Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

The Trump – Putin call: summary and analysis

“Businesslike and substantive call” between the leaders of the US and Russia

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

8,541 Views

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin – blocked by the US bureaucracy from having a proper meeting with each other at the APEC summit in Vietnam – have instead had the detailed discussion they wanted with each other by telephone.

That is the conclusion one must draw from the unusually detailed summary of this conversation which has been provided by the Kremlin’s website

As agreed in advance, Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the United States of America Donald Trump.

Current Syrian issues, in view of the military operation to destroy terrorists in Syria which is winding down, were thoroughly discussed. Vladimir Putin stressed Russia’s willingness to actively facilitate a durable political settlement in that country on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and in keeping with the agreements reached as part of the Astana meetings and the provisions of the Joint Statement approved by the presidents of Russia and the United States on November 11 at the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Vietnam. It was noted, in particular, that this statement met with a positive reaction in the Middle East.

There was discussion of the need to preserve the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria, and to achieve a political settlement on the basis of principles that must be worked out as a result of the broadest possible intra-Syrian negotiation process. This is precisely the aim of Russia’s initiative to hold the National Dialogue Conference in Sochi soon.

Vladimir Putin informed Donald Trump about the main outcomes of the November 20 meeting with Bashar al-Assad, where the Syrian leader reaffirmed his commitment to the political process, constitutional reform, and presidential and parliamentary elections. In addition, emphasis was placed on the upcoming trilateral talks in Sochi on November 22 with the participation of the presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey, during which steps to further normalise the situation in Syria and various aspects of the political settlement process are to be coordinated.

More broadly, the President of Russia once again spoke in favour of joint antiterrorist efforts with the United States, noting the practical importance of coordinating efforts between the special services of both countries. The US President was supportive of this idea.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump also exchanged views on the current state of affairs on the Korean Peninsula, emphasising that it would be advisable to find a negotiated solution to the problem by diplomatic means.

Regarding the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the President of Russia pointed to the lack of a real alternative to unconditional compliance with the Minsk agreements of February 12, 2015.

The two leaders touched on the situation in Afghanistan, which is of concern due to the growing terrorist and drug trafficking threats.

The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme was also discussed. Russia’s commitment to full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was noted, as it is an essential factor in ensuring regional stability and overcoming the challenge of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Both sides expressed satisfaction with the businesslike and substantive conversation.

The Kremlin says the conversation was “agreed in advance”.  One would like to know when and by whom?

My guess is that Trump and Putin agreed it during one of their short encounters at the APEC summit, when they realised that a proper summit between them was being blocked.  If so then the conversation is the fruit of their encounters at the APEC summit.

The conversation covered an unusually wide range of issues:

Syria

This was unquestionably the most important topic discussed, and the one which would have taken up the most time.

The Russians are very much at the forefront of the Syrian negotiations, having together with the Iranians effectively won the war in Syria for President Assad.

That has put the Russians in a position of great strength, which they could in theory use to dictate the terms of the settlement at the forthcoming negotiations whilst seeking to exclude the US.

Had positions been reversed, and had the US found itself in such a position of advantage, it is a certainty that it would be not be involving the Russians in the negotiations.  The US after all did not involve the Russians in the negotiations which followed the US “victories” in the 2003 Iraqi war and the 2011 Libyan war.

The Russian approach is the diametric opposite.  Instead of seeking to exclude the US from the negotiations Putin briefed Trump fully on his discussions with President Assad – someone who remains persona non grata for the US and for Donald Trump himself – and set out for Trump the Russian approach to the negotiations.

In doing so Putin followed the classic Russian approach of carefully setting out for Trump the list of international agreements the Russians have negotiated and which they are using as the building blocks of the negotiations.

UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and in keeping with the agreements reached as part of the Astana meetings and the provisions of the Joint Statement approved by the presidents of Russia and the United States on November 11 at the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Vietnam.

Of these the most important for Trump is the Joint Statement he made with Putin at the APEC summit in Vietnam.

Trump was not involved in the earlier agreements, but will feel that he has ownership of the Joint Statement, and by agreeing to it at the APEC summit and by referring to it in his telephone conversation with Trump, Putin is giving Trump a reason to feel that he is an actual participant in the negotiations and is not just a bystander.

In reality the most important of the agreements Putin referred to during the conversation is UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council on 18th December 2015 following lengthy negotiations between Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and US Secretary of State Kerry.

The full text of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 can be found here.

Why is it so important to Putin and the Russians to involve Trump in the negotiations?  The clue to that can be found in the topics which were discussed.  For example Putin used the conversation to reaffirm to Trump

the need to preserve the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria

(bold italics added)

This language is taken directly from the preamble of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which reads as follow

Reaffirming  [the UN Security Council’s] strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic

(bold italics added)

What lies behind this is Russian concern about what I recently called the US’s Plan C: the attempt by some in the US to maintain US influence in Syria by carving out a quasi independent Kurdish statelet in northern Syria.

Plan C is already in serious trouble as a result of the defeat of the Kurds in Kirkuk by the Iraqi army. However Putin used the telephone conversation to remind Trump that Plan C – because it threatens Syria’s territorial integrity – is incompatible with the commitments the US previously took on itself when it negotiated and voted for UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Putin also used the conversation with Trump to remind Trump of his longstanding proposal – made most famously in his September 2015 UN General Assembly Speech – for a joint struggle by the US and Russia against Jihadi terrorism.

Trump has been consistently receptive to this idea – the Kremlin’s summary says he was “supportive of this idea” – but it has been consistently blocked by the US bureaucracy including especially the Pentagon.

For Putin the attraction of this proposal is not just that such a joint struggle will facilitate the global struggle against terrorism – something Putin cares about as much as Trump does – but because such a joint struggle might provide a tie between the US and Russia which might reverse the downward spiral in US-Russian relations.

Whilst Trump is “supportive of the idea” it remains to be seen whether the resistance to in Washington can be overcome.

In summary, Putin is keeping Trump informed of Russia’s Syrian diplomacy in order to limit as far as possible the danger of the US acting as a spoiler.  The idea is to get Trump to think that the US has some ownership over the eventual outcome, so that it does not act to wreck it.

At the same time Putin hopes to use this as a bridge towards improving relations.

Whether given the pathological hostility to Russia in the US these efforts can be successful is another matter.  However Putin doubtless feels that by trying he is doing his job.

Korea

The Kremlin’s summary tells us little about the discussion on the Korean issue, which suggests that this part of the conversation may have been brief.

It is quite likely that it was Trump who initiated this part of the conversation since he has made achieving a settlement of the North Korean issue the central focus of his foreign policy.

Putin will no doubt have sought an explanation from Trump of Trump’s recent decision to put North Korea back on the list of states sponsoring terrorism, and he will also have sought reassurances from Trump that the recent US fleet and troop movements near North Korea are not intended to set the scene for US military action.

Putin will also have briefed Trump about Russia’s recent negotiations with the North Korean diplomat Choe Son Hui, and he will no doubt have reminded Trump of the Chinese-Russian proposal for a double-freeze.

Trump for his part will no doubt have sought – and received – reassurances from Putin that Russia will enforce the sanctions the UN Security Council has recently imposed on North Korea following that country’s intercontinental ballistic missile and hydrogen bomb tests.

Ukraine

Donald Trump hinted during the 2016 election campaign that for him the conflict in Ukraine came close to the bottom of his list of foreign policy priorities.  However he has encountered fierce resistance from his bureaucracy, which continues to be committed to Ukraine, and which continues to use the conflict there to mobilise opposition to Russia in Europe.

Recently hardliners in the US have been floating proposals to send weapons – notably Javelin anti-tank missiles – to Ukraine, whilst an article in the Wall Street Journal suggested that some US officials were trying to pressure the Russians into agreeing to a force of 20,000 “peacekeepers” to restore the Donbass to Ukrainian control.

Needless to say the Russians have emphatically rejected both proposals, and Putin followed this up by taking the unprecedented step of telephoning Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky – the leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics – and having details of this call posted on the Kremlin’s website in what was clearly intended as a show of support.

The proposals to flood the Donbass with ‘peacekeepers’ and to send arms to Ukraine are actually inconsistent with the February 2015 Minsk Agreement as the Russians never tire of pointing out, and the Kremlin’s summary of Putin’s conversation with Trump shows that Putin used the opportunity provided by the call to point this out to him

Regarding the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the President of Russia pointed to the lack of a real alternative to unconditional compliance with the Minsk agreements of February 12, 2015.

My impression is that Trump is not interested in the conflict in Ukraine, in which he rightly sees no national or security interest for the US.  Left to himself he would probably gladly walk away from it, as would many of those who supported him in the 2016 election.

With the Russiagate affair still ongoing, that is politically impossible.

What that means in practical terms is that Trump will have listened to what Putin had to say and will have taken note of it, but this will have no immediate effect on US policy.

If Trump is one day able to put Russiagate behind him and consolidate his position in Washington that may change.  However that is not the situation now.

Afghanistan

The last few months have witnessed a drumbeat of accusations in the US that the Russians are covertly assisting the Taliban by sending arms and economic aid to them.  The Russians categorically deny these accusations, though they admit to holding talks with the Taliban who they are gradually coming to see as a bulwark against the spread of ISIS to Afghanistan.

The Kremlin’s summary suggests that the part of the telephone conversation between Trump and Putin which touched on Afghanistan was brief, and that these accusations were not discussed in any detail if they were discussed at all

The two leaders touched on the situation in Afghanistan, which is of concern due to the growing terrorist and drug trafficking threats.

The reference to “drug trafficking threats” possibly refers to the longstanding Russian complaint that the US is not doing enough to suppress heroin production and trafficking in Afghanistan.  A large part of this heroin is transported across Russia to Europe, causing a serious heroin problem in Russia, and the Russians have been placing the blame for this on the blind eye that they say that the US has been turning to heroin production in Afghanistan.

It is quite likely that Putin raised this issue with Trump whilst repeating Russia’s concern that ISIS, as it is being driven out of Syria and Iraq, is now starting to gain a foothold in Afghanistan.

Though these are concerns Trump is known to share, the terse part of the Kremlin’s summary of this section of their conversation makes it impossible to say what his reaction was.

It is not impossible that the reason this part of the summary is so terse is because there were disagreements, which the Kremlin does not want to publicise.

Iran

On the subject of Iran, Trump and Putin have diametrically opposite views.

Trump sees Iran as a hotbed of terrorism; Putin sees Iran as Russia’s strategic partner and ally in the struggle against terrorism.

Trump considers the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) which placed limits on Iran’s nuclear programme a “bad deal”, and has recently decertified Iran because of its supposed breaches of it.

Putin unequivocally supports the JCPOA and denies that Iran has committed any breaches of it.

The Kremlin’s summary makes no effort to hide the disagreement

Russia’s commitment to full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was noted, as it is an essential factor in ensuring regional stability and overcoming the challenge of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

No word is said here of what opinions Trump expressed, though it is a certainty they were the opposite of the ones held by Putin and Russia.  Doubtless Trump and Putin had a forthright exchange of opinions on this issue.

General

Unusually, the Kremlin website tells us something of the atmosphere of the call.

Both sides expressed satisfaction with the businesslike and substantive conversation.

It is a commonplace in the US and Europe that Donald Trump is terrible at diplomacy.

In reality his interactions with world leaders during his recent Asia tour and his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping tell a different story.

Though Trump is extremely inexperienced and many of his ideas about foreign policy are frankly amateur, he nonetheless comes across as warm and approachable in a way that his cold and aloof predecessor Barack Obama never did.

The result is that other world leaders – especially those outside Europe – like him in a way that they never liked Barack Obama, and are prepared to cut him slack, even when they disagree with him.

That suggests that if the US bureaucracy was prepared to work with Trump and not against him, and instead of seeking to undermine him at every turn sought to help him gain the experience and understanding of world affairs he needs to do his job, then he could in time become an extremely effective foreign policy President.

Trump’s interactions with Xi Jinping and Putin are cases in point.  As the leaders of the two other Great Powers they are the two most important individuals in the world with whom the US and its President must deal.

Trump seems to understand this, and despite a catalogue of misunderstandings he seems to be gradually edging towards a better understanding of the Chinese leader.  As for Putin, Trump’s few interactions with him at a personal level have always gone well.  The “businesslike and substantive” telephone conversation he has just had with Putin is a case in point.

As for Putin, his conversation with Trump was just part of a day’s work.  That day was extremely busy.  As well as the conversation with Trump, Putin had meetings with President Assad of Syria and President Zeman of the Czech Republic, and also had telephone conversations with President Sisi of Egypt, King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel.  Today (22nd November 2017) he will be meeting President Erdogan of Turkey and President Rouhani of Iran.

It will take many years of hard learning and hard work before Donald Trump can conduct diplomacy at that sort of pace.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

May Forces Brexit Betrayal to its Crisis Point

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote. 

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


The only words that were left out of Theresa May’s announcement of achieving Cabinet approval over her Brexit deal were Mission Accomplished.

Theresa May was put in charge of the U.K. to betray Brexit from the beginning.  She always represented the interests of the European Union and those in British Parliament that backed remaining in the EU.

No one in British ‘high society’ wanted Brexit to pass.   No. One.

No one in Europe’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

No one in the U.S.’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

When it did pass The Davos Crowd began the process of sabotaging it.  The fear mongering has done nothing but intensify.  And May has done nothing but waffle back and forth, walking the political tight rope to remain in power while trying to sell EU slavery to the both sides in British Parliament.

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote.  Why?

Because Theresa May’s 585 page ‘deal’ is the worst of all possible outcomes.  If it passes it will leave the EU with near full control over British trade and tax policy while the British people and government have no say or vote in the matter.

It’s punishment for the people getting uppity about their future and wanting something different than what had been planned for them.

Mr. Juncker and his replacement will never have to suffer another one of Nigel Farage’s vicious farragoes detailing their venality ever again.  YouTube will get a whole lot less interesting.

It’s almost like this whole charade was designed this way.

Because it was.

May has tried to run out the clock and scare everyone into accepting a deal that is worse than the situation pre-Brexit because somehow a terrible deal is better than no deal.  But, that’s the opposite of the truth.

And she knows it.  She’s always known it but she’s gone into these negotiations like the fragile wisp of a thing she truly is.

There’s a reason I call her “The Gypsum Lady.” She’s simply the opposite of Margaret Thatcher who always knew what the EU was about and fought to her last political breath to avoid the trap the U.K. is now caught in.

The U.K. has had all of the leverage in Brexit talks but May has gone out of her way to not use any of it while the feckless and evil vampires in Europe purposefully complicate issues which are the height of irrelevancy.

She has caved on every issue to the point of further eroding what’s left of British sovereignty.  This deal leaves the U.K. at the mercy of Latvia or Greece in negotiating any trade agreement with Canada.  Because for a deal between member states to be approved, all members have to approve of it.

So, yeah, great job Mrs. May.  Mission Accomplished.  They are popping champagne corks in Brussels now.

But, this is a Brexit people can be proud of.

Orwell would be proud of Theresa May for this one.

You people are leaving.  Let the EU worry about controlling their borders.  And if Ireland doesn’t like the diktats coming from Brussels than they can decide for themselves if staying in the EU is worth the trouble.

The entire Irish border issue is simply not May’s problem to solve.  Neither is the customs union or any of the other stuff.  These are the EU’s problems.   They are the ones who don’t want the Brits to leave.

Let them figure out how they are going to trade with the U.K.  It is so obvious that this entire Brexit ‘negotiation’ is about protecting the European project as a proxy for the right of German automakers to export their cars at advantageous exchange rates to the U.K. at everyone’s expense.

Same as it was in the days of The Iron Lady.

If all of this wasn’t so predictable it would be comical.

Because the only people more useless than Theresa May are the Tories who care only about keeping their current level of the perks of office.

The biggest takeaway from this Brexit fiasco is that even more people will check out of the political system. They will see it even more clearly for what it is, an irredeemable miasma of pelf and privilege that has zero interest in protecting the rights of its citizens or the value of their labor.

It doesn’t matter if it’s voter fraud in the U.S. or a drawn out betrayal of a binding referendum. There comes a point where those not at the political fringes look behind the veil and realize changing the nameplate above the door doesn’t change the policy.

And once they realize that confidence fails and systems collapse.

Brexit was the last gasp of a dying empire to assert its national relevancy.  Even if this deal is rejected by parliament the process has sown deep divisions which will lead to the next trap and the next and the next and the next.

By then Theresa May will be a distant memory, being properly rewarded by her masters for a job very well done.


Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The DOJ Is Preparing To Indict Julian Assange

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The US Justice Department is preparing to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which, after sensitive international negotiations, would likely trigger his extradition to the United States to stand trial, according to the Wall Street Journalciting people in Washington familiar with the matter.

Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.

The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information. –WSJ

In short, the DOJ doesn’t appear to have a clear charge against Assange yet. Then there’s the optics of dragging Assange out of Ecuador’s London Embassy and into the United States, then prosecuting him, and if successful – jailing him.

Prosecuting someone for publishing truthful information would set a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said Assange lawyer Barry Pollack – who says he hasn’t heard anything about a US prosecution.

“We have heard nothing from authorities suggesting that a criminal case against Mr. Assange is imminent,” he added.

Moreover, assuming that even if the DOJ could mount a case, they would be required to prove that Russia was the source of a trove of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released in the last few months of the 2016 election.

An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Mr. Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Mr. Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. –WSJ

It’s no secret that Assange and Hillary Clinton aren’t exactly exchanging Christmas cards, however would WikiLeaks’ release of damaging information that was hacked (or copied locally on a thumb drive by a well-meaning American), be illegal for Assange as a publisher?

Despite scant clues as to how the DOJ will prosecute Assange aside from rumors that it has to do with the Espionage Act, the US Government is cooking on something. John Demers – head of the DOJ’s national security division, said last week regarding an Assange case: “On that, I’ll just say, we’ll see.”

The U.S. hasn’t publicly commented on whether it has made, or plans to make, any extradition request. Any extradition request from the U.S. would likely go to British authorities, who have an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Assange related to a Swedish sexual assault case. Sweden has since dropped the probe, but the arrest warrant stands.

Any extradition and prosecution would involve multiple sensitive negotiations within the U.S. government and with other countries. –WSJ

Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice beginning under the Obama administration has drawn a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations – with former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange’s organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.

US officials have given mixed messages over Assange, with President Trump having said during the 2016 election “I love WikiLeaks,” only to have his former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo label WikiLeaks akin to a foreign “hostile intelligence service” and a US adversary. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange, meanwhile, has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno – who called the WikiLeaks founder a “stone in our shoe,” adding that Assange’s stay at the London embassy is unsustainable.

Ecuador has been looking to improve relations with the U.S., hosting Vice President Mike Pence in 2018 amid interest in increasing trade.

Ecuador’s Foreign Relations Ministry declined to comment. This month, Foreign Relations Minister José Valencia told a radio station the government hadn’t received an extradition request for Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange has clashed with his Ecuadorean hosts in over internet access, visitors, his cat and other issues. Last month, he sued Ecuador over the conditions of his confinement. At a hearing last month, at which a judge rejected Mr. Assange’s claims, Mr. Assange said he expected to be forced out of the embassy soon.  –WSJ

Assange and Ecuador seem to have worked things out for the time being; with his months-long communication blackout mostly lifted (with strict rules against Assange participating in political activities that would affect Ecuador’s international relations). Assange is now allowed Wi-Fi, but has to foot the bill for his own phone calls and other communication.

In October, a judge threw out a lawsuit Assange filed against Ecuador from implementing the stricter rules,.

“Ecuador hasn’t violated the rights of anyone,” Attorney General Íñigo Salvador said after the court ruling. “It has provided asylum to Mr. Assange, and he should comply with the rules to live harmoniously inside Ecuador’s public installations in London.”Assange’s attorneys say he will appeal the ruling – however it may be a moot point if he’s dragged into a US courtroom sooner than later.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller:


President Macron’s protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France’s WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

“He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland.”

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the “appetite of vice.”

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron’s words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism’s grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a “nationalist.” Though the fault is with us, not him.

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism … By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,’ we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,” President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for “politicizing” such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn’t a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce,so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism — as opposed to nationalism — seeks to impose a nation’s way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

” … It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe’s] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered “ordinary vicissitudes”, but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today’s imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation’s natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China’s designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity’s instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States’ founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are “granted” their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, “As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count”.

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism – or nationism, if you will – therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history. Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one’s own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism’s could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, “these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order,” then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending