Connect with us

Americas

Hypocrisy and Hubris Define Chaos … and Trump

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] F [/yt_dropcap]or the ancient Greeks logos meant reason, dialogue and debate. It could also mean speech, the power of language for good or self-gain, an aspect demagogues know well and the sophist Gorgias (5th century BC) warned against.

‘The Greeks had a word for it’ is an English expression and they often did. ‘Hubris’ would be the word to understand an overweening bombast with no time for dialogue or debate and a penchant for bullying and humiliating others.

Governing, however, requires patience, respect for opposition, dialogue and accommodation — qualities notably absent in the current American president. His favorable poll rating at only 41 percent (the lowest of any president Gallup has tracked and they have since Eisenhower) and facing a barrage of criticism for the inept and chaotic first three weeks, Mr. Trump held a surreal press conference, then retreated to a rally of his supporters in Florida … undoubtedly arranged to soothe his bruised ego.

At the rally, the First Lady began her introduction for her husband by reciting the Lord’s Prayer. For a notorious philanderer, with numerous instances of unwelcome advances, a businessman with a history of sharp practice (including stiffing club members in a case only recently decided against him) and absolutely no particular record of religious observance, it was quite a beginning. Yes, the Greeks had a word for it … hypocrisy’s origins lie in Greek.

The chaos in the White House is represented at a presidential news conference as a ‘well-oiled, smooth running-machine’. We are informed that the resignation of Mike Flynn was because ‘he didn’t tell our vice president properly and then he said he didn’t remember’ to quote Mr. Trump. But then why did the president wait so long when he knew about it at least two weeks earlier?

In late January, acting Attorney General Sally Yates informed the White House Flynn had lied to the White House. As well, given his experience in intelligence, Flynn himself must have known conversations with the Russian ambassador were routinely recorded. So why was he so cavalier in his dealings? Was he ordered by Mr. Trump to set the Russians at ease after the proverbial spitting in the soup by the departing administration? Notably, Flynn’s call was made the same day (December 29) the sanctions were imposed. He did establish a record of sorts … for shortest tenure, having been in office 23 days.

Vice Admiral Robert Harward, who was offered Flynn’s job has declined. Interesting that Harward spent some early years in Iran and actually graduated from the Teheran American High School — his father, a Navy man was posted there. Many reasons are offered as to why he declined but it is also possible he didn’t see eye to eye with the anti-Iran view of this administration. Then too, a chaotic White House is hardly appealing.

Trump’s reluctance to fire Flynn is not that difficult to discern: he was his point man on Russia, and the most ardent advocate of a policy reversal. That Russia is being asked to leave Crimea, and Trump is now 100 percent behind NATO signal an end to any quick accommodation with Putin.

Meanwhile, illegal border crossings have suddenly soared — not on the Mexico side but to Canada. Afraid of Trump’s anti-Muslim ban (currently in flux), many awaiting residency are not taking any chances on a court resolution. They are crossing into Canada, looking for a police officer to surrender to, and asking for asylum. There have sadly been cases of frostbite among the ill prepared who have lost fingers and toes. Such is the desperation.

On the other end of the scale, the Trump family’s luxurious lifestyle and global business interests have already cost the U.S. taxpayer upwards of $11 million in transportation and Secret Service protection, a sum expended in less than a month. At this rate, it hardly matters how much less the new presidential plane will cost due to President Trump’s haranguing. By way of comparison, President Obama’s yearly travel costs averaged $12.1 million over his eight years, according to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

In the real world, Vice President Mike Pence and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis were scurrying to Europe to reassure allies of U.S. commitment. All the same, the German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, at the start of the Munich Security Conference, lectured the U.S. to keep away from torture and not make the war against terrorism into a war against Islam.

Such is the running of the ‘well-oiled machine’.

Dr. Arshad M. Khan is a former Professor based in the US. Educated at King's College London, OSU and The University of Chicago, he has a multidisciplinary background that has frequently informed his research. Thus he headed the analysis of an innovation survey of Norway, and his work on SMEs published in major journals has been widely cited. He has for several decades also written for the press: These articles and occasional comments have appeared in print media such as The Dallas Morning News, Dawn (Pakistan), The Fort Worth Star Telegram, The Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and others. On the internet, he has written for Antiwar.com, Asia Times, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Countercurrents, Dissident Voice, Eurasia Review and Modern Diplomacy among many. His work has been quoted in the U.S. Congress and published in its Congressional Record.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Trump’s New Wall? Mexico’s Southern Border

Lisdey Espinoza Pedraza

Published

on

For much of modern history, Mexico defined itself in opposition to the United States. In recent years, the two countries stepped up cooperation on almost all relevant issues, and the two nations are now deeply intertwined politically, economically and culturally. This is bound to change. After months of ignoring Donald Trump’s provocations, López Obrador reacted rapidly to Trump’s shakedown and agreed to a number of resolutions of extraordinary scope and urgency: the new Mexican administration agreed to deploy the country’s federal police to its southern border to crack down on immigration; and opened the door to the controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy that would turn Mexico into a Third Safe Country in less than a month from now.

As stated in the agreement, Mexico would take in all the refugees that the US decides to send back to Mexico to await resolution of their asylum process. This could take years, given the substantial immigration backlog in American courts. The agreement goes further: Mexico is responsible for the provision of education, health care and employment for such refugees. This could easily lead to a serious humanitarian crisis that Mexican institutions will be unable to deal with.

This approach contradicts previous Mexican presidential vows for regional development and humanitarian relief rather than confrontation and enforcement. Conditions on the ground in Mexico are far harsher than the Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister, Marcelo Ebrard and the President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, would like to admit, and this is partly due to the current administration’s miscalculations: López Obrador has dramatically cut the budget for governmental agencies responsible for managing refugees and processing removals. Mexican border towns are also ill-equipped for handling transient migrant populations; and Mexico also faces other more systematic challenges, such as corruption and lack of rule of law enforcement. The new policy agreed with the American government is likely to result in a significant increase in claims filed for asylum in Mexico. Mexico’s immigration bureaucracies are utterly overwhelmed, and López Obrador’s misguided budget cuts have exacerbated their failings.

Mexico’s immigration policy is now bound by an immoral and unacceptable deal that will effectively turn Mexico into Trump’s border wall. The global system for the protection of refugees is based on the notion of shared responsibility among countries. It is very dangerous for the US to use Mexico as a pawn to set an example and ignore its international responsibility. This agreement also violates international law on refugees: Mexico is a life-threatening country for undocumented migrants. Human trafficking, recruitment for organised criminal organisations, abduction, extortion, sexual violence, and disappearances are some of the issues migrants face in Mexico. Finally, Mexico’s National Guard, the agency that will be in charge of monitoring the southern border, was created by López Obrador to tackle domestic crime. Its members have no training nor knowledge on immigration matters. It is an untested new military force that could end up creating more problems than the ones it is trying to solve.  Deploying agents to the border could also have a high political cost for the president.

The agreement with Trump gives López Obrador 45 days to show progress. If Mexico fails, Mexico will be forced to set in motion some version of Safe Third Country agreement, or face further tariff bullying from the US. This deal has been sold by the new Mexican administration as a victory over the US. More migrants, less money, extreme violence and a recalcitrant, unpredictable northern neighbour are the ingredients for a potential, impending refugee crisis, not a diplomatic victory.

Could Mexico have taken a different approach? Yes. Trump’s decision to impose tariffs would exacerbate the underlying causes of immigration in the region and do nothing to address it. His bullying to force Mexico to crack down on immigration was a cheap electoral ploy to mobilise its base with a view to winning the 2020 elections. This is nothing new. Trump is not seeking a solution; he is seeking a political gain. He built his first presidential campaign on an anti-Mexico and an anti-immigrant rhetoric. It worked in 2016, and he is planning to repeat the same formula.

The Mexican administration lack of knowledge on diplomatic matters, and their inability to play politics let a golden opportunity go. Using trade to bludgeon Mexico into compliance with an immigration crack down makes no sense: Mexico is not responsible for the increase in migratory flows. Central America’s poverty and violence trace back to American policies in the 1980s. Mexico is not responsible either for America’s famously dysfunctional immigration system. Trump’s economic threats against Mexico may not even have been legal: both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the newly agreed US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) require most trade between members to be tariff free.

Mexico could also have hit back with by levying tariffs that would have hurt swing-state voters, and in turn hurt Trump. This was the golden opportunity Mexico let slip from its hands. Mexico could have responded by hitting Trump where it hurts: Tariffs on American goods heading south. Mexico responded in a similar manner in June last year in response to the steel and aluminium tariffs. Mexico could have raised those tariffs each month in tandem with American levels.

This retaliation would have highlighted the gap between Trump’s anti-Mexican rhetoric and the underlying interdependence of the US and Mexico with stark consequences for the US presidential elections of 2020. Many of the biggest exporters to Mexico such as Arizona. Florida. California, Michigan and Illinois are swing states. New tariffs could have thrown Texas into recession and put its 38 electoral votes into play. It is all too late now, Mexico could have inadvertently helped Trump to get re-elected. Mexico has less than a month left to show some backbone and demand real American cooperation on the region’s shared challenges and rejecting Trump’s threats once and for all. The relationship between Mexico and the US could have been an example of cooperation under difficult conditions, but that would have required different American and Mexican presidents.

Continue Reading

Americas

Scandinavia Veers Left plus D-Day Reflections as Trump Storms Europe

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

Mette Frederiksen of the five-party Social Democrat bloc won 91 of the 169 seats in the Danish parliament ending the rule of the right-wing Liberal Party group that had governed for 14 of the last 18 years.  The election issues centered on climate change, immigration and Denmark’s generous social welfare policies.  All parties favored tighter immigration rules thereby taking away the central issue dominating the far-right Democrat Freedom Party which has seen its support halved since the last election in 2015.

Ms Frederiksen promised more spending to bolster the much loved social welfare model and increased taxes on businesses and the wealthy.  A left wave is sweeping Scandinavia as Denmark becomes the third country, after Sweden and Finland, to move left within a year.  Mette Frederiksen will also be, at 41, the youngest prime minister Denmark has ever had.

Donald Trump has used the 75th anniversary of D-Day commemorations to garner positive publicity.  The supreme promoter has managed to tie it in with a “classy” (his oft-chosen word) state visit to the UK spending a day with royals.  It was also a farewell to the prime minister as her resignation is effective from June 7.  Add a D-Day remembrance ceremony at Portsmouth and he was off to his golf course in Ireland for a couple of days of relaxation disguised as a visit to the country for talks — he has little in common with the prime minister, Leo Varadkar, who is half-Indian and gay.

Onward to France where leaders gathered for ceremonies at several places.  It is easy to forget the extent of that carnage:  over 20,000 French civilians were killed in Normandy alone mostly from aerial bombing and artillery fire.  The Normandy American cemetery holds over 9600 soldiers.  All in all, France lost in the neighborhood of 390,000 civilian dead during the whole war.  Estimates of total deaths across the world range from 70 to 85 million or about 3 percent of the then global population (estimated at 2.3 billion).

Much has been written about conflict resolutions generally from a cold rational perspective.  Emotions like greed, fear and a sense of injustice when unresolved lead only in one direction.  There was a time when individual disputes were given the ultimate resolution through single combat.  Now legal rights and courts are available — not always perfect, not always fair, but neither are humans.

It does not take a genius to extrapolate such legal measures to nations and international courts … which already exist.  Just one problem:  the mighty simply ignore them.  So we wait, and we honor the dead of wars that in retrospect appear idiotic and insane.  Worse is the attempt to justify such insanity through times like the “good war”, a monstrous absurdity.

It usually takes a while.  Then we get leaders who have never seen the horror of war — some have assiduously avoided it — and the cycle starts again.

Continue Reading

Americas

To Impeach Or Not To Impeach? That Is The Question

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

Robert Mueller let loose a thunderbolt midweek.  Donald Trump had not been charged, he said, because it was Department of Justice policy not to charge a sitting president.  Dumping the issue firmly into Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lap, he reminded us of the purpose of the impeachment process.  According to Mueller there are ten instances where there are serious issues with the president obstructing justice adding that his report never concludes that Trump is innocent.

So here is a simple question:  If Mueller thought the president is not innocent but he did not charge him because of Justice Department policy, and he appears also to favor impeachment, then why in heaven’s name did he not simply state in his report that the preponderance of evidence indicated Trump was guilty?

Nancy Pelosi is wary of impeachment.  According to the rules, the House initiates it and when/if  it finds sufficient grounds, it forwards the case to the Senate for a formal trial.  The Senate at present is controlled by Republicans, who have been saying it’s time to move on, often adding that after two years of investigation and a 448-page report, what is the point of re-litigating the issue?  They have a point and again it leads to the question:  if Special Counsel Mueller thinks Trump is guilty as he now implies, why did he not actually say so?

Never one to miss any opportunity , Trump labels Mueller, highly conflicted, and blasts impeachment as ‘a dirty, filthy, disgusting word’,  He has also stopped Don McGahn, a special counsel at the White House from testifying before Congress invoking ‘executive privilege’ — a doctrine designed to keep private the president’s consultations with his advisors.  While not cited anywhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held it to be ‘fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the Separation of Powers under the Constitution.’  Separation of powers keeps apart the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary, meaning each one cannot interfere with the other.

Nancy Pelosi is under increasing pressure from the young firebrands.  Rep Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has already expressed the view that it is time to open an impeachment inquiry against Trump given the obstruction of lawmakers’ oversight duty.

Speaker Pelosi is a long-time politician with political blood running through her veins — her father was Mayor of Baltimore and like herself also a US Representative.  To her the situation as is, is quite appealing.  Trump’s behavior fires up Democrats across the country and they respond by emptying their pockets to defeat the Republicans in 2020.  Democratic coffers benefit so why harm this golden goose — a bogeyman they have an excellent chance of defeating — also evident from the numbers lining up to contest the Democratic presidential primaries, currently at 24. 

Will Trump be impeached?  Time will tell but at present it sure doesn’t look likely.

Continue Reading

Latest

South Asia10 mins ago

The Potential of Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Stabilizing Afghanistan

Afghanistan today remains afflicted with instability and looming threat of terrorism. Kidnapping, killings, bomb blasts and other such notorious activities...

Hotels & Resorts5 hours ago

Hampton by Hilton Opens Its Doors in Utrecht

Hampton by Hilton Utrecht Central Station opens its doors to guests. The hotel is the latest addition to the growing...

Energy News9 hours ago

UNIDO advocates for sustainable energy at EUSEW

For the second consecutive year, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) took an active part in the European Union’s...

Defense12 hours ago

Defence: Is the EU creating a European army?

While there is no EU army and defence remains exclusively a matter for member states, the EU has recently taken...

EU Politics14 hours ago

EU mobilises over €18 million for the Central African Republic in 2019

As many people continue to suffer in the Central African Republic (CAR), the European Union continues to stand in solidarity...

Newsdesk16 hours ago

International Labour Conference ends with adoption of key Convention and Declaration

The Centenary Conference of the International Labour Organization  (ILO) ended on Friday with the adoption of an unprecedented Convention and...

Middle East18 hours ago

Public decency law puts Saudi reforms in perspective

A newly adopted Saudi law on public decency helps define Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s vague notion of ‘moderate Islam.’...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy