Premises of Trump’s foreign policy orientation and future of international order – A study in Trumpism!
-Dr. Abdul Ruff
Today’s international order is being decided almost entirely by US super power – at least by and large.
In fact, international order since the World War II, though launched b y Germany, is being controlled and regulated by USA while Europe and bulk of Asian nations lend support for this arrangement made after the WW-II.
Needless to say that veto power USA enjoys has been major reason for American prowess, though there are four more states that enjoy the super status, viz UK, France, Russia and China. Awkwardly, USA has misused the veto in order to shield the crimes perpetuated by Israeli regime that follows fascist ideology of old Nazi Germany which eventually had been attacked by Russia but soon divided into zones by USA and Russia.
US precedent wields enormous power to control not just the USA but also entire world. Ronald Trump who has been elected president would so from January 20 when he formally assures power in Washington as undisputed world leader.
World of Donald Trump
Since the day Donald Trump, disrupter-in-chief and disaster speculator, announced his campaign 18 months ago, he has flouted convention at nearly every turn – and so far, has come out ahead. To be the US president in three weeks time, Trump has opted out of most the decades-long practice for presidents-elect, including sitting for near-daily intelligence briefings, raising questions about his interest in mastering complex global issues.
Trump has been elected the US president to chair the world affairs when foreign policy everywhere begins to seem an elite dogma, rather than a collective choice, as a reflection of national consciousness. Arrival of Trump and victory for Brexit are seen to be negative consequence of ugly imperialism as they have crossed the limits of conventional wisdom and would “pull down the pillars” of liberal internationalism and retreat USA and EU into isolation.
World continues since the end of WW-II to be regulated by US made intentional order to which every big nation as well tries to adhere, making its policies a part of US imagination.
Americans weary of outsourced jobs and continuing war are entitled to ask what they are getting in return without being written off as isolationists. By repudiating American exceptionalism, Trump has unintentionally invited the country to reimagine its place in the world—to find a vision, perhaps, one that is neither hierarchical nor conflictual. Politicians who talk up America as a “city upon a hill” can appear to be content with the status quo.
Trump asks Americans to seek more immediate victories. Consider his criticism of the war in Iraq: his signature objection is that the United States did not “take the oil” before getting out. For Trump, states are similar because they compete for the same fixed pot of resources.
One needs to work in depth to ascertain the possible polices of man like Trump who became fame with contradictory rhetoric.
Any proper analysis of foreign policy of Trump can be done only after January 20 when he assumes power at the White House as its legal custodian because after that whatever he says and does makes sense to the analysts.
Unconventional US President
Undoubtedly, Donald Trump has defied all expectations from the very start of his presidential campaign more than a year ago. He opposed and criticized his own party men. His election victory was unexpected by most and still incomprehensible to many even in USA as media had taken Hillary win against an erratic Trump for granted. First, very few people thought he would actually run. They thought he wouldn’t climb in the polls, then he did. They said he wouldn’t win any primaries, then he did. They said he wouldn’t win the Republican nomination, then he did. Finally, they said there was no way he could compete for, let alone win, a general election. Toss-ups were tossed aside. One after another, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina went to Trump. Now he’s President-elect Trump.
That left unhappy and highly disappointed Mrs Clinton’s blue firewall, and the firewall was eventually breached. The Democrat’s last stand largely rested on her strength in the Midwest. Those were states that had gone Democrat for decades, based in part on the support of black and working-class white voters.
Those working-class white people, particularly ones without college education – men and women – deserted the party in droves. Rural voters turned out in high numbers, as the Americans who felt overlooked by the establishment and left behind by the coastal elite made their voices heard.
While places like Virginia and Colorado held fast, Wisconsin fell – and with it Mrs Clinton’s presidential hopes. When all is said and done, Mrs Clinton may end up winning the popular vote on the back of strong support in places like California and New York and closer-than-expected losses in solid-red states like Utah. The Trump wave hit in the places it had to, however. And it hit hard.
Trump insulted decorated many stalwarts, Ms Clinton and war veteran John McCain. He picked a fight with Fox News and its popular presenter, Megyn Kelly. He doubled down when asked how he once mocked the weight of a Hispanic beauty pageant winner. He offered a half-hearted apology when the secret video surfaced of his boasting about making unwanted sexual advances towards women.
Trump gaffed his way through the three presidential debates with clearly lightly practiced performances. None of it mattered. While he took dips in the polls following some of the more outrageous incidents, his approval was like a cork – eventually bouncing back to the surface. Perhaps the various controversies came so hard and fast that none had time to draw blood. Maybe Trump’s personality and appeal was so strong, the scandals just bounced off. Whatever the reason, he was bulletproof. He ran against the Democrats. He also ran against the powers within his own party. He beat them all and emerged victorious.
Trump built a throne of skulls out of his Republican primary opponents. Some, like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and Ben Carson, eventually bent knee. The holdouts, like Jeb Bush and Ohio Governor John Kasich, are now on the outside of their party looking in.
Trump didn’t need the help of anybody – and, in fact, may have won because he was willing to take a stand against them. Trump’s pox-on-them-all attitude is likely to have proved his independence and outsider status at a time when much of the American public reviled Washington (although not enough to keep them from re-electing most congressional incumbents running for re-election). It was a mood some other national politicians sensed – Democrat Bernie Sanders, for instance, as well as Cruz. No one, however, captured it more than Trump, and it won him the White House.
The polls clearly did a woeful job predicting the shape and preferences of the electorate, particularly in Midwestern states. In the final days of the campaign, however, the reality is that the polls were close enough that Trump had a pathway to victory. That pathway didn’t look nearly as obvious about two weeks ago, before FBI director James Comey released his letter announcing that they were reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
True, the polls were tightening a bit, but Trump’s sharpest rise in the standings came in the weeks between that first letter and Comey’s second, in which he said he had put the investigation back on the shelf. It seems likely that during that period, Trump was able to successfully consolidate his base, bringing wayward conservatives back into the fold and shredding Mrs Clinton’s hopes of offering a compelling closing message to US voters.
Of course, Comey’s actions never would have been a factor if Mrs Clinton had decided to rely on State Department email servers for her work correspondence. That one is on her shoulders.
Trump ran the most unconventional of political campaigns, but it turned out he knew better than all the experts. He spent more on hats than on pollsters. He travelled to states like Wisconsin and Michigan that pundits said were out of reach. He held massive rallies instead of focusing on door-knocking and get-out-the-vote operations. He had a disjointed, sometimes chaotic national political convention that was capped by an acceptance speech that was more doom-and-gloom than any in modern US political history. He was vastly outspent by the Clinton campaign, just as he was during the Republican primaries. He turned consensus wisdom about how to win the presidency on its head.
All of these decisions – and many more – were roundly ridiculed in “knowledgeable” circles. In the end, however, they worked. Mr Trump and his closest confidants – his children and a few chosen advisers – will have the last laugh. And they’ll do it from the White House.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama says he could have won against Donald Trump — an unprofessional, undignified war of words against Trump that almost borders on insecure immaturity. Why did Obama feel it was necessary to say that? What is/was he trying to prove?
Even for a failed gambling czar, Donald Trump has been surprisingly quick to show his hand as he sets the course of his forthcoming presidency. With a reactionary fervor, he is bursting backwards into the future. Trump has picked people as his core team he always orbited: wealthy, white, male-dominated and business-minded, against what he called “politically correct crap” during his no-holds-barred presidential campaign. The current Cabinet nominated by Trump is being touted as the wealthiest administration ever. The 17 people picked for the Cabinet happen to have combined wealth of over $9.5 billion. The collection of wealth is “greater than that of the 43 million least wealthy American households combined—over one third of the 126 million households total in the USA.
Trump has accomplished this feat through the first wave of nominations to his Cabinet and White House staff. His bizarre selection of men and women marinated either in corporatism or militarism, with strains of racism, class cruelty and ideological rigidity. Many of Trump’s nominees lack an appreciation of the awesome responsibilities of public office and they do not like regulation of big business, such as those for auto, aviation, railroad and pipeline safety. Trump selected Congressman Mike Pompeo to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Pompeo is a cold war warrior who believes in a militaristic, interventionist CIA, especially toward Iran, cook up fake intelligence, thereby taking that agency even further away from its original mission of gathering intelligence.
Secretary of Defense, “Mad Dog” Marine General James Matti believes Barack Obama to be too weak, is an anti-Islamist, a believer in the American Empire and the USA being the policeman for the world. Most of the nominees are adamantly against raising the federal minim wage of $7.25 an hour and his labor views are so extreme; who make no bones about her hatred of public schools and her desire to have commercial managers of school systems; who are big on police surveillance, weak on civil rights enforcement, a hard-liner on immigration and very mixed on corporate crime… Another magnet for Trump’s nominations are those who made big donations to his campaign. For Linda McMahon’s $7 million to pro-Trump Super PACs, she gets to head the Small Business Administration. As a highly controversial professional wrestling CEO, she worked to monopolize the professional wrestling market and stifle competition.
Though the Trump team makeup suggests an extra capitalist regime in the making, some diplomatic appointments like the one for Israel also suggest continuity of Zionist fanaticism and fascism in Mideast, if Trump really goes ahead with what the Neocons and Zionists want against Palestine.
The doctrine of exceptionalism has traditionally led Americans to believe that their country is leading the world. Exceptionalism has proven durable because it can vindicate opposing foreign policies: it justified the United States’ political and military separation from the corrupt Old World before World War II, and has lent legitimacy to US interventions thereafter. Even President Barack Obama has proclaimed the USA to be “exceptional” more frequently than any other US president.
Though explicitly rejects American exceptionalism as the first president to take office, Trump vowed to build up the military, make friends with Russia, go after Islamist terrorism, and counter Chinese aggression. American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States stands in the vanguard of history, chosen by providence to redeem mankind. “We shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us.” . Yes that has been proven time and again. US presidency poll that crowned Trump the winner, remains the most important occurrence of the time.
Trump has exposed the fragility of the old consensus, and the best response is not simply to try and restore it. American exceptionalism may be well established, but voters want change in the system.
But Trump does not think USA is great. Trump depicted the United States in speech after speech as a retrograde nation. “We need somebody that can take the brand of the United States and make it great again.” “We’re like a Third World country,” he declared. It was once great, but the country would now have to claw its way back, first to first world standards and then, perhaps, to preeminence. In place of confident exceptionalism, Trump offered insecure nationalism, recasting the United States as a global victim.
Trump pointed to the country’s airports, citing them not only as examples of crumbling national infrastructure, but also as places that elicit international disdain. When travelers leave Dubai or China, he said, they land at LaGuardia or LAX and see rubble: “All over the world, they’re laughing.” Trump has inverted the exceptionalist dogma, repeated by both Obama and his 2012 challenger, Mitt Romney, that the United States is the “envy of the world.” Trump, to be sure, assumes that the whole world is watching the United States—not out of envy, but to mock it. Trump explained that he would instead like to make America exceptional, by taking back what it had given to the world. Trump is redefining exceptionalism.
Whereas previous presidents have taken it to be a permanent trait, and an intrinsic part of American identity, the current president-elect views it as a conditional state. A nation becomes “exceptional” by snatching up more wealth and power than others.
Trump rejects American exceptionalism mainly because he thinks it paralyzes the United States: it prevents the country from playing to win. Under the rubric of Cold War exceptionalism, which cast the United States as the defender of the free world, U.S. leaders rebuilt old enemies such as Germany and Japan, lavished dollars and troops on allies, and set up multilateral institutions to ensure broad-based prosperity.
The Democratic candidate Sanders during the primary campaign declared upon announcing his presidential campaign that USA has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. Trump just extended the idea further. Sanders campaign represents an assault on American exceptionalism generally denoting Americans’ peculiar faith in God, flag, and free market. Trump supports all three. Trump’s supporters like the fact that he’s super rich, blunt, and hasn’t spent his life in politics. But his pledges to keep the rest of the world at bay are core to his appeal.
The so-called insiders within the Washington ruling class are the people who got USA into trouble, Trumps said: what we are doing now isn’t working. And years ago, when I was just starting out in business, I figured out a pretty simple approach that has always worked well for me: “When you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, stop digging.” The state of the world right now is a terrible mess. There has never been a more dangerous time. Ignore career diplomats who insist on nuance. The career diplomats who got USA into many foreign policy messes think that successful diplomacy requires years of experience and an understanding of all the nuances that have been carefully considered before reaching a conclusion. Trump wants to disprove them all.
In the 1980s, flying from place to place in his Trump helicopter and Trump jet, he offered opinions on everything from politics to sex, and continually declared himself to be superior in every way. He frequently referred to many people who thought he should run for president and sometimes acted as if he were a real candidate. During one especially tense Cold War moment, he even offered himself to the world as a nuclear-arms-treaty negotiator.
Trump thinks as a man who can make high-end real estate deals he should be able to bring the United States and the Soviet Union into agreement. He offered himself as Cold War nuclear-arms-treaty negotiator. “Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use.” Would you want to end the NATO alliance completely?
As for nations that host US military bases, Trump said he would charge those governments for the American presence. “I’m going to renegotiate some of our military costs because we protect South Korea. We protect Germany. We protect some of the wealthiest countries in the world, like Saudi Arabia. We protect everybody and we don’t get reimbursement. We lose on everything, so we’re going to negotiate and renegotiate trade deals, military deals, many other deals that’s going to get the cost down for running our country very significantly.”
Trump then got into a specific example: Saudi Arabia, one of the more important US allies (than Israel but USA uses Israel to get what it wants from Saudi and other Arab nations) in the Middle East. Saudis “make a billion dollars a day. We protect them. So we need help. We are losing a tremendous amount of money on a yearly basis and we owe $19 trillion,” he said. Walking back trade deals and agreements that allow the US military to operate overseas is easier said than done. But Trump has tapped into a powerful anti-Washington populist sentiment.
One of the major headlines in world media is Trump’s intention of asking the NATO nations to finance the organization instead of making USA to foot the entire bill for maintenance. Trumps want every NATO member to pay for the US shield. Currently only USA and Turkey make maximum contributions.
Economics of NATO funding by its 28 members is an issue that worries Trump and many others in the West. Donald Trump said USA cannot spend on the security of Europe. “We are spending a fortune on a military in order to lose $800 billion,” Trump said. “I think NATO’s great. But it’s got to be modernized. And countries that we’re protecting have to pay what they’re supposed to be paying.” In fact, it is a position that Trump has stated several times before, saying he believes that the US is getting “ripped off” and that some NATO members are getting an unfair “free ride.”
As the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, in a New York Times interview, outlined a sharp break in US foreign policy tradition, suggesting the US wouldn’t defend NATO allies like the Baltic States against Russian aggression if they haven’t “fulfilled their obligation to us.” Trump seemed to reject core assumptions of US military and foreign policy thinking — including foreign troop deployment and advocating for civil liberties — and argued for an unprecedented global retrenchment, frequently framing his argument in economic terms. Trumps vice presidential choice, Mike Pence, however, said that Trump would “stand with our allies.” “We cannot have four more years of apologizing to our enemies and abandoning our friends,” Pence said. But Trump reiterated that suggested that the massive expense of maintaining an international order that is contributing to trade losses for the US “doesn’t sound very smart to me.” He questioned the forward deployment of American troops when answering a question about the tension in the South China Sea. According to the Times interview, Trump explained that “it will be a lot less expensive” for the United States to deploy military assets domestically. “NATO now does need to redefine itself,” he said
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that the United States’ commitment to the mutual defense pact is “ironclad.” Hillary Clinton said “For decades, the United States has given an ironclad guarantee to our NATO allies: we will come to their defense if they are attacked, just as they came to our defense after 9/11. Donald Trump was asked if he would honor that guarantee. He said… maybe, maybe not.” The former secretary of state continued, “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed. Harry Truman would be ashamed.
Republicans, Democrats and Independents who help build NATO into the most successful military alliance in history would all come to the same conclusion: Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit and fundamentally ill-prepared to be our Commander in Chief.”
New spending data released recently show the US shells out far more money on defense than any other nation on the planet. According to NATO statistics, the US spent an estimated $650 billion on defense last year. That’s more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the US.
NATO is based on the principle of collective defense: an attack against one or several of its members is considered as an attack against all. So far that has only been invoked once — in response to the September 11 hoax. To make the principle work, all countries are expected to chip in. NATO’s official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.
Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five — the USA, Greece, Poland, Estonia and the UK — meet the target. Many European members — including big economies like France and Germany — lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year and France forked out 1.78%.
American military spending has always eclipsed other allies’ budgets since NATO’s founding in 1949. But the gap grew much wider when the US beefed up its spending after the 9/11 attacks. NATO admits it has an “over-reliance” on the US for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare. The US also spends the highest proportion of its GDP on defense: 3.61%. The second biggest NATO spender in proportional terms is Greece, at 2.38%, according to NATO. Iceland, which doesn’t have its own army, spends just 0.1% of its GDP on defense, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Five other countries spend less than 1%, according to NATO’s estimates for this year: Canada, Slovenia, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg.
All member countries that fall below the threshold committed in 2014 to gradually ramp up military spending to reach the target within the next decade. Additionally, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has also called on other NATO members to spend more on defense.
One can’t verify whether the United States is getting “ripped off,” but it’s clear that most NATO member countries are not spending what the alliance’s official guidelines require. Trump’s statement may be true. The issue never came up for public debate.
Trump’s comments aimed at getting NATO allies to raise defense spending and do more to fight terrorism could be beneficial. NATO could boost its force size, and its ability to deploy forces.
Trump on Russia and China
Like his predecessors had done before, Trump seems to be interested in extending cooperation and trade with both Russia and China and encourage reforms in their internal policies and he is particularly positive about Russia with which he has maintained bossiness. “I don’t understand why American policymakers are always so timid in dealing with Russia on issues that directly involve our survival. Kosovo was a perfect case in point: Russia was holding out its hand for billions of dollars in IMF loans (to go along with billions in aid the USA has given) the same week it was issuing threats and warnings regarding our conduct in the Balkans. We need to tell Russia and other recipients that if they want our dime they had better do our dance, at least in matters regarding our national security.
These people need us much more than we need them. We have leverage, and we are crazy not to use it to better advantage”. For USA the lack of human rights prevents consumer development in China. “Why am I concerned with political rights? I’m a good businessman and I can be amazingly unsentimental when I need to be. I also recognize that when it comes down to it, we can’t do much to change a nation’s internal policies. But I’m unwilling to shrug off the mistreatment of China’s citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it clear that China’s current government has contempt for American way of life. We want to trade with China because of the size of its consumer market. But if the regime continues to repress individual freedoms, how many consumers will there really be? Isn’t it inconsistent to compromise our principles by negotiating trade with a country that may not want and cannot afford our goods?
We have to make it absolutely clear that we’re willing to trade with China, but not to trade away our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries that steal from us”.
Outgoing US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping always agreed that their nations’ relationship was the most important in world affairs.
President-elect Trump spent more time on the campaign trail talking about China than anywhere else. Complaining that China is “raping” the United States by its unfair trade practices, Trump has pledged to restore equity to commercial ties. He has also hinted that he might take a fresh look at Washington’s “one China policy,” which acknowledges that Beijing claims Taiwan, but leaves the island’s precise status ambiguous.
Trump said America’s biggest long-term challenge will be China. The Chinese people still have few political rights to speak of. Chinese government leaders, though they concede little, desperately want us to invest in their country. Though we have the upper hand, we’re way to eager to please. We see them as a potential market and we curry favor with them at the expense of our national interests. Our China policy under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese regime by incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but it’s clear that the Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride. Despite the opportunity, I think we need to take a much harder look at China. There are major problems that too many at the highest reaches of business want to overlook, primarily the human-rights situation.
Another potential flashpoint: the South China Sea, which Beijing claims almost in its entirety – along with the islets, reefs, and shoals that dot its waters – in defiance of an international legal ruling this year and of US policy. So far, in its drive to build those reefs into military airstrips, China has stayed below the threshold that might provoke a strong American reaction. But a Trump dispensation could lower that threshold, and show less tolerance for Chinese adventurism.
The Trump government would likely be very confrontational with China. not sure if Americans really appreciate China’s sensitivities or strength; Beijing could do all sorts of things to make life difficult and painful for America. The risk is that a general mood of confrontation between Beijing in Washington could spawn an incident that could get out of hand. “China is our enemy; they’re bilking us for billions” by manipulating and devaluing its currency. I’ve been criticized for calling them our enemy. But what else do you call the people who are destroying your children’s and grandchildren’s future? (Israelis are destroying Palestinians) What name would you prefer me to use for the people who are hell bent on bankrupting our nation, stealing our jobs, who spy on us to steal our technology, who are undermining our currency, and who are ruining our way of life? To my mind, that’s an enemy. Trump said during the campaign: If we’re going to make America number one again, we’ve got to have a president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how to keep them from screwing us at every turn”.
So, under Trump, “it won’t be business as usual,” predicts Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. What kind of business it will be, it’s probably too early to say. But even before he has taken office, Trump’s barrage of tweets and other public comments suggest that he could be ready for a major overhaul of Washington’s China policy.
However, any even worst case scenario, as veto members deciding global issues together with other 3 veto members, they would not come to blows in a military clash, though many specialists do not rule out war, saying: “That is not out of the question.”
USA has built up close tie s with Arab world even while providing a large scale aim package to Israel as a regular free gift in terror goods and money.
Trump said and he must not take sides with Israel the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, so USA can lead negotiations. How can USA neutral when it considers Israel to be America’s closest ally in the Middle East? Trump said “Let me be sort of a neutral guy. I don’t want to say whose fault it is; I don’t think it helps.”
Apparently, President Obama has treated Israel not so horribly as Israel claims. I have very close ties to Israel. Israeli president had said I’ve received the Tree of Life Award and many of the greatest awards given by Israel. He thinks a Palestine and Israeli settlement is a real estate deal. As president, however, there’s nothing that I would rather do to bring peace to Israel and its neighbors generally. And I think it serves no purpose to say that you have a good guy and a bad guy”. It doesn’t do any good to start demeaning the neighbors, because I would love to do something with regard to negotiating peace, finally, for Israel and for their neighbors.
Trump could negotiate a deal with Israel and Palestinians, directly. The Palestinians are not a real estate deal, Donald. A deal is a deal. Let me tell you that. I learned a long time ago. A deal is not a deal when you’re dealing with Zionist state terrorists. Have you ever negotiated with terrorists and criminal Jews? Negotiators have not been able over the years to achieve a credible deal through negotiation with Israel which is not willing for a peace deal in Mideast as that would cripple its control over the region and economy with western nations stopping aid packages. Israel wants the west to treat it as a special category. . It’s very important that we do that. The saddest thing ever seen in “talks” is they never bring peace.
Trump said USA is going to have to hit hard to knock out ISIS. “We’re going to have to learn who our allies are. We have allies, we have no idea who they are in Syria. Do we want to stay that route, or do we want to go and make something with Russia?”
If you look at the threats facing this country, the single gravest threat, national security threat, is the threat of a nuclear Iran. That’s why I’ve pledged on day one to rip to shreds this Iranian nuclear deal. The Iran deal is one of the worst deals I have ever seen negotiated in my entire life. It’s a disgrace that this country negotiated that deal. As far as Syria, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%, and I can’t understand how anybody would be against it. They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He’s going in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people, and a group of countries, including Germany–why are we always doing the work? I’m all for protecting Ukraine–but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren’t doing anything. They say, “Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us.” And we have to get smart. We can’t continue to be the policeman of the world.
We’re going to open the gates to refugees from places like Syria, which is like extending a personal invitation to ISIS members to come live here and try to destroy our country from within. This is America today, the shining city on a hill, which other countries used to admire and try to be like.
Russia’s involvement in Syria reduced the economic burden on USA. Trump welcomed Putin’s involvement in Syria. Trump said USA is going to get bogged down in Syria and if the Pentagon does not learn from Soviet experience in Afghanistan when they went bankrupt, nothing can help Americans. Putin’s also going to get suckered into Syrian conflict. They’re going to get bogged down. Everybody that’s touched the Middle East, they’ve gotten bogged down. Now, Putin wants to go in and I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn’t want ISIS coming into Russia. We’ve spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in Afghanistan. We’re destroying our country. Stop sending aid to countries that hate us. More sanctions on Iran; I don’t trust Putin but the truth is, it’s not a question of trust. I don’t want to see the United States get bogged down.
As for next year’s outlook for world trade, the grease to globalization’s wheels, it is bleak. Some are calling it the end of globalization.
Trade among members of the Group of 20, the leading world economies, has been pretty much stagnant this year. And now a wave of protectionist, anti-trade sentiment is washing over the United States and Europe.
That seems to have put paid to plans for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a putative free-trade deal between the United States and the European Union that has run into strong political headwinds in Europe.
The political climate, with elections due next year in Germany and France, has put TTIP negotiations “on a very long pause,” says Caroline Freund, a trade analyst at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank.
And Trump’s election as US president appears to have sounded the death knell for the Trans Pacific Partnership, a free-trade agreement that had already been agreed on by 12 Pacific rim countries, including the US but not China.
Trump, who has long disdained international trade deals that he says make it easier to offshore US jobs to cheaper locations, has said he will tear up the TPP.
He is also threatening to slap 45 percent tariffs on all Chinese exports to the United States. This could be rhetoric, building up a position in advance of negotiations with Beijing to make China open its market more to US goods and investment.
“The most hopeful outlook is that this works,” says Dr. Freund, “and that instead of a trade war we get some change in China that boosts world trade and the US economy. But I do not think that is particularly likely.”
More probably, she forecasts, China would retaliate big time by canceling orders for Boeing aircraft and buying European instead, or making life even harder than it already is for US companies in China, or drying up the flow of Chinese students who have been flocking to US colleges and filling their coffers for the past decade.
Post-Cold War scenario reflected a switch from chess player to dealmaker in international relations. A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations, and above all, constantly put America’s best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be tough and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning, secretive, focused, and never settles for less than he wants. It’s been a long time since America had a president like that.
Trump said in the modern world you can’t very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. “I was busy making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker”. In the past, two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got Americans through WWII, and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to achieve the first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms.
The Republican said in March that abortions should be illegal and he supported “some form of punishment” for women who had them. His campaign quickly backed down from that statement, however, and asserted that the candidate believed the legality of the procedure should be left up to individual states, with any criminal penalties being reserved for abortion providers.
He has said he supports an abortion ban exception for “rape, incest and the life of the mother”. He has called for defunding Planned Parenthood. As recently as 2000, Mr Trump supported abortion rights but has said that, like Ronald Reagan, he changed his views on the matter.
Obamacare is one of the outgoing president’s signature policies – and Trump has vowed to repeal it. His alternative would give individual states greater control over their health plans, and allow more competition across state lines. With Republicans in command of Congress, revoking Obamacare seems a real possibility. But they could face a backlash from the millions of Americans losing coverage.
Violence and lawlessness is out of control in the US, according to Mr Trump. He says law enforcement agencies are unable to fight crime because of runaway “political correctness” and says they should be allowed to get tough on offenders. He says police profiling is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil. He supports “stop and frisk”, claiming the policy was highly successful in New York, even though many experts disagree. The practice was ruled unconstitutional and a form of “indirect racial profiling” by a federal judge in the city.
Rejecting Republican orthodoxy, Trump has called for six weeks of paid maternity leave, which would amount to what the mother would receive in unemployment benefit. But this would not apply to fathers. There are no details though on how this policy would be paid for.
Trump has blamed some shootings on lax gun laws, saying armed people could have intervened and saved lives. He frequently accused rival Hillary Clinton of wanting to eliminate gun rights during the campaign and promises his supporters that the Second Amendment would be safe.
One of the most important decisions for the next president is shaping the future of the Supreme Court. There is currently one vacancy, but with several justices of retirement age, Trump could have more than one appointment to make, shifting the court to the right for years to come.
Trump has said that the USA is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched uranium to Russia. Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase sanctions. Trump wants to increase sanctions on Iran but add more terror goods to Israel to threaten Palestinians and other regional Arabs. Trump has been sharply critical of the Obama’s handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance with fanatic Israeli PM Netanyahu.
I’ve been all over the world. I’ve dealt with foreign countries. I’ve done tremendously well dealing with China and with many of the countries that are just ripping this country. I would have a good relationship with Putin. Take a look at what happened with their fighter jets circling one of our aircraft in a very dangerous manner. Somebody said less than 10 feet away. This is hostility. Russia wants to defeat ISIS as badly as we do. If we had a relationship with Russia, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could knock the hell out of ISIS?
Putin called Trump a brilliant leader. When he calls me brilliant, I’ll take the compliment. The fact is, look, I’m a negotiator. We’re going to take back our country.
Donald Trump says he supports President Barack Obama’s decision to reengage diplomatically with Cuba. “50 years is enough,” Trump said, referring to Obama’s decision to re-establish U.S. ties with Cuba. “The concept of opening with Cuba is fine.” Trump joins libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul as the only Republican running for president to express his support for normalizing relations with Cuba. The rest of the GOP field has slammed Obama’s decision to reopen the U.S. embassy in Havana and engage diplomatically with the government of Cuba.
By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes USA as largest economy. There is a lot that Obama and his globalist pals don’t want you to know about China’s strength. It’s been predicted that by 2027, China will overtake the United States as the world’s biggest economy–much sooner if the Obama economy’s disastrous trends continue. That means in a handful of years, America will be engulfed by the economic tsunami that is the People’s Republic of China–my guess is by 2016 if we don’t act fast. For the past thirty years, China’s economy has grown an average 9 to 10 percent each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, China’s economy grew a robust 9.7 percent. America’s first quarter growth rate is an embarrassing and humiliating 1.9 percent. It’s a national disgrace.
Trump has criticised the Iraq War (although his claims that he opposed it from the start are unfounded) and other US military action in the Middle East. He has called for closer relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia and says the US must make allies in Europe and Asia shoulder a greater share of the expense for their national defence and emphasizes that US foreign policy must always prioritize American interests.
On the other hand, Trump has also taken a hard-line stance toward combating IS and has even at times asserted the US should commit tens of thousands of ground troops to the fight. He says Nato should do more to combat terrorism in the Middle East, maintaining that the US foots too much of the bill for the Alliance and that other allies should spend more on their own protection.
Once upon a time, Republicans were the party of unfettered free trade. Donald Trump has changed all that. While he says he is not opposed to trade in principle, any trade deals have to protect US industry. He is firmly against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and has said that he will re-open negotiations on already signed pacts, such as the North America Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), and withdraw if US demands are not met. He has accused US trading partners like Mexico and China of unfair trade practices, currency manipulation and intellectual property theft, threatening to unilaterally impose tariffs and other punitive measures if they do not implement reforms.
Trump has issued no position statements on environmental issues on his website. In speeches and debates, however, he has said he opposes what he views as economically damaging environmental regulations backed by “political activists with extreme agendas”. He says he supports clean water and air, but wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency. He has also called man-made climate change “a hoax” and said he would “cancel” the Paris Agreement and other international efforts to address the issue.
Trump wants to create restrictions on lobbyists, by first defining who is a “lobbyist”. Currently, anyone spending less than 20% of their time engaged in lobbying can call themselves an “adviser” or “consultant”. Trump says this is a loophole that must be closed. Trump proposes there be a five-year ban preventing government officials who have recently departed the government from immediately joining lobbying firms. He also wants a lifetime lobbying ban on any former administration officials who have previously worked on behalf of foreign governments. He has called on Congress to change campaign finance laws to stop anyone who lobbies for foreign governments from raising funds for US elections. He has claimed to be “self-funding” his campaign, but has also employed a former hedge fund manager to solicit campaign funds from deep-pocket donors.
This is his signature issue. Despite critics who call it unaffordable and unrealistic, the Republican has stood by his call to build an impenetrable wall along the 2,000-plus-mile US-Mexico border. He has also called for reductions in legal immigration, ending President Barack Obama’s executive actions deferring deportation proceedings for undocumented migrants, and more stringent efforts to reduce the number of these migrants living in the US. The candidate has backed away from earlier calls for the forced deportation of the more than 11 million undocumented migrants living on US soil and temporarily closing the US border to all Muslims – but not dropped them.
Trump has been warning that the US policy of admitting refugees from certain regions – the Middle East or, more generally, Muslim nations – presents a serious threat to US national security. He has attempted to bolster his case by citing often debunked internet rumours, such as the Syrian refugees are largely young, single men. He has called for the US to suspend resettling refugees until “extreme vetting” procedures can be implemented, including ideological tests to screen out extremists. He asserts that nations in the Middle East – which have already received millions of Syrian and Iraqi refugees – must do more to create safe zones for those fleeing the violence.
Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria. I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. Trump would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion. US should not train rebels it does not know or control. The Russians are hitting Assad as well as people we’ve trained. Where they’re hitting people, we’re talking about people that we don’t even know. I was talking to a general two days ago. He said, “We have no idea who these people are. We’re training people. We don’t know who they are. We’re giving them billions of dollars to fight Assad.” I’m not saying Assad’s a good guy, because he’s probably a bad guy. But I’ve watched him interviewed many times. And you can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there– it’s a mess– if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there– it’s a mess– it’s going be same thing.
Better to have Mideast strongmen than Mideast chaos. The Middle East would be better today if Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad were stronger? That the Middle East would be safer? Iraq is a disaster. And ISIS came out of Iraq.
If Saddam and Gaddafi were still in power, things would be more stable, of course it would be. You wouldn’t have had your Benghazi situation, which is one thing, which was just a terrible situation.
At the Nuclear Security Summit, the president was asked for his reaction to Trump’s suggestion that US allies Japan and South Korea manufacture their own nuclear weapons as a defense against North Korean aggression. Obama said the comments “tell us the person who made the statements doesn’t know much about nuclear policy, or the Korean Peninsula or the world generally.” White House aides pointed out that Trump’s policy would reverse decades of bipartisan US foreign policy and would increase nuclear proliferation.
Trump has argued that allowing Japan and South Korea to get the weapons would relieve the US of defending their East Asia allies. Foreign leaders from both countries have dismissed the idea. “You have so many countries already–China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia–you have so many countries right now that have them,” Trump said during a CNN town hall. “Now, wouldn’t you rather, in a certain sense, have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?”
Trump was asked how he would respond to North Korea’s nuclear threat. “I would get China to make that guy disappear in one form or another very quickly,” Trump said. He didn’t clarify whether disappearing was equivalent to being assassinated but said “I mean, this guy’s a bad dude, and don’t underestimate him,” Trump said, referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “Any young guy who can take over from his father with all those generals and everybody else that probably want the position, this is not somebody to be underestimated.” Trump maintained that China has control over North Korea and the US has control over China. They don’t say it, but they do,” Trump explained. “And they should make that problem disappear. China is sucking us dry. They’re taking our money. They’re taking our jobs. We have rebuilt China with what they’ve taken out.”Without China, North Korea doesn’t even eat. China is ripping us on trade. They’re devaluing their currency and they’re killing our companies. We’ve lost between four and seven million jobs because of China. “we have very unfair trade with China. We’re going to have a trade deficit of 505 billion dollars this year with China. I would start taxing goods that come in from China.
Trumps said diplomacy and respect crucial to any relationship with Russia. I’ve been saying relationship is so important in business, that it’s so important in deals, and so important in the country. And if President Obama got along with Putin, that would be a fabulous thing. But they do not get along. Putin does not respect our president. And I’m sure that our president does not like him very much.
With regards to the Iranian nuclear deal: Nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have this maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons and somebody better start thinking about North Korea and perhaps a couple of other places.
Trump and Obama: Shared policy priorities
Although the Obama government has not used the same slogan, it has adopted an America First strategy. Vice President Joe toured Asia in July 2016 as part of the administration’s “rebalance” to Asia. “We’re not doing anyone any favors,” Biden stated, referring to the administration’s special focus on the region. “It’s overwhelmingly in our interest. “We don’t work with other nations as a luxury, or as charity,” Blinken explained.
Apparently, Trump and the Obama have always shared many of the same foreign policy objectives, they intend to ensure that the USA remains the most dominant military power in the world, 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. 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.”
In March 2016, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter presented the basic position of the Obama government saying 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.
Furthermore, Trump has displayed similar commitments on other fundamental issues. Trump has made it clear that he intends to prioritize the interests of the United States above everything else. “America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration,” Trump announced during his campaign. Indeed, Trump insisted that he would base his foreign policy on the premise that the United States should only take actions in the world that work to the advantage of the United States. “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 he adopted an America First strategy. When he recently commented on his decision to commit the United States 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. Currently, Obama said, “the biggest threat when it comes to climate change and pollution is 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 the United States with their pollution.
In fact, the Obama government has been busy working to fulfill its mission. In the time since USA 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 other words, the administration has been bombing the hell out of ISIS.
Observations: Inexperience a plus point or mystery ?
Humanity should be happy with US voters for defeating a dangerously positioned Democratic party, pursuing the aggressive Republican policies as its own, under first ever Black President Obama who is leaving behind a failed foreign policy, very arrogantly, terrorizing Arab world with his drone threats. That is indeed unlike the core principles of Democratic Party. Republican Donald Trump emerged victorious by defeating the formidable Hillary Clinton because Americans are fed up with Democratic regime and Hillary Clinton’s Zionist approach in Mideast.
Obviously, Trump is new phenomenon in US politics as well as world scene in recent times. Earlier, before the World War two, Germany and Italy saw fascist political tendencies tasking roots in national scene and wining the polls and initiating fascist rule. The international experience in fascist trends warns American people who, in order to get rid of Democratic party using Republican war policies, had to vote the Republican Ronald Trump with contractor views on several issues, reminding the world of return of fascism in US poll politics, to power.
Evolution of Trump as a politician is indeed remarkable. Trump’s campaign rhetoric was essentially of a hawkish nature meant to gain votes from American voters who wanted a strong president but after winning the presidency, however, Trump has revised his statements on foreign policy of USA.
Since the signing of the Paris Agreement a year ago, addressing climate change has remained a major imperative for most of the world’s nations. Enough countries quickly ratified the accord so that it entered into force early, in November. Most countries also signed on to two other agreements this fall: one to reduce potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration and another to cap emissions for the aviation industry. President-elect Donald Trump may dismiss the Paris Agreement on Climate but the world that takes the climate crisis. On January 20 the new US President Donald Trump enters a complex web of diplomatic relations, where issues like trade, finance, migration, security, poverty, food aid and disaster relief are all intertwined and all have important links to the climate agenda. It’s a world already dealing with significant climate impacts and sold on climate action.
As the new global leader Trump has to devise his productive polices to promote healthy international order and revise his own misunderstanding on climate change and help the world check and correct climatic disorder. Saying things for votes is one thing in today’s world of anti-Islamism, and Islamophobia and terror wars, but sticking to them could spell disaster to USA and Trump’s chances for second term.
The same is true of Palestine issue as well. His intentions to mend ways with rival Russia would cut Israeli fanaticism to size in a big way and make the ME region and even world over tension free.
Ultimately, the Trump presidency is a grand experiment – the election of a larger-than-life character with a big megaphone and big promises but no experience in government. From beginning to end, it will be a presidency without precedent. Any steps that called current American policy into question “would risk a major confrontation with China,” warns Ms. Glaser. “Beijing is not ready to re-negotiate agreements … that they see as the bedrock of US-China relations.”
As Trump has put it, using the standard language of the foreign policy establishment, his government will mainly be “focusing on creating stability in the world.” President Trump would use the essentially anti-Islamic media to sugarcoat, falsify, distract, intimidate, glorify and massify the millions of people who believed, once upon a recent time, that he would “Make America Great Again.”
It is one thing for Trump to break the mold as a candidate or as president-elect, but quite another as leader of the free world. The questions are nearly endless, ranging from the seemingly stylistic to matters of profound global consequence. Is he really ready to risk a trade war with China? With a pro-nuke US president, is the world indeed heading for a new arms race?
Trump’s situation is unprecedented – the wealthiest person ever to win the presidency, with a global business empire that’s virtually impossible to separate from his dealings as president, at least anytime soon. Trump’s business interests – and those of his children – are another matter, raising serious questions about conflicts of interest and what he must do under the Constitution.
Despite the president-elect’s own political history, at various times identifying as a Democrat, an independent, and a Republican, and to this day, holding some socially liberal views, such as on gender issues, one doubts if Trump could land USA in greater troubles. .
As the first ever Presidential candidate without political experience the showman billionaire Donald Trump had experience neither in state governance nor in foreign policy matters and as such he made statements during the campaign depending on the circumstances knowing that arrogance and aggressive rhetoric would fetch m him more votes that his rival experienced politicians Hillary Clinton. Now after his election, Trump makes statements without any serious thoughts, as usual.
In the end, the outgoing Obama will soon hand over power to a Trump team 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 United States to continue playing an active role in enforcing a system of global order.
Future of Trump’s foreign policy still remains a mystery as the President elect has given out a conflicting signals to the world with his approximant of a pro-Russia American as his foreign minister while appointment of a hard core Zionist as US ambassador to Israel. While in the first case USA is eager to mend ties with Russia, in the second appoint, a further deterioration of Mideast crisis and more problems for the Palestinians even after a Palestine state is established. It is quite likely, in appointing a Zionist American as US diplomat in Tel Aviv, Trump wants to assure the criminal state of Israel the continued military and economic support to Israel, provided Israel agrees and extends full support for the creation of much delayed Palestine state.
Will President Trump let history define Trumpism a terrible disaster the humanity had to endure – worse than Zionism? First, he mist shift his focus from business to people in order to devise polices for the people.
After all, Americans have not elected to White House a nonsensical man! By failing to live up to American expectations, Trump in fact defeats American overs. Hopefully, he won’t do that.
That the president elect has ruled out promoting democracy abroad signals a departure from the US policy of invasions for regime change especially in energy rich Arab nations but however, Israel is left free to promote its own fascist ideology and regime making Palestinians and other Arabs worried about the future of their children in Mideast if Israel continues to dictate its terms to them. US policy for Israel and Mideast would determine if Trump would be different President. Anti-invasion position of Trump could spell a good start for the USA.
January 20 is not far away; nor does Trump’s presidential action. Hopefully President Trump won’t pursue an erratic foreign policy to give chance for Madam Clinton camp to celebrate victory!