shared bodies of water have long been documented globally. Japan and Korea have had conflict surrounding the name of the Sea of Japan due to historical tensions. The same tensions are arising between the United States and Mexico, with Mexico’s current president expressing her displeasure at the name change.
“For us, it is still the Gulf of Mexico, and for the entire world, it is still the Gulf of Mexico,” President Claudia Sheinbaum said to the Associated Press.
The legality of renaming bodies of water is hard to navigate, particularly with the United States never ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea agreements, which would limit ownership of bodies of water to only 12 miles past the coastline. This change is a bold and telling statement in America’s rejection of foreign influences.
American Exceptionalism and Isolationism
“We have it in our power to begin the world over again,” Thomas Paine declared in 1776.
American exceptionalism is by no means a novel idea in the American political sphere. Since its founding, leaders have imbued the public with the idea that the United States is a unique and superior land, destined to be a global powerhouse. Most nations need to be self-invested to ensure the best for their citizens.
What has been notably different throughout the ages is how this notion applies to foreign policy.
To dive into a bit of history for a moment: for many years, the United States was seen as a “city on a hill,” a place of admiration for other nations to draw inspiration from. We were a model of democracy to be taken after.
At the same time, the United States opposed European influence in the Western hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine allowed them to agree to a non-intervention stance in European affairs but was amended to allow U.S. intervention in Latin America during Roosevelt’s presidency. America would exist throughout history in two regards: a nation of independence and a watchdog of democracy.
“I think we can actually start talking about what I would call a post-post-Cold War foreign policy,” said Richard Haas, American diplomat, in an interview with NPR. “After the – what you might call the drift of the Clinton years, the overreach of the Bush 43 years, we’ve now had three presidents in a row who were dialing it back and are reducing America’s involvement in the world.”
The United States has had an oscillating foreign policy, but President Trump is set on returning to this “city on a hill” mindset.
His latest executive orders have been cutting back on our relationships with foreign allies through trade and aid, effectively pushing America further up that hill and further into isolation.
Stopping the Money
Policy has shifted in these beginning weeks toward “realigning” the goals of the United States more with the trend of isolationism. While not quite cutting all ties with our foreign allies, President Trump has emphasized putting “America First.”
“Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” said the U.S. Department of State in a media note. “And that is exactly what we are doing right now – prioritizing America’s core national interests one dollar at a time.”
To protect American citizens’ dollar, they have moved to dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and slashed the $40 billion worth of foreign aid spent annually by the department.
“That is more than the GDP of multiple U.S. states and accounts for four out of every 10 dollars in global humanitarian aid,” said the U.S. Department of State in a media note. “Americans deserve transparency and accountability for every dollar we spend.”
In the interest of transparency, we should put that figure into perspective. The total U.S. federal budget for the 2024 fiscal year was $6.75 trillion. While $40 billion is beyond what the vast majority of Americans could even begin to imagine seeing in their life, the figure accounts for merely 1 percent of the total annual U.S. budget.
“It’s having seismic, seismic impacts for the entire global aid system,” said Abby Maxman, the president of Oxfam America. “And really, frankly, it’s a cruel decision that has life or death consequences for millions of people around the world.”
The withdrawal of aid is just one more brick on President Trump’s metaphorical wall—graduating from his literal one last term—to push America further up that hill. If the United States is Juliet, he anticipates our allies will be Romeo, begging for our love while we sit atop that balcony.
Now Beg for Our Money
Any good story has three acts, and President Trump’s brings whopping tariffs.
“The extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl, constitutes a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA),” said President Trump in an executive order on February 1.
In response to this apparent crisis, President Trump issued a 25 percent additional tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports and a 10 percent additional tariff on goods from China.
The tariffs effectively serve as a negotiation tool to coerce Mexico and Canada into complying with the United States’ border restrictions, increasing security on their own borders.
“No president in recent memory has really used tariffs across the board or in a broad-brush way to achieve various objectives,” said Douglas Irwin, an economics professor at Dartmouth college, to CNBC. “They’ve sort of adhered to the rule that we belong to the WTO. That means we keep our tariffs low as long as other countries keep their tariffs low.”
Multiple analyses from the Tax Policy Center and the Peterson Institute for International Economics all suggest these tariffs could hurt growth, lower family incomes, and push up prices for American consumers. It seems the price of isolationism comes from our own pockets.
While China was quick to release their own retaliatory tariffs, Canada and Mexico agreed to negotiate the terms of the arrangement, putting the tariff on a temporary one-month suspension.
The Exceptionalist Nation?
Less than a month into this new presidency, Americans have been inundated with shocking orders and recessions, raising much uncertainty for what lies ahead. Many refer to this as a “shock and awe” strategy, meant to overwhelm and leave those not in power without time for an opposition.
There is a decisive shift in policies—and newly named tides—that are charting this oh-so “great” nation toward an isolated state. As these policies unfold, the United States positions itself like Shakespeare’s Juliet—isolated, elevated, watching from a metaphorical balcony as former allies stand below.
What remains to be seen is whether these policies will actually stick legally. After all, water flows where it will, trade finds its way around barriers, and international relationships, unlike the star-crossed lovers, often survive despite the names we give them.
The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect those of The Sandspur or Rollins College. Have any additional tips or opinions? Send us your response. We want to hear your voice.
Comments are closed.