Donald Trump, Government, Politics, Society, United States

Political animosity in the United States and the rapidly spiralling fear

UNITED STATES

usa

The U.S. intelligence agencies are sworn to defend America from attack.

Intro: From the outside, it must seem like a script-writer’s dream.

Salacious and unverifiable reports of Donald Trump’s private life have been circulating among US media outlets for some months. US intelligence agencies believed that many of these reports have been sufficiently credible that they chose to brief President Barack Obama and Mr Trump.

Understanding the nature of the accusations is important. The decision by US intelligence has largely been shaped by two factors. The first is the information and credence given to them by federal agencies. The second, that the man in question is the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world, not a private citizen, and that his actions could have a direct impact on all of us.

Mr Trump has now blamed the intelligence agencies for allowing these uncorroborated reports to be leaked to the media, and has compared these actions as being like those of the Nazis in wartime Germany.

What has become a bit lost in the political storm and plethora of everything that is happening is the first admission by Mr Trump that Russia had been behind the hacking attacks on the Democratic Party during the election. Previously, the President-Elect had claimed the intelligence agencies had got these matters wrong and were directly involved in a political witchhunt against him. Sworn to defend America from attack, US intelligence agencies must be bewildered.

From the outside, it must seem like a script-writer’s dream. As the plot deepens – from what sounds much like the subterfuge within a spy novel – where should attention be focussed?

Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson told his Senate confirmation hearing that Russia probably was behind the cyber-attack, that it has pursued military action to further its own interests (in Syria), and that weak US leadership had allowed Russia to become dominant.

As chief executive of Exxon Mobil, the most profitable oil company in the world, Mr Tillerson previously sanctioned multibillion-dollar deals with Russia’s state oil company, Rosneft. He was duly awarded an Order of Friendship by the Kremlin.

Contrasting this against such language used by President-Elect Trump should seem more than trivial. Mr Trump denied all the allegations saying it was ‘phoney stuff’ and only ‘sick people’ could come up with ‘that crap’. He said that CNN was ‘fake news’ and described Islamic State as ‘number one tricky’.

The world would have noticed in President Obama’s farewell speech in Chicago the eloquent tribute he paid to his wife, Michelle. Mr Obama said: ‘You took on a role you didn’t ask for and you made it your own with grace and grit and style and good humour. You made the White House a place that belongs to everybody.’

We should know the difference between rhetoric that inspires optimism as against that of fear and loathing.

Standard
Government, History, Politics, Society, United States

Barack Obama and foreign policy

UNITED STATES

barack-obama

President Obama gave his valedictory speech on Tuesday 10 January, 2017. Despite critics, he has achieved much on foreign policy.

Intro: Critics of Mr Obama’s foreign policy also often fail to acknowledge some of the significant accomplishments the President has achieved

Barack Obama has given his farewell address as US president from McCormick Place in Chicago, the venue for his election victory speech in 2008. This is the first time in US history that a president has returned to his hometown to deliver a valedictory speech to the nation, and Mr Obama vacates office on a seven-year high approval rating of 56 per cent (according to a poll conducted by Gallup).

Traditionally, farewell addresses have represented a legacy-defining opportunity for presidents to set out their accomplishments and by articulating a vision for the future. In many cases, the outgoing head of state has focused in large part upon foreign affairs, especially in the post-war period of US international leadership. This, too, became a central point of Mr Obama’s speech.

Harry Truman, for example, used his address in 1953 to talk about the emergence of the Cold War on his watch. On his departure from presidential office he said not a day had passed which had not been dominated by the conflict between those who love freedom and those who would have us return to the days of slavery and darkness. President Truman also outlined his rationale for using atomic weapons in Japan.

George W Bush defended his foreign policy and wider national security legacy in 2009. Despite approval ratings of just 34 per cent on leaving the White House, Mr Bush included in his triumphs that Afghanistan was no longer ruled by the Taliban. He also cited changes to the US security apparatus that he said contributed to the homeland avoiding attack in the seven years after 9/11.

Referring to some of his controversial calls, including the highly contentious decision to invade Iraq, Mr Bush said that he hoped people would understand that he was willing to take tough decisions.

Mr Obama’s farewell speech has been given at a time when there is rising criticism of his administration after Russia’s successful intervention in Syria to shore up the Assad regime, and the unravelling of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which has caused angst with allies in the Asian Pacific. Critics have asserted that Washington has become significantly diminished on the world stage with weak presidential leadership responsible for the collapse of the TPP.

Others, however, will argue that this is too simplistic. For instance, while Mr Obama has not advanced his Asian “pivot” as fully as he would have hoped, it is actually President-Elect Donald Trump’s opposition to TPP that looks to have consigned the trade deal to history, not the Obama team (which has tried to cultivate it for years).

While Mr Obama has made multiple mistakes in the Middle East, his strategically political decision to downsize the US presence in the region was taken in the context of the mandate he perceived himself to have won after his election victory in 2008 – when a war-weary nation seemed to endorse his call that the Iraq conflict had been a costly mistake, and that the United States was militarily overstretched during the Bush presidency.

Critiques of the Obama doctrine on foreign policy also tend to omit that, whilst the United States is still regarded as the most powerful country in the world – certainly in a military sense – it is not by any means an all-powerful hegemonic power. This core fact has been demonstrated recently in Ukraine and Libya, but was also true of America following Somalia in 1993 and of Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.

Current geopolitical fault lines – where there are no easy, quick fix ways for the U.S. to enforce its policy preferences – are wide and varied. They include tensions with China over territorial claims in the South China Sea; the nuclear stand-off in the Korean peninsula that may yet intensify following impeachment proceedings of South Korea’s president; continuing instability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya; the bleak prospects facing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; and terrorism remaining a significant international concern a decade and a half after 9/11.

Critics of Mr Obama’s foreign policy also often fail to acknowledge some of the significant accomplishments the President has achieved, particularly given the backdrop of the high-risk political and economic landscape in which he has operated. One big positive, for instance, was the leadership taken by the United States in tackling global warming. Mr Obama’s efforts led to the climate change deal agreed in Paris in 2015 which was signed by more than 170 countries. Crucially, the deal will form the basis of a new post-Kyoto framework, essential if global warming is to be properly tackled. The Paris agreement was ratified and came into effect last November.

Another example is the 2014 nuclear deal with Iran and six other powers. The agreement, which Mr Trump has criticised, could enhance global nuclear security, as well as constituting an important win for longstanding efforts to combat nuclear non-proliferation.

Despite the incoming president’s rhetoric, there are many senior Republicans on Capitol Hill, including the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who openly recognise the benefits the nuclear deal with Iran will bring. They are calling for it to be more strictly enforced, rather than being scrapped.

The resetting of relations with Cuba was also instigated on Mr Obama’s watch. In December 2014, the two countries announced they would restore diplomatic relations, and Mr Obama became the first US president to visit the country in 90 years. He announced a new suite of measures that further eroded the bilateral sanctions regime introduced during the Cold War era. The President-Elect has threatened to reverse all progress that has been made with Cuba.

In his speech on exiting the White House, Mr Obama robustly defended his foreign policy record at a time of growing unease and criticism. The outgoing president has achieved significant accomplishments, but, he knows much of his legacy now risks being rolled back. Mr Trump will have a very different vision and agenda to how he sees America shaping the world order.

Standard
Donald Trump, Government, Politics, Society, United States

The 58th presidency of the United States looms

UNITED STATES

donald-trump

President-elect Donald Trump will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017, at the United States Capitol.

Intro: Donald Trump now needs to be presidential. From January 20, what he says and how he acts will soon no longer be a preamble or rehearsal in garnering support.

DONALD TRUMP made some extraordinary pronouncements during the U.S. election campaign. Alongside his current Twitter feed, one which gives insight into his thinking and intentions, Americans will be awaiting his anointment as president with a mounting sense of either delight or dread.

The Trump show will shortly begin. As the most powerful man in the world he will be under the spotlight as never before, holding centre stage, with everyone watching. From January 20, what he says and how he acts will soon no longer be a preamble or rehearsal in garnering support.

Following the announcement in November of his election victory, the president-elect gave a surprising reaction after meeting the man he will replace at the White House.

He spoke of his “great respect” for Mr Obama and said he very much looked forward to taking his counsel in the future.

Fine words, and we should hope they are true. Mr Trump would do well, too, to pay equal deference to the US’s top intelligence officials who have briefed him over Russia’s interference in the presidential election.

Many observers, not just in America, but elsewhere, will have reacted with dismay and disbelief to Mr Trump’s previous attempts to rubbish the case as a political witch hunt by people smarting from being “beaten very badly” in the election. If this is a sign to come, Mr Trump needs to battle against his own instincts.

Being president is entirely different from being a presidential candidate, when the objective – as we have clearly seen – is to discredit your opponents and come out on top.

The Oval Office is all about nurturing allies and building alliances. Whilst the Republicans will hold more of the cards than the Democrats did under the current administration, a position in which Mr Trump is likely to get all his policies enacted, he will soon find out that no one person can do it all.

The new White House communications director Sean Spicer has pledged that the incoming president will listen to intelligence briefings with a “100 per cent” open mind. We trust that will be the case. Mr Spicer implicitly stated that Donald Trump would be prepared to listen and understand how the intelligence services reached their conclusions. He also stressed that a rush to judgment was not in the US’s best interest.

Many will hope that the president-to-be will also take that counsel. Standing up against the establishment and the political machine during the election campaign is one thing, which might win a few votes from the disaffected; but, as president – or more importantly commander in chief – Mr Trump is going to have to work with these people.

Trust will need to go both ways. Otherwise the world will undoubtedly become a more dangerous place.

There have already been many questions over Mr Trump’s relationship with Russia, no more so than the business interests he and other members of his government have there. There is expectation that Mr Trump will do things no previous president has done.

But, he must also understand there are things he has to do and ways he has to act. Mr Trump will have many advisers, though many will wonder whether he can take their advice on important matters of the state.

As global insecurity increases, Mr Trump cannot be allowed to be a loose cannon.

Standard