The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Donald Trump promised Americans he would make the US great again, a center of a world that is becoming increasingly multipolar, yet the US appears to be withdrawing from the world at an alarming rate.
The US has found itself increasingly alienated from its traditional allies (and some would say vassals) in the EU.
This was likely in no small part due not only to Trump’s unpredictable nature, but to the dangerous US Nationalism and Exceptionalism displayed by administration officials.
The US has withdrawn from the internationally lauded Iran deal, gotten into trade wars with even “close allies” such as Canada, and is generally making radical changes, including withdrawals from international bodies.
Some think the way the US withdraws from treaties is a sign of strength, but many, including Philip Giraldi at the Journal of Strategic Culture, and The Duran’s Frank Sellers feel it is a sign of weakness.
Giraldi in particular, used the example of Trump’s withdrawal from the United Nations 47-member Human Rights Council (UNHRC), as well as the UN cultural body UNESCO, as an example of the US weakening its own influence in the world.
U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley cited the reasons for the withdrawal from the Human Rights Council which were that the U.S. felt the council has “unfairly and critically focused on Israel”. In the same light, Giraldi writes that the US withdrew from UNESCO:
Last October…when the organization named the city of Hebron on the West Bank a Palestinian World Heritage site, which Israel declared to be unacceptable.
There are, in fact, two important things to note here. First of all, the Administration is so clearly following the will of Israel in these two examples, like a slave, rather than an independent state.
I understand, if some would argue, that Israel has long had influence over US policy, this is totally true, the difference is the open, and some would say tactless, way that Trump does not even bother to hide his Israel apologetics.
President Obama, for example, at least attempted to create the illusion of protocol, and US Humanitarianism – even if anyone paying attention realized that Obama was just as much carrying out the Zionist mandate in Syria and the Middle East, as did Bush.
The difference is, Trump is so brazen in this, that he is almost proudly signaling that the real power is in Tel-Aviv, and he is happy to obey Netanyahu’s orders. Perhaps he does not see it this way, but, from an outsider’s perspective, Trump seems to be withdrawing from international bodies – mainly for the sake of Israel’s interests.
And withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council happened along the same lines. To be clear, I find it very odd that a “Human Rights Council” allows Saudi Arabia, where women can be executed for “Witchcraft”, to be a member.
I am not a “hater” of President Trump, nor a lover of globalism, or a person obsessed with the UN. The fact still remains, nations, including Russia, participate with international bodies, first and foremost, because it is the civilized thing to do. That is what the majority of the earth’s states do.
There are some things, for example, wearing a suit and tie to formal events, that politicians simply do, because it is expected, and in line with universal tradition. Indeed, powerful trendsetting Empires can build their own rules and tradition, but only when proper leverage exists.
When the US withdraws from an organization, and everyone else remains a part of it, it does not appear like the US is strong, it appears that the adults are conducting diplomacy, while someone is crying in the corner that people don’t respect their authority.
Another reason it would be in the interest of the US, to participate with the world, is that it would grant the US a platform to spread its voice. This is not something that matters to me, I have heard enough war-mongering, but for the US, and any person really, it is important to have your voice heard.
Instead, the US withdraws because they feel Israel isn’t being respected – which should have no bearing on the US. From a political perspective, the only reason to leave an important organization only because an ally leaves, is if that ally is actually your overlord, and you are their vassal.
As the US withdraws from the world, Ron Paul feels US influence is waning.
When someone looks at the map of UNESCO members, and sees those in green, who are members, and those in orange, who are not, they don’t say: “Wow…those countries who left are brave trendsetters!” they would instead say “Wow, those countries are really isolated from the rest of the world.”
It is somewhat like failing to embrace the far superior and scientific Metric System, which the entirety of the civilized world uses, and instead, using a primitive and backward measurement system that the rest of the world can’t be bothered to learn. What would prompt people to do that?
It is almost juvenile.
Speaking of juvenile actions, look at how Niki Haley responded to this question, as to whether or not the US is simply blocking Palestinian appointments simply because they are Palestinian.
“Is it this administration’s position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?” A journalist asked. Haley responded yes, that the administration is “supporting Israel” by blocking every Palestinian.
Blocking members of a certain race from joining an international body is meant to promote peace, because you support a group which is bombing and killing them. How very racist.
Complete withdrawal from the United Nations is not unthinkable in the current climate, though the Democrats and some moderate Republicans would no doubt strongly resist such a move. In my opinion, the United Nations is a dystopian mess but it is better to have it than not as it provides a forum where nations that otherwise cannot meet are able too do so and discuss transnational issues. And it should be conceded that the U.N.’s inability to actually function is largely both structural and bureaucratic due to the veto power given to the Security Council’s five permanent members, a function that Nikki Haley has repeatedly used to stop resolutions that might be offensive to the United States or Israel…
Beyond that, Haley’s constant citation of concern for Israel gives strength to the suggestion that there is something unnatural about its bilateral “special” relationship with the United States. In the Middle East in particular, Israel would seem to be driving U.S. policy, particularly vis-à-vis Syria, Lebanon and Iran.
Israel is intent on continuing political chaos in Syria lest there be a threat to its continued occupation of the Golan Heights and has warned about possible preemptive action in Lebanon to punish Hezbollah. It also wants the United States to deal decisively with Iran. By all accounts, those agendas are proceeding very well as Washington has been regularly threatening Iran and last week vowed to take military action if Damascus seeks to recover territory in the Syrian southwest that until recently was held by terrorists.
It is difficult to discern what the joint United States-Israeli strategy might be towards the United Nations and other international bodies. Neither has recognized the authority of the International Criminal Court in The Hague for fear that its own senior officials might be arrested and tried for war crimes.
To be sure, both countries are protected against any serious challenges in the U.N. itself by the American veto power over the Security Council, which alone has the authority to mandate sanctions or peacekeeping operations.
But the U.S. withdrawal from U.N. agencies is, if anything, a sign of weakness rather than strength. If Washington were indeed confident in its own brand of international leadership it would welcome the opportunity to sit on panels and help shape the views of other countries with which it has a politically neutral or adversarial relationships. That it does not choose to do so suggests that there is an understanding that what Washington is selling no one is buying.
The complete isolation of the United States at the United Nations and also elsewhere, to include G-7, was exhibited recently during June 1st votes at the U.N. Security Council. A resolution sponsored by Kuwait seeking an inquiry into the Israeli killing of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza and a motion by Haley seeking to blame Hamas for the deaths both were voted on.
Haley’s was the only vote against the former and the only vote in favor of the latter. She predictably commented afterwards that “Further proof was not needed, but it is now completely clear that the U.N. is hopelessly biased against Israel.”
In conclusion, Trump said he would make America great again, but it seems many of his policies are making the nation more isolated. This is emphasized in the way Trump seems to prefer bilateral agreements, over international treaties.
He is the legendary “deal maker”, he thinks everything is negotiable, there is always a deal to be cut. This is a product of capitalism, where everything, including culture, values, and morals, is for sale, for the right price.
Trump and his supporters often feel the way he summarily and unilaterally withdraws from treaties, cancels meetings, and handles bilateral negotiations are a sign of strength. They say he is showing his strength when he cancels his North Korean meetings, or Iran deals, and in the short term, this is true. It is a good tactic, especially as the CEO of a company, but a terrible strategy for a statesman.
Indeed, Trump is displaying strength on a bilateral level, but when he makes these “tough decisions” and breaks agreements, he seems like an unreliable partner and an unstable player. World leaders say “We can’t deal with this!”
Trump’s strategies worked well in business, no one doubts his business skills, but one thing fiscal conservatives always fail to realize is, being a good businessman, and good at running a company, does not guarantee you can run an economy, much less a country.
In order to run a nation, you must be a strong leader with a great will, prepared to guide the masses to greatness and defend the interests of the state. You must also be compassionate, reliable, and responsible, like Putin. Everyone knows when Putin says something, he means it.
To run a nation, you must care about your fellow people, and to conduct international diplomacy, you must care about the world.
In business, to be a truly powerful business person, you don’t care about others. The capitalistic mindset does not teach one to be concerned for the well being of humanity, but rather to use and manipulate everything around you to achieve your own wealth, your own power, your own success. It is all about the individual.
Diplomacy, is, however, all about the collective.
Trump may win battles via his deals, as he is a skilled business person and negotiator, but you can’t conduct international diplomacy with the mentality of bilateral deals.
You may appear tough, and that toughness may grant you a win dealing with one individual, but if the international community sees how you act, and considers you unreliable or unpredictable, they may choose to make deals with or without you, or with your enemies.
This is a man who once joked that he could shoot a person and still win an election. Of course, he was joking! But those kinds of immature jokes, as well as his misogynistic and immoral remarks demeaning women do not distinguish a statesmen.
Likewise, after meeting Kim Jong Un, he casually said he trusts him, and if things go wrong? Look at how he addressed this possibility, when he said:
“I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘Hey I was wrong.’
That was not the worst part, the part that was so ridiculous. That was when he casually paused and with a joking tone, said immediately after:
“I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse.”
I will admit, when I heard that, I laughed hysterically. It’s so Trump. That is the kind of joke that a friend can make, and would cause a person to laugh. But that is not how a leader should talk. He is openly parodying the fact, that he won’t take responsibility for his actions.
I am a simple Russian Orthodox Christian, not a brilliant political analyst, so perhaps I do not understand the complexity of 4D Chess, as some call it, but to the eyes of a simple person, the ability to take responsibility for your actions and not make excuses are an important trait that children must learn, let alone someone who commands several thousand nuclear warheads.
Even if it’s a joke, it is a joke that is totally irresponsible and unpresidential, hilarious, yes, but not the way of a statesman.
I wish to stress that I do not wish to hate on President Trump, he is WORLDS better than insane war-mongering Hillary, who has not found a war she does not support. I am only disappointed, when I feel his behavior reminds me of the globalists many believed he would resist. When he bombs countries like Syria, who did nothing wrong, and blatantly supports Zionism, which kills innocent people.
I simply want to live in a world, where all nations, Russia, the Middle Eastern nations, the USA, the EU states, China and the Far East can finally live in peace. I fear that Trump, however intentional or unintentional, does not inspire in world leaders or people that he will reasonably achieve this.
This is what Trump does not seem to understand. He is a powerful dealmaker, tough in a one on one situation, but his aforementioned style also scares away foreign leaders on the international level. It isolates the US, while driving division among the nations of the earth.
People are beginning to wonder, is Trump making the US great, or simply irrelevant, again?