[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] U [/yt_dropcap] pon successfully facing the presidency poll challenge from a senior politician Hillary, now Trump has to face and decide the issues in foreign policy. When Donald Trump became a serious contender for the presidency many eyebrows were raised but when he, against all predictions, trounced the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton, many doubts were raised too about his capabilities to the USA and world.
While some of the doubts could be valid, there is no solid proof to say Trump would fail himself, America and world. As for his foreign policy, Trump is likely to embrace some variant of the policies that have been pursued for the past few decades by the nation’s foreign policy establishment. Trump would choose a few elements as reference and consider his own ideas to change the format of US policy.
President Trump may break sharply with the establishment consensus that the USA as super power must play the lead role in imposing order on the world, many signs indicate that Trump will continue to ensure that the USA plays the dominant role in policing the world.
On the eve of presidency poll, Hillary and pro-Hillary media outlets let loose Trumpophobia – fear of Trump- essentially to terrorize the voters and defeat Trump. However, that strategy backfired as people saw through the ugly democratic strategy and Trump was elected to presidency. Now she is trying to cast doubts about the poll itself. . . .
Certainly, many Washington insiders feel differently about Trump whom they consider dangerous. On Election Day, former State Department official Daniel Serwer presented the standard view of the foreign policy establishment that the “dramatic differences” between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton made Trump a problematic candidate. Trump “prides himself on unpredictability” while Clinton “has a long track record well within the post-9/11 foreign policy consensus,” Serwer explained, adding that Clinton “wants to maintain the stability of the international system and restore American authority.” With his remarks, Serwer indicated that the foreign policy establishment could trust Clinton but not Trump to use American power to actively enforce a system of global order. The New York Times captured the basic establishment concern that Trump would no longer enforce the system of postwar order that his predecessors had maintained throughout the postwar period.
Trump, making the latest stop on a so-called “thank you” tour of states critical to his 8 November election win, introduced his choice for defense secretary, General James Mattis, to a large crowd in Fayetteville, near the Fort Bragg military base, which has deployed soldiers to 90 countries around the world. He vowed a strong rebuilding of the US military, which he suggested had been stretched too thin. Instead of investing in wars, he said, he would spend money to build up America’s aging roads, bridges and airports.
Critics say Donald Trump’s win foreshadowed an America more focused on its own affairs while leaving the world to take care of itself. They issued more serious warnings about Trump presidency 4 long years, saying Trump would reverse decades of foreign policy practice by withdrawing the USA from its deep engagement with the world. The basic establishment concern is that Trump would no longer enforce the system of postwar order that his predecessors had maintained throughout the postwar period. For the first time since before World War II, Americans chose a president who promised to reverse the internationalism practiced by predecessors of both parties and to build walls both physical and metaphorical but that has never happened.
Leftist scholar Noam Chomsky supported Bernie Sanders during the Democratic presidential primary but Sanders himself was a proxy working for Hillary. Chomsky had a message for voters who refused to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to prevent Donald Trump from winning the White House: You made a “bad mistake.” Chomsky insists that voters did not have to ignore Clinton’s serious shortcomings in order to recognize Trump as the much more serious threat. “What it means is now the left, had Clinton had won, she had some progressive programs. The left could have been organized, to keeping her feet to the fire. What it will be doing now is trying to protect rights…gains that have been achieved, from being destroyed. The GOP “is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.”
Chomsky is too naive not to recognize the act that now since Sept-11 there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats as both are eager to justify the illegal invasions from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya to Syria and legalize crimes against humanity in Islamic world where millions of Muslims have been slaughtered by US led NATO and Israel..
As he toured the USA in the wake of Donald Trump’s devastating electoral victory last month, senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders used his growing influence within the Democratic Party and among the voting population at-large to outline how the country can prevent slipping backward and in fact can move forward—even with Republicans soon in control of both the White House and Congress.”We can beat this guy. We can beat this agenda, but we have to do it in a way that we have never done it before. We have got to bring people together because we are fighting for the future of this country.”
Indeed, Chomsky further warned in the aftermath of the election: “The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.” Chomsky refuses to admit that Mrs. Clinton now controls the White House and entire system and President Obama is just a puppet. Had she won she would have strengthened Israel to attack Palestine. She would defend the Israeli regime and its crimes against humanity. She would oppose any move for credible peace in the region and support all Zionist schemes with UN veto.
Certainly, many Washington insiders feel differently about Trump. Warnings have been given out by many about the Trump’s uncertain regime without a solid agenda.
Now that Hillary is gone, almost forever, the focus is on Trump’s policy as he has declared to make peace between Israel and Palestine obviously by supporting the establishment of Palestine with his UN veto.
Obama insisted that much of the media commentary about Trump missed the fact that most US officials continue to share the same basic foreign policy goals. Certainly, “there’s enormous continuity beneath the day-to-day news that makes us that indispensable nation when it comes to maintaining order and promoting prosperity around the world,” Obama stated. “That will continue.” Citing the meeting that he held with Trump at the White House after the election, Obama said that Trump expressed a great interest in maintaining “ our core strategic relationships.” Trump, in other words, appeared eager to continue working closely with US allies to enforce a system of global order.
US national interest and core strategic position
Trump’s win took the supporters of “status quo” by shock and foreshadowed an America more focused on its own affairs while leaving the world to take care of itself. The New York Times captured the basic establishment concern that Trump would no longer enforce the system of postwar order that his predecessors had maintained throughout the postwar period.
Certainly, many Washington insiders feel differently about Trump. On Election Day, former State Department official Daniel Serwer presented the standard view of the foreign policy establishment that the “dramatic differences” between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton made Trump a problematic candidate. Trump “prides himself on unpredictability” while Clinton “has a long track record well within the post-9/11 foreign policy consensus,” Serwer explained, adding that Clinton “wants to maintain the stability of the international system and restore American authority.” With his remarks, Serwer indicated that the foreign policy establishment could trust Clinton but not Trump to use American power to actively enforce a system of global order.
More serious warnings were issued by pro-Clinton sources. For example, on the day after the election, The New York Times, having failed to get Hillary elected, warned that Trump would reverse decades of foreign policy practice by withdrawing the USA from its deep engagement with the world. “For the first time since before World War II, Americans chose a president who promised to reverse the internationalism practiced by predecessors of both parties and to build walls both physical and metaphorical,” the newspaper reported, Trump would weaken US power.
Although the foreign policy establishment of Bush-Obama-Hillary remains concerned with Trump’s unpredictability and perhaps even his neglect of decades of establishment thinking, several high-level officials in the Obama government have recently begun to suggest that the USA will continue to play the lead role in enforcing a system of international order. President Obama himself has made the case that Donald Trump would not be able to simply dictate a new strategy to the vast bureaucracy that manages the nation’s foreign policy.
The foreign policy decision-making process, according to Obama who seeks continuity in full so that the permanent war agenda of Bushdom reign continues, is the result not just of the President, it is the result of countless interactions and arrangements and relationships between Pentagon and other global militaries, and US diplomats and other diplomats, and intelligence officers and development workers. Obama insisted that much of the media commentary about Trump missed the fact that most US officials continue to share the same basic foreign policy goals. Presidents simply cannot change the course according to their individual fancies. Certainly, “there’s enormous continuity beneath the day-to-day news that makes us that indispensable nation when it comes to maintaining order and promoting prosperity around the world,” Obama stated.
Do Obama and Trump share objectives, values?
Obama wants Trump to maintain the existing world order. Citing the meeting that he held with Trump at the White House after the election, Obama said that Trump “expressed a great interest in maintaining “our core strategic relationships.” Trump, in other words, appeared eager to continue working closely with US allies to enforce a system of global order.
Trump and the Obama have always shared many of the same foreign policy objectives, even though Trump made every effort during his campaign to condemn Obama’s policies as dangerous and destructive to both the United States and the world. For starters, both Trump and the Obama have made it clear that they intend to ensure that the USA remains the most dominant military power in the world. In March 2016, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter presented the basic position of the Obama government when he assured the Senate Committee on Armed Services that the Department of Defense “will keep ensuring our dominance in all domains.” The following month, Trump declared his support for the same objective. “Our military dominance must be unquestioned,” Trump stated.
Trump has displayed similar commitments on other fundamental issues. Trump has made it clear that he intends to prioritize the interests of the USA above everything else. Trump announced during his campaign that America First will be the major and overriding theme of his government. Indeed, Trump insisted that he would base his foreign policy on the premise that the USA should only take actions in the world that work to its own advantage. “We’re going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests, and the shared interests of our allies,” Trump stated.
President Obama has confirmed that his government has adopted an America First strategy. When he recently commented on his decision to commit the US to the Paris Agreement in order to address the threat of global climate change, Obama confirmed that he was primarily motivated by the US interests at stake. Although Obama has not used the same slogan, he has adopted exclusively an America First strategy. Vice President Joe Biden pointed to Obama strategy when he toured Asia in July 2016 as part of “rebalance” to Asia. “It’s overwhelmingly in our interest”. Two months later, State Department official Antony J. Blinken provided more direct confirmation of Obama’s strategy. “We don’t work with other nations as a luxury, or as charity,” Blinken explained. “Our national interest demands our global engagement.”
Currently, “the biggest threat when it comes to climate change and pollution isn’t going to come from us — because we only have 300 million people,” Obama explained. “It’s going to come from China, with over a billion people, and India, with over a billion people.” With his remarks, Obama indicated that the USA needed to join the Paris Agreement to prevent countries such as China and India from harming America with their pollution.
Both Trump and Obama have also made it clear that they intend to completely destroy the Islamic State (ISIS or IS). In November 2015, Trump outlined his position during a radio commercial in which he pledged to “quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS.” Secretary of State John Kerry took a similar position. The USA has an interest in “terminating ISIL/Daesh, as fast as possible,” Kerry stated.
In fact, the Obama government has been busy working to fulfill its Syria mission. In the time since it began its air campaign in August 2014, USA and coalition forces have conducted more than 15,000 airstrikes against IS and have killed more than 45,000 ISIS fighters. In the end, the outgoing Obama government will soon hand over power to a Trump government that generally shares some of the very same foreign policy commitments.
Trump is now getting ready with his team by appointing his future ministers one by one. Gov. Nikki Haley has been appointed by him as ambassador to the UN. Donald Trump’s critics say he is not a unifier, not a moderating voice, a darling of the Republican mainstream. As governor of South Carolina, she’s been an outspoken opponent of white supremacists, a proponent of immigration, including properly vetted Muslim refugees. And, obviously, a woman, one who sharply criticized him during the presidential campaign. In that light, her nomination as ambassador to the UN marks something new for the coming Trump government.
Some of the president-elect’s previous picks have been beset by claims of racism and bigotry. Governor Haley represents a hairpin turn. Those who have seen Gov. Haley’s improbable rise say the daughter of Indian immigrants is a force to be reckoned with, who has earned considerable respect among black South Carolinians, most of whom are Democrats. It is a kind of symbolic appointment by Trump, to beat back charges of bigotry and misogyny and to be able to make the case that he doesn’t hold grudges against those who stiff-armed him during the primary.
Haley has also triumphed in becoming the first female governor of a state where women have traditionally been marginalized from the political process. “She is an Asian-American woman governor of a state whose constitution was written to weaken the governor’s office just in case a non-white man won the office one day, a state that still has one of the worst records of female legislative leadership in the country. She was the first to breakthrough, has made her mark and ended up being the governor to bring the Confederate flag down.
Trump has decided the persons for many important posts and positions to support his government.
Despite the fact that the foreign policy establishment remains uncertain about Trump’s intentions, the president-elect has provided many signals that he intends for the USA to continue playing an active role in enforcing a system of global order. As Trump has put it, using the standard language of the foreign policy establishment, his government would mainly be “focusing on creating stability in the world.”
Trump’s foreign policy
President Trump is likely to make his own foreign policy while retaining basic structures of it developed for years cutting across the bipolar politics. He would strive to break with the post-9/11 foreign policy consensus of Bush-Obama- Hillary that focused on securing energy and route requirements and considerably reducing Islamic population by murdering millions of Muslims world over with help from countries like Germany led EU, Israel.
Experts the world over express predictions about President Trump’s possible policies, both domestic and foreign. Many argue that he would just continue with Bush-Obama policies. Although the foreign policy establishment remains concerned with Trump’s unpredictability and perhaps even his neglect of decades of establishment thinking, several high-level officials in the Obama administration have recently begun to suggest that the USA will continue to play the lead role in enforcing a system of international order.
Amid all the uncertainty prevailing about what a Trump presidency means for the future role of the USA in the world, one possibility is that Trump will embrace some variant of the policies that have been pursued for the past few decades by the nation’s foreign policy establishment. Although Trump may break sharply with the establishment consensus that the USA must play the lead role in imposing order on the world, many signs indicate that Trump would continue to ensure that American superpower plays the dominant role in policing the world so that it does not appear to be weak.
The standard view of the foreign policy establishment is that the “dramatic differences” between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton made Trump a problematic candidate. Trump “prides himself on unpredictability” while Clinton “has a long track record well within.
Foreign policy, though made by the president and his foreign ministry, it is the foreign minister who is responsible for applying foreign policy stipulations. Hence foreign minister plays important role in implementing foreign policy. Trump is seriously considering many names for the coveted post. His supporters are split in a big factional fight over this premier Cabinet position.
Who should be Donald Trump’s Secretary of State? It’s the followers of establishmentarian Mitt Romney versus those of loyalist Rudy Giuliani. To the winner goes Foggy Bottom and its prestige. It’s possible the spat will end with a third candidate stealing the prize. But one important part of this struggle may be the manner in which it’s being conducted. Perhaps surprisingly, Trump invited Romney to a meeting last weekend at Trump’s Bedminster, N.J. golf course. The two men seemed to hit it off as the confab lasted longer than expected. Afterward, word leaked that Romney was a secretary of State candidate as well.
Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway publicized it via Twitter, perhaps as way to undermine former Massachusetts Governor Romney’s chance. Giuliani was the early favorite here. Following the election he reportedly told associates he was set for the Secretary of State post, since he’d told Trump it was the only thing he wanted. He’d been a loud and strong Trump surrogate throughout the campaign’s ups and downs. He deserved a reward, he thought. That hints Trump government internal discussions may play out in public on social media, in real time. Buckle up – the Trump years may be dramatic, and exhausting.
But the announcement wasn’t forthcoming. And as any veteran of the Washington appointment wars knows, to linger is to suffer denigration by a thousand published cuts. The press started chewing on Giuliani’s business ties with the government of Qatar and other foreign entanglements. Obviously, as far as President-elect Trump was concerned the former New York City mayor wasn’t “set” for the job. Specifically, the loyalists within Trump’s political operation who think Romney an apostate have turned up the dial on their disapproval. And they’re waving their hands to get Trump’s attention the best way they know how: in public.
Trump needs an efficient and honest person to deal with the world as foreign minister. Henry Kissinger, a Jew chosen to boost the criminally fanatic Jewish nation in Mideast, whatever his accomplishments as Secretary of State to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, had spent considerable time crossing the globe in shuttle diplomacy, continually spilled internal gossip to journalists.
US presidents have the privilege of maintaining multiple specialists to decide the course on an issue. That’s a quick hook that all the current claimants to the Secretary of State office might be wise to keep in mind. George Shultz, though, was indeed such a Secretary of State to Ronald Reagan. Loyal, phlegmatic, wise in the ways of government, he gave Reagan lots of good advice. Some was ignored – he hated the operation that morphed into the Iran-Contra scandal, for instance. But Shultz was Reagan’s second Secretary of State. The first was Al Haig, a former general who was also a loud, proud international business operator and skilled bureaucratic infighter who thought he knew best about international affairs. He exhausted Reagan’s patience, and when offered Haig’s resignation after only 18 months in office, Reagan accepted it.
However, going by his latest statements, Trump now is seen taking new positions on foreign policy of USA.
Domestic policy is a settled matter for USA but not its foreign policy, especially when in order to showcase its military prowess as advertisement for orders for its new terror goods from across the globe, it has unnecessarily committed the people a core part of cause of deeply involved in terror wars to perpetrate genocides of Muslims and deduction of their assets.
However, as the superpower it has a role to guide the world by a positive foreign policy. Without a credible policy abroad, incumbent president Obama has not been able to positively and successfully assert its global leadership role due mainly to its prolonged and illogical support for the Israel in Mideast and its misuse of UNSC veto facility to shield the Israeli military crimes against humanity.
Bush-Obama duo promoted not only Israeli regime in Mideast to threaten energy rich Arab nations but also the occupation of the American mind by outsiders, especially Israel and US Jews, and process must end.
President-elect Trump maybe inexperienced and lacks the nuanced knowledge of the complex crises the world is passing through but he as a businessman can comprehend the problems particularly in the areas including the US-NATO led terror wars in Islamic world, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Sunni-Shiite war, and the civil war in Syria.
Reports suggest, Donald Trump has laid out a US military policy that would avoid interventions in foreign conflicts to engineer destabilization and regime change. We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with,” the president-elect said on in Fayetteville, near Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina. “Instead our focus must be on defeating terrorism and destroying Isis, and we will.” Trump’s remarks came a few hours after Barack Obama delivered what was billed as the final national security address of his presidency.
President Obama, in spite of efforts, has thus far failed to solve the seven-decade old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mainly because he refused to support the Palestine cause at UN and refused to vote for the establishment and thereby only to indirectly promoted Israel and its crimes by gifting huge pile of terror goods. He is also not serious about credible peace talks. That is the reason why his chief mediator Secretary of State John Kerry failed to end the crisis and Israeli aggression and expansionism because he also does not take into account the psychological dimension of the conflict, the agony and pains of Palestinians under Israeli brutality.
Notwithstanding intensive negotiations in 2009-2010 and 2013-2014, the gulf between the two sides has become even deeper and wider, and Palestinians continue to suffer while Israel gain support of all anti-Islamic nations, getting high precision terror goods from USA and EU.
USA and NATO instigated the conflict between brothers Sunnis and Shiite leading to Sunni-Shiite war and ISIS-Shiite wars. Russia has joined the onslaught of Muslims in Syria. The civil war in Syria will not end unless the US changes its approach to the war by putting both Putin and Assad on notice that the slaughter of Syrian civilians must immediately come to an end.
ISIS, apparently launched by USA to continue with its global permanent war project, has made the plight of global Muslims worse. Defeat of ISIS, however, is not to bring an end to the Sunni-Shiite conflict as long as Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia are fighting for regional hegemony. They will continue to wage a proxy war in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to secure their goal.
ISIS has been invented to divide both Iraq and Syria. But the lack of natural resources (i.e. oil) in the Sunni dominated areas is the bottleneck. Maintaining a united Iraq or Syria has become problematic now. Only a long period of peaceful coexistence between the two sides will allow them over time to develop a closer, more trusting, and friendlier relationship. This would also bring an end to the bloodshed between Sunnis and Shiites and to weaken ISIS. This will greatly satisfy the Saudis as the Sunnis will maintain a strong foothold in Iraq while Iran will still be in a position to exert some influence on the Shiite government.
The USA cannot assert its commanding regional role and at the same time save the Syrian people from near-complete destruction by leading from behind and merely providing military equipment and material to the rebels. USA has put an end to 81 years of the continuous Sunni rule of essentially a Shiite Iraq and is eager to end Shiite rule of Sunni state Syria but Russia supports Iran and also supports Syrian regime. The Iraqi Sunnis now find themselves at the mercy of the Shiite governing majority, which has systematically discriminated against and marginalized them from the first day the Maliki-led Shiite government came to power.
Image of US super power would increase as genuine phenomenon. Only by creating the social, political, and psychological atmosphere conducive to peace, and with the support of the Arab states, the EU, and other major powers, can the negotiations be resumed with a far better prospect of success. Trump said USA has become dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. Trump’s entire campaign is built around the idea that foreign influences are infecting the USA. One way of understanding the different directions of Bush-Obama duo is through American exceptionalism. Sanders voters want to make America more like the rest of the world. Trump voters want to keep America a nation apart. Trump wants to build a strong honest America.
Focusing on a process of reconciliation between nations that would mitigate the profound mutual distrust, Trust must try to instill a sense of mutual security, and disabuse the strong constituencies on both sides that they can have it all.
The USA must recognize that Russia has been for decades seeking a strong foot hold in West Asia to replace USA but now USA has given that opportunity in Syria. Russia will be a permanent fixture in Syria backed by Assad and Iran. Iran will not relinquish its longstanding interest and influence in Damascus as Tehran views Syria as the linchpin to the Shiite-dominated crescent of land between the Mediterranean and the Gulf.
There could be chaos in Syria even if the war ends. Apparently, Assad alone can keep intact the bureaucracy, military and internal security apparatus to prevent a replay of what happened in Iraq following the US invasion. By the way, a replay of what happened in Iraq following the US invasion could happen in Syria after the removal of Assad or end of war. Trump must convey in unequivocal terms to Putin and Assad that they must stop the indiscriminate bombing and killing of tens of thousands of innocent Syrians while erasing one neighborhood after another. Given Putin’s desire to work closely with Trump, he is likely to be more receptive in finding a solution to the conflict.
As the super power, USA has the responsibility to bring peace to world. It is quite likely that new president of USA would decide to end terror wars and stop misusing NATO for the Pentagon’s showcasing the prowess of US militarism.
In the end, the outgoing Obama administration will soon hand over power to a Trump administration that shares some of the very same foreign policy commitments. Despite the fact that the foreign policy establishment remains uncertain about Trump’s intentions, the president-elect has provided many signals that he intends for the USA to continue playing an active role in enforcing a system of global order. As Trump has put it, using the standard language of the foreign policy establishment, his government would mainly be focusing on creating stability in the world.
President Trump has got the firmness to persuade either side to make the significant concessions needed to make peace possible. By further pursuing the neutral line of thinking, of Obama, he can make Israel realize that US support for Israeli crimes against humanity is cannot be taken for granted Israel will have to concede the reality that Palestine will come into existence with full sovereignty. Trump can persuade Israel in his talk with Netanyahu in March to make the significant concessions needed to make peace possible by whole heartedly supporting the creation of Palestine state.
Election of Trump sent warning to Israel. Israel has stopped terror attacking the Palestine Gaza strip or kill children there ever since Trump emerged victory. Israel fears Trump. The current relative calm therefore should not be taken for granted as the simmering tension can explode any time when Trump faces problems in USA or if the Palestinians see no prospect of ending the occupation in the foreseeable future. Trump must not hesitate to pressure Israel now to seek a solution and save it from its own destructive path and for Israel’s own future security and political integrity.
Alongside, President Trump should also try a multi pronged approach in solving global problems. Occupation of Palestine and Kashmir by colonialist powers with nukes; war crimes by the Lankan military under Rajapaksha, etc should the focus of his government. Trump should not leave the Palestinians at the mercy of Israel and let it emerge as a genuine nation by ceding all criminal thoughts and plans. A credible peace situation would emerge if Israel accepts to promote the Arab Peace Initiative of 2003.
Trump can easily resolve the fake dispute between India and Pakistan over neighboring Jammu Kashmir which they jointly occupy now, brutally killing Kashmiri Muslims. Kashmir has already lost over 100,000 Muslims by Indian military brutality. Having got selfish agenda, India and Pakistan cannot be trusted to resolve the Kashmir crisis and therefore he must intervene to get peace deal done next year itself.
Establishment of Palestine and Kashmir as sovereign nations will considerably enhance the image of Trump as sensible peace maker and prestige and status of USA as the dependable ally for the cause of peace and prosperity.
Fortunately for Trump and humanity at large the Nobel Peace committee did not honor the president elect Trump with Peace Prize as it has falsely done when Obama was elected as US president as he had just became a usual American politician promoting colonialism, imperialism and capitalism.
Americans taught valuable lessons to Obama through defeating his presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Possibly Trump would be honored new year with a Nobel Peace Prize as the leader who worked sincerely and successfully for the freedom and independence of Palestine and Kashmir, and as a genuine crusader for global peace
Movement of the White House towards radicalism
The removal of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from power and the replacement of CIA chief Mike Pompeo will create new crises at the White House. In the domestic circles of the United States, Tillerson was considered one of the few symbols of political rationality in the Trump cabinet. However, Pompeo has always been a symbol of extremism in the political and security structures of the United States.
Consequently, the domestic circles of America believe that Tramps has thrown Tillerson out of power, radicalism and extremism in his government. Accordingly, Tramp will henceforth be more costly in the international system and foreign policy of his country.
The U.S. president has ousted the Foreign Minister while Washington and Pyongyang have not yet begun talks on the disagreements. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is scheduled to make a final decision on a nuclear deal with Iran in about two months. In such a situation, the U.S. Secretary of State is about to create new crises in the White House.
Although the American political structure (especially in the field of foreign policy) has little connection with the presence of people in power, the presence of Pompeo as a symbol of extremism at the top of U.S. foreign policy equations represents a more serious confrontation between Trump’s government and the international community.
Pompeo’s presence at the head of the U.S. foreign policy equation has raised a lot of concerns among Washington’s allies, especially the European ones. One of the issues in which Pompeo and Trump are shared is to confront the existence and nature of the European Union.
Pompeo, as the head of the CIA, has played a significant role in supporting extremist right-wing and nationalist groups in Europe over the last year. In some of his positions, Donald Trump has explicitly supported phenomena such as election and called for the modeling of other European countries. Europe’s return to nationalism is a major policy that Tramp and Pompeo have followed and are pursuing in the last year (especially in 2017). Obviously, this process will intensify during Pompeo’s presence at the U.S. Department of State.
As Guardian reported, Rex Tillerson will go down as one of the worst secretaries of state in U.S. history. And yet, with his departure and replacement by CIA director Mike Pompeo, things could get a whole lot worse for U.S. national security.
Donald Trump made clear his disdain for diplomacy from day one of his presidency, and that he views foreign policy as an endeavor for the military, not the state department. He proposed enormous increases in the military budget while attempting to slash the state department budget by roughly a third. Trump appointed generals to be secretary of defense, national security advisor (twice) and White House chief of staff, while appointing as secretary of state someone with no diplomatic experience.
If Trump’s contempt for diplomacy somehow wasn’t clear, he did his best to actively undermine his secretary of state, criticizing him in public on a number of occassions. In the fall of 2017, as Tillerson attempted to open a diplomatic process with North Korea, Trump tweeted to the world, “I told Rex Tillerson … he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man.” When a Middle East dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar broke out in 2017, as Tillerson scrambled to calm the situation and mediate, Trump undercut him by publicly siding with Saudi Arabia.
So it should come as no surprise that Tillerson would find out he was fired when his boss tweeted the news to the world.Despite this poor treatment, it is hard to shed a tear for Tillerson. He has been a good soldier in enabling a military-first foreign policy, in which the state department is relegated to an afterthought.
He has worked aggressively to gut the state department, not filling key positions, and implementing freezes on hiring, all of which have contributed to a hostile environment and low morale. The nation’s most senior diplomats have resigned over the last year, leading to a wave of exits of career diplomats at all levels that has depleted the ranks of the nation’s diplomatic corps. It will take years to rebuild the state department in the wake of the damage inflicted by Trump and Tillerson.
Guardian continues that On leading America’s diplomacy with the world and running the state department, Tillerson has been an utter disaster – but his policy views were about as moderate as they come inside the Trump administration. He has been one of the administration’s strongest voices for diplomacy with North Korea.
He was reportedly an advocate of remaining in the Paris climate change agreement. And he supposedly tried to keep the U.S. in the Iran nuclear deal.If and when Pompeo replaces him, we should be deeply concerned – both because of Pompeo’s more hawkish views, and where they might take America on the critical foreign policy decisions coming down the pike.
The fate of the Iran deal is once again hanging in the balance, and with it potentially more conflict in the Middle East. Trump has set a 12 May deadline for getting European allies on board with changes to the Iran deal, and has reportedly said that he will exit the deal if those changes aren’t made.While Tillerson advocated remaining in the deal, Pompeo has been a vocal critic of the 2015 agreement.
If the U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the deal, there’s no telling where tensions with Iran – which is already fighting proxy wars in Syria and Yemen – could go.This development doesn’t bode well for diplomacy with North Korea, either. As Trump prepares for a possible summit meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Tillerson’s exit could signal a much harder line on talks.
Whereas Tillerson has been a proponent of diplomacy with North Korea, Pompeo’s public language on North Korea has been more aggressive, and he has openly hinted at regime change. A negotiation with North Korea is one of the most difficult diplomatic endeavors one can imagine – and Pompeo, like Tillerson, has no diplomatic experience.
And then there’s Russia. Tillerson has hardly been tough on Russia, prioritizing attempts at cooperation over pushing back against clearly destabilizing actions by Russia, including its interference in the 2016 election. While Pompeo held critical views of Russia during his time in Congress and has admitted that Russia interfered in the election, it’s unclear for which policies Pompeo will advocate.
To those ends, there are reasons for concern: at Trump’s request, Pompeo met with a conspiracy theorist peddling the falsehood that the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails in 2016 was an inside job, not Russian hacking. He also falsely claimed that the CIA concluded that Russian meddling did not affect the election’s outcome. As war rages in Syria and Ukraine, and Russia continues interfering in U.S. politics, Pompeo will be a key player in leading U.S. policy on all.
At the end of the day, the president directs foreign policy, and no change in personnel will alter the unique chaos of Trump’s foreign policy. But if past is prologue, Pompeo appears much more willing than Tillerson to toe Trump’s line – a very dangerous prospect.This development may prove that no matter how bad things look, in Donald Trump’s administration, they can always get worse.
First published in our partner Tehran Times
A Deceitful Trump Has Difficulty Filling Administration Jobs
A politician on center stage calls Mexican immigrants rapists and killers for those people send their bad guys here; says Syrian refugees are snakes and they and other Muslims could harbor ISIS among them; says African countries are sh*tholes and Haitian immigrants carry aids … . Then without a hint of irony or embarrassment — except a permanently red face — he proclaims, “I am the least racist person anybody is going to meet.” What would a rational individual call him?
The Washington Post ran an op-ed by Bella De Paulo on Donald Trump’s lies and lying, drawing on her research work and the Post’s Fact Checker. It turns out he is an inveterate liar and, worse, a cruel one for his lies are often malicious. The op-ed was also taken up by the right-leaning Chicago Tribune, the leading such organ in Chicago.
Bella De Paulo is a social scientist who earlier on in her career as a professor at the University of Virginia studied lies and liars jointly with some colleagues there. Since October 2017, President Trump, she notes, “told a remarkable nine lies a day outpacing even the biggest liars in our research.” It gets worse.
Most of the lies (about half) in their study of college students and general community members in the area were self-serving intended to advantage the liars. Less often they told kind lies, like the woman telling her mother she did not mind taking her shopping. These constituted about a quarter.
One category was so small as to warrant just a footnote in their study. This was the cruel lie intended to hurt or disparage someone. Only 0.8 percent of student participants’ lies and 2.4 percent of community members’ lies fell in this category.
President Trump is different, shockingly different. To use his favorite adjective, an amazing 50 percent of his lies were in the cruel category, the content hurtful or disparaging. His kind lies were few, outnumbered 6.6 times by self-serving ones. It is not surprising then that 58 percent of voters questioned in a Quinnipiac University poll last November thought he was not honest. As most people tend to believe others, there has to be a good reason to label someone dishonest. The old adage, one can’t fool all of the people all of the time appears to be working — the people have caught on.
The departures from the Trump administration took in the most prestigious cabinet post. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was fired; Mr. Trump apparently furious at his enthusiastic support for the British in their reaction to the poisoning in Salisbury of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. The pair remain in critical condition. The nerve agent used, Novichok, was developed in Russia. Mr. Skripal acted as a double agent for the UK in the 1990s and early 2000s betraying many agents. Would that assemble enemies?
President Trump, therefore, had a point. However, within a few days he had flip-flopped. He is now projecting a united front with the British, the Germans and the French on the issue. Clearly, there were also other reasons for his unhappiness with Mr. Tillerson, including the latter’s reported pithy description of him as ‘a f***ing moron’. Disagreements on political appointees was another issue. Moreover, Tillerson’s radical reorganization efforts were not popular with career officials in his department.
Trump’s chief economic adviser resigned last week. His successor Larry Kudlow is a long-time media personality. He is not what one would call a professional economist. In fact, he does not even have an economics degree. He is a journalist. He is also an ardent supply-sider and trickle-downer though — no doubt to Trump’s liking — and he played a role alongside the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore on Trump’s tax plan during his campaign.
So the arrivals and departures at Trump Junction continue, a busier place than almost any previous administration and with numerous government vacancies. But then, are there many who want to risk a job with the mercurial Trump when it is also difficult to believe much of what he says?
What Results When U.S. Invades a Country
The U.S. Government certainly leads the world in invasions and coups. In recent years, it has invaded and occupied — either by military assault or by coup, but in either case followed by installing (or trying to install) a new regime there — a number of countries, especially Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen.
U.S. propaganda says that its invasions and military occupations (and it denies its coups) are to benefit the people in the invaded and militarily occupied countries, or to bring them ‘democracy’, and are not done merely to benefit the people who control the U.S. Government (which itself is not a democracy, and even the neoconservative — pro-invasion or “imperialistic” — American magazine The Atlantic has finally acknowledged this fact, even though it contradicts their continuing neoconservatism).
Polling and other evidences within the invaded/occupied countries shows the opposite of the U.S. claim: America’s invasions/occupations (after World War II, and especially after 2000) destroy those countries, not help them.
The most authoritative such study that has yet been done on this matter was recently released, and its findings regarding this matter will here be presented, and then supplemented with other relevant data so as to provide a fuller picture.
The U.N./Gallup surveys of the happiness/misery of the residents in 155 countries, as reported in 2017, were physically in-person interviews in almost all countries, but there was at least one exception, as they explained: “In Libya, telephone survey methodology has been used since 2015 owing to the country’s high rate of mobile phone coverage and ongoing instability which has made it too dangerous to use face-to-face interviewers.” That’s a highly euphemistic way of saying, actually: Libya was too dangerous, and perhaps too miserable, for opinions to be sampled by the ordinary methodology, the scientifically sound methodology, which is in-person interviews. It’s a way of saying this without even mentioning the invasion and war there — as if those things don’t even count. Therefore, the finding that Gallup reported about Libya is presumably being included in Gallup’s otherwise excellent report purely for Western propaganda purposes — they know that it’s not an actual scientific finding about Libya, not a finding that can reasonably be compared to the survey-findings in the other countries. As a result, Libya, which might have been the most miserable of all countries after the U.S.-UK-France-Canada invasion, scored in the top half of all countries, #68, 5.525. But, all of the other countries that the U.S. has recently invaded (the nations that are boldfaced below) scored at or below #132, 4.096 — Ukraine’s score — as is shown here below from that U.N. report:
Following are the happiness-scores of the bottom 24 out of the 155 happiness/misery-rated countries. (Iraq, which the U.S. had destroyed in 2003, perhaps is now recovering, and it scored as #117, with a score of 4.497; but, here only the bottom 24, the most-miserable of all of the 155 countries, are shown.) Here they are:
- 132 Ukraine 4.096
- 133 Uganda 4.081
- 134 Burkina Faso 4.032
- 135 Niger 4.028
- 136 Malawi 3.970
- 137 Chad 3.936
- 138 Zimbabwe 3.875
- 139 Lesotho 3.808
- 140 Angola 3.795
- 141 Afghanistan 3.794
- 142 Botswana 3.766
- 143 Benin 3.657
- 144 Madagascar 3.644
- 145 Haiti 3.603
- 146 Yemen 3.593
- 147 South Sudan 3.591
- 148 Liberia 3.533
- 149 Guinea 3.507
- 150 Togo 3.495
- 151 Rwanda 3.471
- 152 Syria 3.462
- 153 Tanzania 3.349
- 154 Burundi 2.905
- 155 Central African Republic 2.693
Ukraine is (other than #117 Iraq) the least-miserable of the recently invaded countries, and perhaps the reason for this is that Ukraine was taken over by means of a coup, instead of by means of an outright and direct military invasion.
(You can see this coup happening, here. The way that U.S. President Barack Obama set it up is documented here. You can hear there his agent instructing the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine whom to place in charge of Ukraine’s Government once the coup will have been culminated (which happened 22 days later, and that person did get the leadership-position). It’s the full conversation. And here, you will see the phone-conversation in which top EU officials were shocked to find that it had been a coup instead of what Obama pretended, a ‘revolution’.) (These evidences are some of the reasons why the head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor called it “the most blatant coup in history.”)
The U.N. happiness surveys have been taken in Ukraine not only after the coup, which occurred in February 2014, but before it, in 2013. At happiness index you can see the happiness/misery scores shown by Ukrainians during the years 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017 (there was no survey in Ukraine during 2014, perhaps because of the rampant violence at that time.) In 2013, Ukraine’s happiness score was 5.057, but that steadily declined down to the 2017 score of 4.096, which placed Ukraine within the bottom 24 countries, all of which either were extremely poor, or at war, or both. You can also see there Ukraine’s resulting “World Happiness Index” rank for each one of those four years, 2013, before the coup, and then 2015-2017, after the coup. As you see there, Ukraine, which was #132 in 2017, had been #87 in 2013 before the coup. So: within just three years after the coup, it declined 45 places in the global rankings.
Some people might retort against this by saying that “happiness” is meaningless or unimportant and only physical welfare is ‘objective’,” but even on the most crudely physical measures, Ukraine has been enormously harmed by the U.S. coup. In 2013, Ukraine’s average annual household income was $2,601.40, and then it fell off a cliff and became $1,109.63 by 2015 and has stabilized at around that level since. Also, in 2013, Ukraine’s GDP was $183.31 billion, and by 2015 that had become $91.03 billion and stabilized at that level. Furthermore, some figures aren’t any longer even reported by the post-coup Ukrainian regime. For example, whereas the number of unemployed was shown in Ukrainian statistics in 2013, it disappeared in 2016 and subsequently. More information about the decline in Ukraine’s economic rankings can be seen here. The U.S. regime has been toxic to the Ukrainian people, no matter how one looks at it. But happiness/misery is the real bottom-line.
Two researchers, Tom Coupe and Maxym Obrizan, published together two separate studies, both in leading economics journals, one article titled “The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine”, and the other titled “Violence and political outcomes in Ukraine — Evidence from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk”. They reported, in “The Impact of war on happiness”:
The average level of happiness declined substantially in zones that experience war directly. …
This decline is comparable to the loss of happiness a relatively well-off person would experience if he/she were to become a poor person. …
Regions that are not directly affected by the war are basically as happy as they were before the war.
In other words: all of the increase in misery occurred only in the regions that have been “directly affected by the war.” The Ukrainians who reside outside those regions are “as happy as they were before the war.” They’re not happier than before the war; they haven’t been helped by the war; but, the misery — so intense for them that it has already lowered the happiness-ranking of the entire nation, from 87 down to 132 — just hasn’t bothered them, at all.
In “Violence and political outcomes in Ukraine” they reported:
We also find that property damage is associated with greater support for pro-Western parties, lower support for keeping Donbas in Ukraine and lower support for compromise as a way to stop the conflict.
In other words: Ukrainians who live close to the Ukraine-Donbass border; that is, who live inside Ukraine but close to Donbass and so are in the Ukrainian portion of the conflict-zone (not in Donbass, where the vast majority of the “property damage” is actually occurring), have “greater support for pro-Western parties” (i.e., for the Obama-installed regime), but “lower support for keeping Donbas in Ukraine.” Although they endorse the overthrow that had been done of the pre-coup government (because they receive ‘news’media only from the post-coup regime, in the Ukrainian language), they want to get on with their lives without the war that’s since been causing them “property damage.” (U.S. propaganda notes that “the separatist-controlled parts of Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts ([the two Donbass] provinces) only have access to Russian TV channels” but avoids noting that the Ukrainian regime’s blocking of Russian-language media on the other side of that border — inside Ukraine — exists and is even more severe.) Apparently, Ukrainians near the border just want the war to end — no “compromise” — no negotiations, no Minsk process; they want their Government to simply quit trying to conquer Donbass, no negotiations about it, at all. And they’re ignored.
Right now in Ukraine, the central political controversy is between the U.S.-puppet President of Ukraine, who promises to conquer both of the two breakaway provinces, Donbass and also Crimea — but who hasn’t yet been able to do it — versus Ukraine’s political parties, in western and northern Ukraine, that derived from the organizations which had supported Hitler against Stalin in World War II and who still crave to kill Russian-speakers. Those passionately racist-fascist, anti-Russian, ideologically nazi, political organizations, are determined to actually carry out those additional invasions, no matter what the cost. However, according to this finding by Coupe and Obrizon, the Ukrainians who are suffering the “property damage” and whose personal scores on happiness have thus become so abysmally low as to have dragged the whole Ukrainian nation down to a 132nd ranking, are opposed to that nazi position, and they just want the war to end. And they’re ignored.
Where, then, is the support for the war to be found (except amongst the U.S. Congress and President and the U.S. arms-makers whose products have been selling so well to Ukraine’s government and which are now being used against the residents of Donbass)? That support is to be found as far away from the conflict-zone as possible: in Lviv and the rest of far-western and northern Ukraine, the areas that were cheering Hitler’s forces in WW II, and where the ‘news’ media today are owned by U.S.-supported oligarchs and their NGOs.
Ukraine was a severely divided nation even before the coup. In the last Ukrainian election in which the residents within the Ukraine that then included both Donbass and Crimea voted, which was the election in 2010, the candidate who won Ukraine’s Presidency and whom Obama ousted, had won 90% of the vote in Donbass, and 75% of the vote in Crimea. However, in far-western Ukraine, his opponent — whom Obama had been hoping that Ukrainians would elect as Ukraine’s President in 2014 after the coup — won 90% of the vote. That’s the candidate whose party (though not herself) now dominates (in conjunction with the two outright nazi parties) the Ukrainian Government. The man whom the residents in the rump Ukraine chose, was the more moderate candidate, and he is increasingly being challenged by the nazis. (Ukraine is the world’s only nation that has two nazi political parties. Both of them have been clients of the U.S. Government ever since the end of World War II, but only with Obama did they win control of the country — that is, of its non-breakaway regions.) For example, on 18 January 2018, the AP headlined “Ukraine passes bill to get occupied regions back from Russia” and reported that, “Ukraine’s parliament on Thursday passed a bill that aims to reintegrate the eastern territories currently controlled by Russia-backed separatists, and goes as far as to declare support for taking them back by military force if necessary.” Though that position is a minority position amongst the Ukrainian public, it authentically represents the position that Obama wanted. In fact, he even overrode his own Secretary of State, John Kerry, to push for it. That’s the position of Ukraine’s two nazi parties, which are trying to replace the existing President. (Trump hasn’t yet made clear whether he backs them, but he is expected to.)
So: that’s Ukraine — the happiest of the nations that the U.S. has recently invaded.
UPDATE: On March 15th, the “World Happiness Report 2018” was issued, and here are the bottom-scoring countries:
- Ukraine (4.103)
- Togo (3.999)
- Guinea (3.964)
- Lesotho (3.808)
- Angola (3.795)
- Madagascar (3.774)
- Zimbabwe (3.692)
- Afghanistan (3.632)
- Botswana (3.590)
- Malawi (3.587)
- Haiti (3.582)
- Liberia (3.495)
- Syria (3.462)
- Rwanda (3.408)
- Yemen (3.355)
- Tanzania (3.303)
- South Sudan (3.254)
- Central African Republic (3.083)
- Burundi (2.905)
first published at The Saker
Xi and Putin vow to cooperate deeply in the time ahead
On March 17 &19 respectively, Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin were re-elected as the President...
Belt and Road Initiative and China-Iran cooperation
Over the past two weeks, the National People’s Congress of China (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC)...
Movement of the White House towards radicalism
The removal of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from power and the replacement of CIA chief Mike Pompeo will...
231,000 New Jobs Added in Western Balkans amid Ongoing Economic Challenges, Emigration
A 3.9 percent increase in employment over the last year has led to the creation of 231,000 new jobs throughout...
Access to safe water: Is the green revolution around the corner?
Nature-based solutions can play an important role in improving the supply and quality of water and reducing the impact of natural...
Assad’s Army and Intelligence Services: Feudalization or Structurization?
Authors: Anton Mardasov* & Kirill Semenov 2017 marked a turning point in the Syrian conflict. With the full support of...
Energy is at the heart of the sustainable development agenda to 2030
Three years ago, all countries of the world adopted 17 ambitious policy goals to end poverty, protect the planet, promote...
Middle East3 days ago
Three Years of Saudi Heinous Crimes in Yemen
Africa3 days ago
The World without Colonies – Dakhla without Potemkin Village
East Asia2 days ago
Ice Silk Road: From Dream to reality
East Asia20 hours ago
Shooting an Own Goal: China’s Belt and Road funding terms spark criticism
Intelligence2 days ago
Russia Says U.S. Trains Jihadists to Do Chemical Attacks Blamed Against Assad
Intelligence2 days ago
From Radical Ecology to Ecoterrorism
Eastern Europe1 day ago
Financial challenge for Lithuania
Americas3 days ago
What Results When U.S. Invades a Country