The Republican Party has formally nominated Donald Trump as its candidate for the presidency of the United States, capping a roller-coaster campaign that saw the billionaire tycoon defeat 16 White House rivals. Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has officially sealed the Republican candidate to fight for US presidency after months of acrimonious campaigning.
In fact, the billionaire had been expected to cruise past the 1,237 delegates needed on Tuesday to seal the deal on the first ballot. Trump was put over the top by his home state of New York. “It is something I’ll never ever forget,” Trump said on a video feed from New York. “Together we have achieved historic results with the largest vote total in the history of the Republican Party. This is a movement, but we have to go all the way.” His son Donald Trump, Jr., cast the votes for the New York delegation that put the billionaire businessman over the top of the 1,237 delegates he needed to clinch the nomination, as any talk of disruptive protest votes or walkouts dissipated. Donald Trump Jr told delegates at the Republican National Convention, which erupted in cheers and applause. “Congratulations, Dad. We love you,” he said. Now Trump will face Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton former foreign minister of USA and wife of former president Bill Clinton. Donald Jr. was tearing up when he told Bash that putting his father over the top was “one of the more surreal moments of my life other perhaps than the birth of my children. To be able to do that is historic, it’s awesome.” “It’s pretty real.”
Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, was quick to respond after the vote with a challenge thrown to him: “Donald Trump just became the Republican nominee. Chip in now to make sure he never steps foot in the Oval Office”.
The Republican candidate Donald Trump has appeared on screen at the Republican National Convention, telling delegates he is “so proud” to be their nominee for president and vowing to “go all the way” and win the White House in the November election. “This is a movement. But we have to go all the way. I am so proud to be your nominee for president,” he told the delegates. The focus was the economy, with many calls for lower taxes and less government interference, as per the conservative way. However, there was again a clear anti-Clinton theme today, perhaps stronger than yesterday, with NJ governor Chris Christie going pretty hard on the Democratic nominee. He said she was guilty of messing up in her responses to various international incidents.
Trump promised to win the election in November, create jobs, strengthen the military, safeguard US borders and “restore law and order”. The real estate mogul won a thumping victory in a series of state-wide party elections, garnering more than 13 million votes – the most of any Republican nominee ever. The conventions are designed to champion the party candidate, rally the grassroots, and propel the party towards November’s presidential election. “Such a great honor to be the Republican Nominee for President of the United States. I will work hard and never let you down! America first!”
Donald Trump, the business magnet whose outsider campaign has both galvanized millions of voters and divided the Republican Party, is the 2016 GOP presidential nominee.
The New Yorker’s embrace by the Republican National Convention marks a remarkable moment in US political history and validates a campaign that shattered precedent, defied experts and usurped the GOP establishment.
Anti-Trump forces on the floor held out for a final miracle on Tuesday after seeking to convince delegates that their votes were not bound and that they could vote their conscience, but it never came to fruition.
It has been a stunning rise for a man most thought would never make it this far. “After all the predications that he could never do it – the public wouldn’t want someone with no legislative experience, no government experience – they’ve opted for a man who has made his name first of all in business and latterly as a reality TV show host,” reported Al Jazeera. “He will now be on top of the Republican ticket come November.”
An effort to place the name of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for nomination fizzled late Tuesday afternoon. The effort had no chance of success since most of the delegates won by Trump in his GOP nominating victory were bound to vote for him in the roll call under the rules of the Republican primary process. Cruz’s inner circle had adamantly opposed any attempt to involve him in last minute convention floor intrigue, a senior adviser to the Texas senator told CNN. A rebellion would have emphasized the divides in the GOP torn open by Trump’s campaign, which was given little chance of success when he descended a golden escalator in Trump Tower with his wife Melania to set his sights on the White House last year.
An instrumental remix of Frank Sinatra’s hit New York, New York boomed into the arena after the announcement, as delighted delegates swayed in time with the music and waved their arms in the air.
Trump praised his pick as an “incredible man” who would make “a great vice president”.
The state-by-state vote to put forward Trump’s nomination took place a day after opponents staged a failed attempt to force a vote opposing his candidacy and after a speech by his wife, Melania, drew accusations of plagiarism. “It’s unbelievable. It’s surreal. I’m so proud of my father. I’m so proud. We all are,” Trump’s eldest daughter and businesswoman Ivanka, often described as his secret weapon, told CNN.
The conventions are designed to champion the party candidate, rally the grassroots, and propel the party towards November’s presidential election.
Trump’s name was put into the nomination by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, an early supporter of the businessman, and was seconded by fellow early supporters New York Rep. Chris Collins and South Carolina Lt. Gov. Henry McMaster. “We have gotten off course and the American people know it,” Sessions said in his speech, warning that crime is rising, terrorist attacks are proliferating, and Congress is deadlocked, arguing that Trump is the only answer. “The American voters heard his message and they rewarded his courage and his leadership with a huge victory in our primaries,” Sessions said, drawing raucous cheers from Trump fans on the convention floor. “He loves his country and he is determined to see it be a winner again,” Sessions said. “Donald Trump is the singular leader that can get this country back on track. He has the strength, the courage the will to get it done.”
Trump’s roll call will be followed by the nomination and vote for Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as the vice presidential nominee. Tuesday’s vote passed more smoothly than events on the convention floor Monday when holdouts tried to embarrass Trump by initiating a fight over rules of the gathering.
Trump’s team monitored delegates to quell any kind of rebellion, with a team of whips on the floor and eyes in the sky. The Trump delegate brain trust was holed up in a skybox inside the convention center where they tracked the movement of delegates as the roll was called. Trump whips wore neon green hats to make it easier for them to spot.
Trump carried 36 states and won 13.4 million votes on his way to the GOP nomination, but he took a smaller percentage of primary and caucus votes than Romney in 2012 or Sen. John McCain of Arizona in 2008. Yet for all Mr. Romney’s business orientation and Mr. McCain’s maverick streak, neither possessed the potential, ability or inclination to change the Republican Party.
Clinton under attack
A wealthy New York real estate developer and a reality TV celebrity, the 70-year-old was a long shot when he entered the race for the Republican nomination more than a year ago, having never been elected to office. He in fact clinched the nomination nearly two months ago. But relentless controversy over his campaign rhetoric and a simmering movement by anti-Trump delegates to deny him the nomination made it less than a foregone conclusion.
Nonetheless, speaker after speaker at the four-day convention in Cleveland took aim at his rival, Mrs. Clinton, presenting her as out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans and the inheritor of President Barack Obama’s “oppressive” government pursuing arrogant foreign policy.
Republican delegates savaged Clinton at the convention, breaking into angry chants of “lock her up” and “guilty” as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie accused her of wrongdoing and numerous foreign policy failures, including on Libya, Syria, the Iran nuclear deal, and Boko Haram in Nigeria. Christie, himself a former federal prosecutor, told the convention as he laid out a case against Clinton and “her selfish, awful judgment…We are going to present the facts to you. You, tonight, sitting as a jury of her peers in this hall and in your living rooms around our nation,” he said.
Outlining what he called “the facts”, Christie slated Clinton’s record as US secretary of state, accusing her of being responsible for chaos and violence engulfing the Middle East and elsewhere, and asking whether she is “guilty or not guilty?” “In Syria, imagine this, she called President Assad ‘a reformer.’ There are now 400,000 dead. Think about that: 400,000 dead. So we must ask this question: As an awful judge of the character of a dictator and butcher in the Middle East, is she guilty or not guilty?” “Guilty,” the crowd chanted in reply. “America and the world are measurably less safe because of the Iran deal Hillary helped cut. An inept negotiator of the worst nuclear arms deal in American history, guilty or not guilty?” he bellowed. “Guilty,” the crowd replied.
In short, Hillary Clinton does not have any positive opinion in the public. Her actions and rhetoric are unimpressive. Trump stands tall. Trump speaks of making America great and is in the process of remaking the GOP, possesses all three, and he takes them into a race essential for the Republican Party, which has been shut out of the White House for eight years.
After the presidential vote, the convention by voice vote nominated Indiana Governor Mike Pence, 57, Trump’s choice for his vice presidential running mate.
Donald Trump, who has greater chance to be the next president of USA than his opponent Clinton, has secured the nomination of the Republican Party to become the next US president after months of controversial campaigning that has divided the American right of the political spectrum, leading to intense debate on future of US foreign policy. Trump was expected to formally accept the nomination in a speech on Thursday, before facing off against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the November 8 election battle. Mrs Clinton, 68, is due to be formally nominated at the Democratic convention next week in Philadelphia.
Many Americans oppose Trump’s ascension in US politics, lambasting his controversial campaign statements, including calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers whom he would deport if elected president. He has also called for a ban on Muslims from entering the United States. Later he revised much of his harsh rhetoric meant essentially to garner the votes of those who hate Islam.
General scenario is that Donald J. Trump wins in November. But then the Tea Party hardliners would become stronger. If Trump becomes president, he may play the role of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and Ronald Reagan in 1980, both of whom transformed the demographic profile of their respective parties.
Donald J. Trump may be harsh, but he is being hailed as a remarkable, formidable and possibly transformative Republican presidential nominee. He has the potential to change everything — the presidency, the way aspiring nominees campaign for the job and the Republican Party itself, which this year is celebrating its 160th birthday. Many Republicans swear with Trump brand of politics, the party is going through creative change.
Establishment Republicans and Tea Party conservatives have little in common besides their contempt, part substantive and part stylistic, for Mr. Trump’s brand of politics. Neither group has any affinity for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, but neither group has a stake in Trump prevailing.
While Trump is hawkish, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, Trump’s running mate, is such a balm to the party. Trump partisans like him because their candidate covered him with stardust, the regulars because he has convent. The Pence selection is far more important for the internal politics of the Republican Party than for its external effect. Only one vice-presidential selection since 1988, Sen. Albert Gore of Tennessee, prompted as much as a third of the public to say it was more likely to support a party ticket.
A split personality, Trump is one of those rare presidential nominees who have the potential of winning the White House but also of being defeated decisively. A defeat would warn the Republicans away from nominating a candidate like Trump again. A victory would remold the party in . Trump’s image — and the long-term effect of that cannot be predicted.
Democratic candidate Hillary is now facing a very serious and direct threat from Trump on whom she and her party and incumbent president Obama had high hopes because of his hawkish nature, arrogant character and faulty rhetoric. However, he, unlike Obama and “hopeful” Hillary, clearly said he would review the US-Israel relations and view issue from a neutral viewpoint. This has made a sea change in US policy.
Hillary Clinton is going pursue the same imperialist war agenda of Bush and Obama along with pro-Israel policy encouraging the Zionist criminal regime to advance its expansionist agenda inside Palestine along with genocides of Palestinians, besieged by Israel-Egyptian terror blockades , .
But Trump is likely to revise most, if not all, policies of both Bush and Obama. Thus in order to advance US interests globally if aggressively the republican president is better suited than Hillary Clinton. Unlike Obama, Trump may not obey the Neocons. He has his own ideas.
The Republican-Democratic battle for presidency is yet to begin, Will Trump let Clinton climb the sympathy ladder as a female presidential candidate as she fought the fellow democrat Sanders?
Was Trump better for the world than Biden, after all?
Joe Biden and the State Department just approved a major deal with the Saudis for 500mln in choppers maintanance. Effectively, the US sold its soul to the Saudis again after the US intelligence services confirmed months ago that the Saudi Prince is responsible for the brutal killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Biden administration is already much more inhumane and much worse than Trump. Biden doesn’t care about the thousands of American citizens that he left behind at the mercy of the Taliban, the Biden administration kills innocent civilians in drone strikes, they are in bed with the worst of the worsts human right violators calling them friendly nations.
Biden dropped and humiliated France managing to do what no US President has ever accomplished — make France pull out its Ambassador to the US, and all this only to go bother China actively seeking the next big war. Trump’s blunders were never this big. And this is just the beginning. There is nothing good in store for America and the world with Biden. All the hope is quickly evaporating, as the world sees the actions behind the fake smile and what’s behind the seemingly right and restrained rhetoric on the surface. It’s the actions that matter. Trump talked tough talk for which he got a lot of criticism and rarely resorted to military action. Biden is the opposite: he says all the right things but the actions behind are inhumane and destructive. It makes you wonder if Trump wasn’t actually better for the world.
Biden’s worrisome construct of security and self-defense in the first year of his term
US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy is failing so far. He can’t get the Iran nuclear diplomacy on track. The Afghanistan withdrawal was a disaster seen by all, placing an unusually high number of weapons and armaments in the hands of the Taliban and leaving everyone behind, to the point that one wonders if it was intentional. The US military has been able to accomplish far more impressive and bigger logistics tasks in the past, so when they want to they can do it.
More worrisome, however – and because it is also oriented towards future impacts – is Biden’s construct of vital concepts such as security, international peace and self-defense which has already displayed a consistent pattern during the first year of his term. The signs are already there, so let me bring them out to the surface for you.
Treating a counter-attack in self-defense as an original, first-move strike
This is a pattern that can be noticed already in Biden’s reading of what constitutes defense. It first struck me in a place where you might not think of looking. It originated from the criticism of the previous Trump administration’s support for the destructive Saudi Arabia campaign on Yemen, leaving Yemen as the biggest famine and disaster on the planet. To avoid the same criticism, the Biden administration decided to do what it always does – play technocratic and legalistic, and hope that people won’t notice. On the face of it, it looked like Biden ended US participation by ending the “offensive” support for Saudi Arabia. Then in the months after the February decision, reports started surfacing that the US actually continues doing the same, and now most recently, some troops from Afghanistan were redirected towards Yemen. Biden didn’t end Yemen; he set up a task force to examine and limit US military action only to defensive capabilities, which sounds good to a general observer. It reminds me of that famous Einstein saying that all the big decisions were to be taken by him and all the small decisions were to be taken by his wife, but there hasn’t been one big decision so far. So see, it just turns out that everything falls under defense, ask the lawyers. Usually no one would object to the well-established right to defend yourself. The problem with that is that the US is actually in Yemen. Treating any counter-strike and any response to your presence as an original, first-move attack is not only problematic but it also simply doesn’t work in legal terms. It goes along the lines of “well, I am already here anyways, so your counter-response in self-defense is actually an attack and I get to defend myself”. If the issue was only with terrorist or rebel organizations (because let’s face it, who cares about the Houthies in Yemen?) I don’t think we would be discussing this. But as you guessed it, this approach can already be traced as a pattern in Biden’s thinking and the way he forges alliances, draws red lines and allows things to happen, and it stretches to areas that most people definitely care about such as a possible military conflict between the US and China.
Let’s take the newest development from today. The US just announced that it has entered into a trilateral partnership with the UK and Australia in the Indo-Pacific, which is encirclement of China par excellence. Where it gets interesting is that the trilateral partnership is purported to be only for “advanced defense capabilities”. The equivalent of this is someone from another city squatting at the door step in your apartment, inviting two others to join, and then when in the morning you push them and step on them to go to work, the squatters claiming that you attacked them and calling the police on you in your own apartment. This is Biden’s concept of self-defense: since I am already here in your space, you are attacking me.
The US is trying to start something with China but it doesn’t know how to, and China seems completely unconcerned with the US. Chinese leader Jinping doesn’t even want to meet Biden, as became clear this week. China doesn’t care about the US and just wants to be left alone. They already said that in clear terms by reading it out loud to Wendy Sherman last month. Biden didn’t have to ask for a meeting in that phone call this week because he already knew the answer. Wendy Sherman got a clear signal on her China visit that the US president won’t be getting that coveted red carpet roll-out any time soon.
So the story says that the US is going all the way to the other side of the world and staging military presence there but only to defend itself. The US has no choice but to move in to defend all the US citizens at risk in the Indian Ocean — that’s the stand-up comedy line of the week. It is staging military presence right at China’s doorstep — if not in Chinese waters, and the idea is “yes, that’s your turf but now that I’m here, if you push me to leave, you are attacking me”. This is the strategy of narcissists and those that are looking to point the finger to their opponent when they just don’t have anything, so they stage something. China is in the long-term game, playing against itself. The US is that number 2 that’s trying to create provocation. In the Indo-Pacific, the US is biting more than it can chew. China is not a big mouth or one to throw around military threats. That’s the US style: “be very careful, we might bomb you if you don’t do what we say”. A dog that barks doesn’t bite. On the other hand, China is more like a Ferrari — it will go from 0 to 200 in seconds and then it will go back to its business. The US and Biden will be left whimpering but no one will jump to save the US from its own folly because self-defense in the US packaging is not even bought by the US government itself. Even they don’t buy their own packaging. So why should anyone else?
Treating embarrassing discoveries and things that don’t go my way as a threat to international peace
This one is a big one. With this one, Biden is playing with the queen, namely action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter in the name of international peace and security. A threat to international peace and security is grounds for action under Chapter 7 which includes military action, and it’s never to be spoken lightly. Words have consequences. The UN Security Council rarely specifies grounds for action under chapter 7 for threats to international peace and security but it’s enough to take a look at the practice: resolutions were passed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, in response to 9/11, against Kaddafi who was marching toward Benghazi to wipe out the people in 2011, in relation to genocide, etc. Grounds for a threat to international peace can’t be “because I don’t like the way things are turning out for me”.
Peace and security are not like beauty – in the eye of the beholder. There has to be an actual or imminent attack and actual military action or violence. Loose interpretations of threats to peace and security are a sign of weak leadership.
Leaders who construct dissent and criticism as terrorism in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement, as I have argued about the FBI previously in the left media, are weak leaders. In smearing Martin Luther King, the FBI argued national security. As director Oliver Stone said in Cannes this summer, when he was investigating the JFK assassination, every time he was getting close, he heard “national security”.
You can see a lot about the character of a nation by the way it constructs security, and notice traits such as narcissism, weakness, cheating. The Biden Administration has to know that a threat to international peace and security can’t be “things that make my government look bad”. In 2001, the world followed the US in Afghanistan because there was an actual military attack. The world won’t follow the Biden administration on a bogus threat to international peace that can best be summed up as a major embarrassment for the US government. Suggesting a link is a threat to the fabric of international society. Not only is it a sign of national narcissism but also a sign of arbitrariness and authoritarianism. Treating criticism and the exposure of US government crimes as if it were a military attack is what horror movies are made of. What’s next? Droning journalists?
Treating issues which are a subject to treaties, rules and negotiations as a threat to international peace
The Biden security construct stretches to various regions, including my own. This first struck me with Biden’s executive order regarding the Western Balkans when he tied blocking these countries from EU accession to a threat to international peace, which carries significant consequences. If a country, let’s say Bulgaria, is exercising its lawful right to veto EU processes, hypothetically, based on Biden’s understanding, the US could table a resolution for Chapter 7 action to punish an EU member-state for blocking the accession of an EU candidate because that’s a threat to international peace. That could hypothetically lead to military action against an EU country making use of its veto. Biden doesn’t have a veto in the EU. Do you know who does? Bulgaria. So until Biden becomes an EU country he doesn’t have a say.
Biden was visibly irritated that the process of EU accession has been stalling for quite some time, especially with N. Macedonia and Albania at the EU’s doorstep, so he decided to give it a go. Let’s not forget that the Balkans are a favorite Biden region and this goes back to the 1990s. I have written about it before: Biden is stuck in the 2000s when if you mentioned the Western Balkans the words international peace were a guaranteed association. Not anymore. Negotiations, rules and voting are the peaceful and reasonable way to resolve issues, agree or even not agree in some situations, and are the opposite of war and aggression. Treating these ways as a threat to peace is just the rhetoric of those who can’t get their way. But it’s also indicative of a worrisome trend with Biden that anything that the US government doesn’t like can be dressed as a threat to international peace, which carries the most significant of all consequences in the international arena.
Treating lawful counter-measures as a threat to national security
Perhaps the best and most fascinating example of lawful counter-measures I ever heard was brought by Andrew Clapham at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Here is the story. The UK issued unlawful sanctions on a country. In response, lawful counter-measures by that country targeted jam exports because a jam factory in Scotland was the key to turning the elections. The targeted counter-measures worked, hit jam exports, discontent people in the region voted the other way and the government that put in place the sanctions to begin with was ousted. This was a brilliant example that you hit where it hurts and you do it lawfully. Counter-measures don’t have to be identical. The US likes to put tariffs on Louis Vuitton bags in retaliation when it deals with France, for example. In the Trump trade wars, Europe would hit bourbon and jeans exports as a counter-measure. You hit their signature product. Not all counter-measures are illegal and count as an attack. International law is full of examples.
Similarly, lawsuits against a government are a lawful counter-measure. This area reveals another part of Biden’s worrisome construct of national security. A threat to sue the US government cannot in and of itself be a threat to national security. Tortured reading of what is national security is a sign of weak leaders, narcissists, those on the losing end, or straight up losers – or all of the above.
Treating lawful counter-measures as a cause for self-defense is not only a sign of a wrong understanding of self-defense, but is the ultimate sign of narcissism. Usually those who attack know better and brace for impact in anticipation of the counter-measures. Narcissists, on the other hand, cry that they are being attacked when they receive a counter-strike in response. Strategists know better.
Mistreatment of whistleblowers, critics and opponents as spies and as a threat to national security
This one is an easy one. Only losers treat whistleblowers and critics as spies and as an automatic threat to national security. Take the treatment that Gary Stahl has received at the hands of the Biden Administration and the FBI, for example. Again, the US government doesn’t get to construe a huge embarrassment (in what will soon be revealed to shows the true criminal nature of the US government) as a threat to international peace. This is a problem for America. Not only doesn’t China plan to attack militarily the US any time soon over what’s to come, but China is largely unconcerned with the US and would like to be left alone. Any talk about a risk of military conflict could only mean that it is the US that plans to attack because they are embarrassed they got caught red-handed and the world will see the US government’s true nature. Talk of threat to international peace has a very high threshold. No one cares about how America would feel – that’s your problem, not an issue of international peace.
The Biden concept of security is that of an ugly, pretentious, old woman who is told she can’t enter because her ticket is not valid. She then throws a feat screaming she was attacked, beaten and insulted, expecting everyone to be on her side. But the world simply doesn’t care about the problems of this pain-in-the-ass anymore. The US government will have to try much harder if they want to present the issue as anything close to security and self-defense, let alone a threat to international peace. That tune is old and there are no buyers.
The US surely thinks very highly of itself if they think that a scandal like that is worthy of a military conflict but literally no one else sees the US as this important anymore. This scandal will matter only to America in what it reveals about all the layers of the US government across rank, institutions and administrations. That’s it. It ends there. Any talk of Chapter 7 threshold is war mongering and no one will care.
People talk about the Biden doctrine on Afghanistan but the Biden doctrine that will be sealed in history will be something along the lines of “Anytime I get caught, it’s a threat to international peace and security.” This is how Biden will be remembered in history: for creative writing endeavors in the security field and no substantial foreign policy achievements.
Biden’s credibility restoration plan
Although damages of the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan cannot be easily undone, by taking a series of wise steps, Biden can send a strong signal that America is coming back.
Joe Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan has shattered his reputation as a safe haven for allies. This is while, he pledged to restore U.S. leadership after Trump by confronting China’s and Russia’s growing totalitarian ambitions, restoring historic alliances with European allies, and ending the never-ending conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
But he is not the only President whose decision has eventually damaged the United States’ global reputation. Donald Trump’s capitulation deal with the Taliban, Barack Obama’s indolence in Syria, and George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq have all tarnished the United States’ credibility around the world. The question now; however, is no longer whether Biden and his predecessors should have acted differently. It’s how the United States can minimize the damage.
Biden should begin by speaking the truth. So far, the President has failed to admit the failure of his withdrawal plan. Biden ought to be straightforward with himself, the American people, and the whole world.
Biden’s policy should, of course, vary depending on the area and global conditions. To promote its interests in the Indo-Pacific area, the United States should station a few ambassadors, including a Navy or Coast Guard attaché, in the Pacific Island countries of Tonga, Tuvalu, and Kiribati. In addition, a considerable number of troops currently stationed in Afghanistan should be redeployed to the Pacific. Finally, Biden’s administration should engage with U.S. defense contractors to speed up the transfer of military equipment to Taiwan. Getting Taiwan its armaments swiftly would be a powerful show of support as a steadfast ally, as well as provide modern platforms to prevent a Chinese amphibious invasion.
The Biden administration should also do all in its power to rebuild relations with European partners. For the very first time, NATO invoked Article 5, which identifies an assault on one member as an assault on all. Since then, soldiers from a variety of countries have fought and died alongside US troops. Nonetheless, Biden decided to leave Afghanistan without consulting the governments of these countries, leaving them to plan emergency rescue efforts for their populations. Close allies of the United States are understandably enraged. America’s behavior is being chastised in Paris, Berlin, and the British House of Commons on both sides of the aisle.
Last month, at a meeting of regional leaders in Baghdad, Macron made it clear that, unlike the Americans, he was dedicated to remaining in the Middle East. “Whatever the American choice is,” he stated in public remarks in Baghdad, “we will maintain our presence in Iraq to fight terrorism as long as terrorist groups function and the Iraqi government requests our assistance.” It was a clear example of Macron’s idea of “strategic autonomy,” which implies European independence from U.S. security policy, and an attempt to use the United States’ humiliation to underline that Europe and Washington were not always on the same page. At an emergency G7 summit, Mr. Biden is said to have turned down allied requests to extend the August 31 deadline for exit.
The Biden administration’s recent decision not to penalize Nord Stream 2 pipeline participants has enraged Europeans as well. Poland and Ukraine underlined their worries in a joint statement about the ramifications of choices taken on the pipeline without the participation of nations directly impacted, claiming that Nord Stream 2 poses both geological and ecological risks to Europe.
As a result, whether it’s diplomatic recognition of the Taliban regime, humanitarian aid for the Afghan people, or any other major issue, the US should not take any more action without engaging partners. Mr. Biden should also dispatch senior members of his national security team to Europe and other regions of the world to reinforce America’s commitment to their security.
As to the Middle East, Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, in a Foreign Affairs article described “America’s opportunity in the Middle East,” suggesting that diplomacy may work where previous military interventions have failed. The United States’ involvement in the area is frequently portrayed in military or counter-terrorism terms, and as a binary option between going all-in or going all-out. Instead, Sullivan advocated for a strategy that relied more on “aggressive diplomacy to generate more long-term benefits.”
Accordingly, the President and his team in Vienna should get the new Iranian administration back to the negotiating tables and rejoin the JCPOA and ease the tensions in the Middle East. Also, the United States should do all possible in Afghanistan to secure the safe transit of Afghans who qualify for U.S. visas to the Kabul airport – and to keep flights flying until they are able to leave. This should apply to both Afghans who dealt closely with the United States’ military, and to those who engage with U.S. media and humanitarian organizations and must get visas from a third country. In addition to ensuring that the United Nations and humanitarian groups have the resources they need, the United States should cooperate with its Security Council allies to guarantee that the Taliban does not hinder the free flow of help.
Moreover, to follow any influx of jihadists to Afghanistan, intelligence agencies will have to rededicate resources and increase surveillance. They must be pushed to coordinate their efforts on the Taliban in order to keep the most threatening groups under control. The United States could set an example by agreeing to accept a fair share of any displaced Afghans. Neighboring countries like Iran and Pakistan, which already have millions of Afghan refugees, are closing their borders.
Biden may not be able to prevent all of the disastrous repercussions of the Afghan catastrophe, but he must act now before the harm to U.S. interests and moral stature becomes irreversible. By taking these steps, he can send a strong statement to the world that he has learned his lessons and that America is coming back.
The Demise of a French Sub Deal: Is China a Threat?
The conflict between emerging and existing powers is almost as old as time. Labeled the Thucydides Trap, it first recounted...
Lighthouse Partnerships Gain Momentum on Social Justice
Crises in climate, health and inequality are compelling organizations to align business strategies with equity and social justice values. In...
AUKUS: Human-made disaster
AUKUS is a new military alliance that emerged recently, among Australia, UK, and The US. Under this alliance, it has...
Visit of Vietnamese President to Cuba
Following the outbreak of the Corona pandemic in Vietnam, the government has decided to procure 10 million doses of Abdala...
Finding Fulcrum to Move the World Economics
Where hidden is the fulcrum to bring about new global-age thinking and escape current mysterious economic models that primarily support...
The failure of the great games in Afghanistan from the 19th century to the present day
Whenever great powers have tried to make Afghanistan a colony, they have always been defeated. British imperialism and its “civilising...
From the 2004 tsunami relief efforts to the 2021 leaders’ summit, the Quad has come a long way
The Quad plurilateral mechanism in the Indo-Pacific reached the landmark summit level in March, this year. With its second summit...
Middle East3 days ago
Turkey’s Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Cyprus, Turkey, Artsakh
Economy4 days ago
A New Strategy for Ukraine
Defense4 days ago
A Glimpse at China’s Nuclear Build-Up
Diplomacy4 days ago
International Relations Amid the Pandemic
International Law4 days ago
The rise & rise of populist demagogues in democratic nations
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Indonesian G20 presidency promises to put a ‘battle for the soul of Islam’ on the front burner
Economy3 days ago
Synchronicity in Economic Policy amid the Pandemic
Finance4 days ago
Dubai Chamber Continues Bolstering Economic Ties Between UAE And Africa