TRUMP ON THIN ICE

Donald Trump's much publicised overseas trip is, so far, a bit of a washout. We have learnt that he is for peace and against terrorism - well, yes. On the other hand, we have also seen that he is pro-Israel and pro-Saud in a rather un-nuanced way that, if it has any effect at all, will tend to polarise the already bad situation in the Middle East, making it worse rather than better. Identifying Iran as the bad guy in the story does not improve matters.

To push things towards black and white and ignore the thousand shades of grey as though doing so somehow constitutes a solution is neither wise nor helpful. Trump does it, Bush did it, Reagan did it. It seems to be a characteristic especially of Republican presidents. Carter and Obama were different and were both, to an extent, perceived a "weak" for not doing so. The difference with Trump is that he is just as likely to change his mind about what is black and what white at the drop of a hat. This inconsistency makes America more difficult to rely upon and this unreliability is now being further brought into prominence by the leaking of British intelligence about the Manchester bomb attack.

All this leads up to the NATO and G7 meetings where matters of substance should be on the agenda, but probably won't be. Trump will put on a show of being tough by demanding that other NATO countries contribute more to the NATO budget and they will agree to do so and mean it, not so much because Trump has whipped them into line as because, realising that America is less dependable than formerly, they had better look to their own defense. Military budgets in EU counties will increase because they are already scheduled to do so in several cases. This is not a sign of America being tough on its allies, but of the allies being less confident of the alliance.

Things could still go wrong, but there is now a reasonable chance that Trump will arrive back in the USA after a "successful" trip. The "success" will be that he has made no major blunders. This, in turn, will be because his schedule has avoided as far as possible situations where they could occur. The success will, therefore, be largely negative rather than positive. However, as soon as he is back in the USA he will plunge back into the whirlpool of trouble that he left there a few days ago. He will not be welcomed back as the conquering hero that he would like to be. At the moment, it does not look like a happy prospect.

To an extent all this can be put down to inexperience, but one then surely has to ask how it is that the people of the USA, with well over 200 million adults to choose from, come to decide that this is the person to lead their country and to be the most powerful person on the planet. Is it a reflection of the constitution, or of the character of the people? Presumably a bit of both. Americans are supposed to be proud of both, but neither looks so wonderful at the moment. Inasmuch as it is the former, it does not say much for the forceful efforts made to impose American style government on other countries. Inasmuch as it is the latter, what can one say? Perhaps that they are a people more and more divided and less at peace with themselves. This is troubling for America, but it is also troubling for the rest of the world.

You need to be a member of David Brazier at La Ville au Roi (Eleusis) to add comments!

Join David Brazier at La Ville au Roi (Eleusis)

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • The one thing of note at the NATO meeting was Trump's speech demanding that other countries pay more. However, I am inclined to think that the impact that will make a real difference in the medium term is not the money issue so much as Trump's calculatedly arrogant manner, making the other heads of state stand like children while he reprimanded them. People do not take kindly to nor forget this kind of humiliation. I have been predicting for some time that Europe will rearm, but it will not be ultimately for the purpose of making the job of the USA easier, but rather so that Europe can take responsibility for its own defense and do without the USA.

    Trump claims that it is unfair on the American tax payer that the US spends more on military than all the other members of NATO put together, but there is  simple remedy for that which would be for the US to spend less. This suggestion is likely to be met with the retort that the world would then be more dangerous, but this is surely untrue. Half the dangers in the world at the moment are the result of Western (American led) interference in the Middle East. If we had stayed out of the region we would not now have bombings in Manchester nor killings in Paris. The net result of our interference in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere has been to increase the number of deaths, the extent of conflict and the degree of disorder. Many of these wars have been fomented by the Western powers. There is a great train of wreckage in our wake and none of this is going to be healed by selling yet more enormous quantities of arms to Middle Eastern despots.

    However, at the end of the day, it is the spirit of things that is more powerful than the practical measures. As the Taoist classic advises, if one want to be emperor of the world it is no good posing pompously, one must be discrete and subtle. American regimes in the recent past with few exceptions, have become less and less subtle and more and more blatant in asserting their exceptionality and superiority and at some point they are going to run out of goodwill. When that happens it is going to be a difficult day for us all.

This reply was deleted.