[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] S [/yt_dropcap]o the story of Trump campaign team-Russian collusion has hit the stand again. However, before one goes into that, a mention needs to be done about the tragic and horrific killing of Srinivas Kuchibotla. Srinivas was an Indian on H1B visa working in Kansas for Garmin, a billion dollar Tech Company. He was shot dead by a navy veteran Adam Purinton in a crowded bar in Kansas on February 22.
Adam yelled “Get out of my country” before he shot at Srinivas and Alok Madsani who luckily was only injured in the shooting. Here was an individual who had gone to pursue his American dream in the right way. In fact, when his wife raised concerns about shootings that happened in the country, Srinivas reportedly told her “Good things happen in America.” However, Srinivas tragically lost his life to the bullets of a madman. Yet the action of this drunk lunatic who shot Srinivas is not characteristic of the whole country.
Even when the incident was happening, a few good souls came to the Indians’ side. Foremost among them was Ian Grillot. He was hiding under the table when the shooting was going on. After the round was over, thinking that the bullets were over and probably in order to prevent the madman from reloading again, he chased the person without realizing that the bullets were not yet exhausted. He got shot as a result and is recovering from injuries. After a few days of silence, Trump did condemn the killing during his address to the Congress. Trump should have condemned the killing automatically without prompting by the Indian administration.
That brings us to his Congress speech. He honoured the widow of a soldier who was killed in a Yemen raid recently. Along with that, it would have only increased in his value if he had honored Ian Grillot. It was a splendid, spontaneous act of courage shown by Ian. It was a miss by Trump as it would have sent a real and clear message to a few characters like Adam Purinton. One hopes that Modi would do what Trump failed to do. In fact, an invitation has already been given to Ian on behalf of India and he has agreed to oblige by visiting India.
Trump’s speech in the Congress was a very well received speech and deservedly so. He condemned the recent killings and racial attacks. For the first time, he reached out to the Muslims by saying that he will work with the US’s Muslim allies to defeat the ISIS. He blamed the ISIS for killing Muslims, Christians and people from other religions. The Americans saw it very positively. In the gallery, once could spot Senator Kamala Harris with a thoughtful look that seemed to say ‘looks like I will have to sit here only for maybe 8 years…..hmmmm!!!!’
About the travel ban, a fair question needs to be asked. What became of it? In fact, when Judge Robart blocked the travel ban, Trump tweeted saying that many dangerous people will pour into the country. Now, Trump himself has postponed the travel ban version 2 because he did not want it to be a hindrance for the positive reviews that he was getting after his speech in the Congress. Therefore, a valid question to be asked is “will the dangerous people not pour into the country because of the postponement that he himself has done?”
Next came the Jeff Sessions controversy. The Russophobia of some in the media and the Democratic Party is truly frightening. All this talk about the Trump campaign team’s collusion with Russia will come to a big naught. Trump openly called in July of 2016 that the Russians should hack into Hillary Clinton’s email so that the missing 30,000 emails could be found from Hillary’s server. Of course, it created an uproar in the Democratic Party. ‘How can Trump call upon Russia? This is a national security issue’ they screamed. It got them nowhere. It did not become an election issue at all.
The Americans were not bothered about the fact that Russians hacked into the DNC. In fact, many of them were happy that many manipulations that were happening in the DNC were brought out, which otherwise would not come to their knowledge. If the Americans had thought that Trump colluding with the Russians was ‘so dangerous’ for America, they would have ensured that Trump was defeated.
Not once, not twice. In fact, throughout the election campaign, Trump repeatedly kept on saying that he wanted better relations with Russia. Americans voted for him. Can one not take this as Americans endorsing Trump to try and work out a better relationship with Russia? It is clear. The Democrats and some ‘so-called’ Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Ana Navarro etc are calling for an investigation into the whole Russia-Trump collusion. It is time for Trump to get into the campaign mode on the Russian issue.
The funny thing is the Democrats failed to bring the Russian angle seriously until the elections results were announced. They were so confident about winning that they thought that the Russian interference was not a major issue and it was something that they could stave off easily. After their shock defeat, they are not able to reconcile to the fact that Trump won fair and square. Hence they are raising the Russia collaboration as a lame excuse and to portray that Trump won in an unfair manner. That is simply not true.
Trump should firmly push back, be at his aggressive best as far as resistance to improvement in Russian relations are concerned. Which he is doing already. A reset of American relationship with Russia will help the US. It will help Russia. Very importantly, it will help Syria. It will help EU. It will help the world. One fails to understand why there is such strong resistance to this. It is a major challenge to Trump and looks an uphill task. If he does it, it would be great.
Even if Trump had colluded with the Russians to hack into the DNC (so far the Democrats and the rebel Republicans, through their investigations, have produced ‘0’ evidence and this writer sincerely wishes that the score would remain at ‘0’), there was nothing wrong in it because interference in foreign elections is nothing new to the super powers. Therefore, it is not as if it is an unpardonable crime.
Actually, on second thoughts, it was a crime. Trump should realize the sincerity of the Democrats. He should think and conclude that there is a lot of merit in the Democrats’ uproar. How can Trump go to Russia for hacking the DNC? What the Democrats are saying is “The next time the hacking is done, Don’t go elsewhere. Don’t go to the Russians!!! There is plenty of talent available at home. The next time, make use of Americans and hack the DNC. We will be happy and let go off the whole episode.”
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article are those of the author.
A self-inflicted wound: Trump surrenders the West’s moral high ground
For the better part of a century, the United States could claim the moral high ground despite allegations of hypocrisy because its policies continuously contradicted its proclaimed propagation of democracy and human rights. Under President Donald J. Trump, the US has lost that moral high ground.
This week’s US sanctioning of 28 Chinese government entities and companies for their involvement in China’s brutal clampdown on Turkic Muslims in its troubled north-western province of Xinjiang, the first such measure by any country since the crackdown began, is a case in point.
So is the imposition of visa restrictions on Chinese officials suspected of being involved in the detention and human rights abuses of millions of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.
The irony is that the Trump administration has for the first time elevated human rights to a US foreign policy goal in export control policy despite its overall lack of concern for such rights.
The sanctions should put the Muslim world, always the first to ring the alarm bell when Muslims rights are trampled upon, on the spot.
It probably won’t even though Muslim nations are out on a limb, having remained conspicuously silent in a bid not to damage relations with China, and in some cases even having endorsed the Chinese campaign, the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history.
This week’s seeming endorsement by Mr. Trump of Turkey’s military offensive against Syrian Kurds, who backed by the United States, fought the Islamic State and were guarding its captured fighters and their families drove the final nail into the coffin of US moral claims.
The endorsement came on the back of Mr. Trump’s transactional approach towards foreign policy and relations with America’s allies, his hesitancy to respond robustly to last month’s missile and drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, his refusal to ensure Saudi transparency on the killing a year ago of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and his perceived empathy for illiberals and authoritarians symbolized by his reference to Egyptian field marshal-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as “my favourite dictator.”
Rejecting Saudi and Egyptian criticism of his intervention in Syria, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave the United States and Mr. Trump a blunt preview of what they can expect next time they come calling, whether it is for support of their holding China to account for its actions in Xinjiang, issues of religious freedom that are dear to the Trump administration’s heart, or specific infractions on human rights that the US opportunistically wishes to emphasize.
“Let me start with Saudi Arabia,” Mr. Erdogan said in blistering remarks to members of his Justice and Development Party (AKP). “Look in the mirror first. Who brought Yemen to this state? Did tens of thousands of people not die in Yemen?” he asked, referring to the kingdom’s disastrous military intervention in Yemen’s ruinous civil war.
Addressing Mr. Al-Sisi, Mr. Erdogan charged: “Egypt, you can’t talk at all. You are a country with a democracy killer.” The Turkish leader asserted that Mr. Al-Sisi had “held a meeting with some others and condemned the (Turkish) operation – so what if you do?”
The fact that the United States is likely to encounter similar responses, even if they are less belligerent in tone, as well as the fact that Mr. Trump’s sanctioning of Chinese entities is unlikely to shame the Muslim world into action, signals a far more fundamental paradigm shift: the loss of the US and Western moral high ground that gave them an undisputed advantage in the battle of ideas, a key battleground in the struggle to shape a new world order.
China, Russia, Middle Eastern autocrats and other authoritarians and illiberals have no credible response to notions of personal and political freedom, human rights and the rule of law.
As a result, they countered the ideational appeal of greater freedoms by going through the motions. They often maintained or erected democratic facades and payed lip service to democratic concepts while cloaking their repression in terms employed by the West like the fight against terrorism.
By surrendering the West’s ideological edge, Mr. Trump reduced the shaping of the new world order to a competition in which the power with the deeper pockets had the upper hand.
Former US national security advisor John Bolton admitted as much when he identified in late 2018 Africa as a new battleground and unveiled a new strategy focused on commercial ties, counterterrorism, and better-targeted U.S. foreign aid.
Said international affairs scholar Keren Yarhi-Milo: “The United States has already paid a significant price for Trump’s behaviour: the president is no longer considered the ultimate voice on foreign policy. Foreign leaders are turning elsewhere to gauge American intentions… With Trump’s reputation compromised, the price tag on U.S. deterrence, coercion, and reassurance has risen, along with the probability of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation.”
Trump’s effects on diplomacy
No longer has Trump’s haphazard behaviour persisted, more will be easy for his administration to enact actions against China, Iran and Taliban. The state department is in a quandary because of it, on each front. Trump’s entrenched eagerness to remain “great” and “first” on the chessboard of International power, could damage the world more ahead than before.
Following the Iran’s attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia’s oil infrastructure, US wanted to deploy troops to the Kingdom. It is primarily a justification for why the US has been imposing sanctions over Iran. Is troops deployment a solution? Or will it provide safe horizon to Kingdom oil’s installation? Or will it be revolutionary in oil diplomacy? Or is it the only target retaliated on, by Iran. However, such kind of engagement has short term beneficiary spots, while in broader perspective it has consequential effects for all stakeholders. The episode of nuclear deal has, as a factor of quid-pro-quo, been further dramatised by the state department, withdrawing from. Notwithstanding, the deal has advantageous prospects for the Middle East, and an exemplary for rest of nations, has been further dramatised by the US, in order to seek its diplomatic wins. What significant at this point, is an agreement to reback to the deal.
Embracing a different economic model, China, is plausibly on a runner-up position to the US. Whether it’s 5G tech. Or leading status of green energy, or ultra-scales exports or its leading developments for the nations having indigent economies, is a source of chaos for US administration. The current trade war is an antidoting tool for the whole scenario. The US should, I assume, eye China’s hegemony a piece of cake, and welcome its come out while securing its interests under the umbrella of cooperation. This logic, while posing no threat, seems to be long term functional. Is it?
Trump, according to many native writers, is psychologically unfit, unstable and fickle, however have had strong narrative to prevent America’s engagement into “useless wars” and end “endless” wars. Following this token, Trump announcement of troop withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan put the world politics and even his administration into chaos. This divided strategists and Washington security officials, which was underpinned by the resignation of James Mattis and recently John Bolton. The ten months of peace process which followed the US’s announcement of troop withdrawal, precipitously ended, putting once again the international and national politics into chaos. Trump, grandiloquently fired a tweet that talks with Taliban are dead and futile. The argument he contended was the Attack in Kabil, where one American soldier with 12 other people were lost. The policymakers and high officials in Washington who already negated the policy of troop withdrawal and then after peace deal. They, of course are winner in this policy discourse, have staunch beliefs in their opinion, who may make Trump’s change of heart. The Kabil attack was given, probably, an agent of resurgent for Obama’s approach. However, Trump’s administration had already scripted their policy framework for the region, and pretending Kabul attack was perhaps a way of redemption from the peace talk.
Trump’s factor in US foreign policy was chaotic to his subordinates for which, he attempted to compensate by cancelling peace deal with Taliban. However , on the domestic front, it is likely to be more pluses than on diplomatic front given to Trump in next year’s presidential election. Let’s see which side the wind blow.
Trump Cannot Be Impeached Over Ukrainegate, But Pelosi and Schiff Can Be Charged Criminally
Pursuant to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unmistakable clear edict concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.
In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation’s “sole organ” in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.
The Court reasoned that these powers are implicit in the President’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.
Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President’s plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.
In a 7–1 decision authored by Justice George Sutherland, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government, through the President, is categorically allowed great foreign affairs powers independent of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that “the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature…the broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.”
While the Constitution does not explicitly state that all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President, the Court concluded that such power is nonetheless given implicitly, since the executive of a sovereign nation is, by its very nature, empowered to conduct foreign affairs.
The Court found “sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries.”
In other words, the President was better suited for determining which actions and policies best serve the nation’s interests abroad.
It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.
Separation of Powers Doctrine
In other words, neither the U.S. Congress nor the U.S. Senate can say or do very much of anything to prevent or interfere with this power, and if they do, they can in fact be held responsible for violating the Separation of Powers doctrine pursuant to the U.S. Constitution wherein the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate.
This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.
Each branch has separate powers, and generally each branch is not allowed to exercise the powers of the other branches.
The Legislative Branch exercises congressional power, the Executive Branch exercises executive power, and the Judicial Branch exercises judicial review.
National Security and Foreign Affairs
The Curtiss-Wright case established the broader principle of executive Presidential supremacy in national security and foreign affairs, one of the reasons advanced in the 1950s for the near success of the attempt to add the Bricker Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have placed a “check” on said Presidential power by Congress, but that never passed, or became law.
If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats really wanted to interfere with or prevent President Donald Trump from engaging in the activity that they are trying to prevent vis-a-vis Ukraine, China, and Joseph Biden’s alleged corruption and its effect on National Security, they would have to first draft, propose, enact, and pass sweeping legislation, and this could take years and would most probably never pass.
Even so, it could not affect President Donald Trump’s actions already occurred, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto criminal laws.
Turning This All Against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff
To that end if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Adam Schiff persist in pushing said “impeachment proceedings” against President Donald Trump, it is actually they who could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, with formal and actual charges of Treason, Sedition or Coup D’ Etat being levied upon them by the U.S. Government.
The consequences of that occurring, are truly horrific indeed.
I’ll leave the pain for tomorrow. Won’t even think about it until tomorrow. That is, if tomorrow ever comes. So,...
1.2 trillion rupees on the move: Modi’s greatest piece of purchase yet
Last week, the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) was taken aback by more than a surprise. Just when it was...
Military operation in northeast Syria could see unintentional release of ISIL affiliates
The ongoing Turkish military incursion in northeast Syria could unintentionally lead to the release of scores of people associated with...
Turkey in the Kurdish Rojava
Since the beginning of clashes in Syria, Turkey has aimed at annexing the left bank of the Euphrates up to...
Has Assad succeeded in overcoming the Syrian crisis?
A series of revolutions swept through the Arab region. The first torch was from Tunisia when protester Mohamed Bouazizi burned...
Who is Ethiopian Premier Abiy Ahmed, winner of 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for Eritrea Accord?
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has been crowned the winner of the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for “his efforts to...
Growth in South Asia Slows Down, Rebound Uncertain
In line with a global downward trend, growth in South Asia is projected to slow to 5.9 percent in 2019,...
Middle East1 day ago
Landing in Riyadh: Geopolitics work in Putin’s favour
Middle East3 days ago
No peace for Kurds: Rojava still under attack
Urban Development2 days ago
Cities can fight climate change and improve lives by finding new ways to be cool
Defense2 days ago
The Game-changing Fallibility of BMD Systems: Lessons from the Middle East and South Asia
Newsdesk2 days ago
Bangladesh Economy Continues Robust Growth with Rising Exports and Remittances
Hotels & Resorts3 days ago
Hilton Announces Tajikistan Premiere with Flagship Dushanbe Property
East Asia3 days ago
Beyond China-U.S. trade and where is its outlet?
Energy2 days ago
A Century of Russia’s Weaponization of Energy