Don­ald Trump: Most Con­tro­ver­sial Pres­i­dent Ever?

Weekend Mirror - - FRONT PAGE - By Don­ald Ramo­tar

Don­ald

Trump seems cer­tain to go down in his­tory as one of the most con­tro­ver­sial Pres­i­dents in the his­tory of the United States. His in­au­gu­ra­tion on Jan­uary 20th has not qui­eted the con­tro­versy he has evoked since he won the elec­tions.

In­deed, it ap­pears to have es­ca­lated.

No other Pres­i­dent in the his­tory of the United States has been met with such ve­he­mence in the form of na­tion­wide demon­stra­tions and marches at the very be­gin­ning of their pres­i­dency.

That op­po­si­tion has come be­cause the new Pres­i­dent, dur­ing the cam­paign, as Pres­i­dent-Elect and now as Pres­i­dent, made some strong anti- es­tab­lish­ment pro­nounce­ments.

His con­stant at­tacks on the main­stream me­dia pushed them to be ex­tremely ag­gres­sive to him. The ‘fighter’ in Trump made him re­act strongly to them and this has made the sit­u­a­tion more tense.

We should not al­low these con­tro­ver­sies to cloud an ob­jec­tive as­sess­ment of what seems good in his po­si­tions and what ap­pears to be bad.

We can surely find both in him. In his in­ter­na­tional poli­cies, we can see much that will cre­ate dif­fi­cul­ties for the world if he im­ple­ments them.

One such po­si­tion is his at­ti­tude to China.

China is no pushover. It is the sec­ond largest econ­omy in the world and is still amongst the fastest grow­ing coun­tries. Any trade dis­pute with China will cer­tainly have an im­pact on the rest of the world. It is pos­si­ble that the U.S it­self can be se­ri­ously hurt by such a pol­icy. In this case, it is hoped that the new Pres­i­dent will re­think his po­si­tion.

A trade war be­tween with these two eco­nomic giants will not ben­e­fit any­one. Third World coun­tries will be cer­tainly be neg­a­tively af­fected.

His pol­icy to­wards the agree­ment that Pres­i­dent Obama reached with Iran is also trou­bling. This is an ex­cel­lent ac­cord for both coun­tries and for Trump to now change that po­si­tion could very well push Iran to­wards re-de­vel­op­ing nu­clear weapons.

If he car­ries out that threat, he will be cre­at­ing more ten­sions in that al­ready trou­bled part of the world.

Pres­i­dent Trump would be well ad­vised to stick to the com­mit­ments his pre­de­ces­sor made.

Still in the Mid­dle East, his pol­icy on the Is­rael/ Pales­tinian con­flict will greatly heighten ten­sions in that area.

To agree to move the U.S em­bassy to Jerusalem is a de facto recognition of that city as the cap­i­tal of Is­rael. That would be un­ac­cept­able to the Pales­tini­ans and could lead to an­other ex­plo­sion there.

Such a move would also be an­other nail in the cof­fin of a twoS­tate so­lu­tion, which can only lead to more con­flicts that can spill over to other coun­tries and fur­ther com­pli­cate the sit­u­a­tion in that deeply trou­bled part of the world.

His pro­nounce­ment on Cuba is also wor­ry­ing. The great gains made by Pres­i­dent Obama in turn­ing a new page in Cuba/U.S re­la­tions could be un­done if Trump im­ple­ments his stated po­si­tion on Cuba.

The afore­men­tioned are just some of the ma­jor ar­eas that could be lead to de­te­ri­o­ra­tion in the se­cu­rity of our world if Pres­i­dent Trump has his way.

How­ever, Pres­i­dent Trump has po­si­tions that can lead to greater sta­bil­ity and se­cu­rity as well.

His pol­icy to­wards Rus­sia is sen­si­ble and it is what is re­quired at this time. Af­ter all, Rus­sia and the U.S both pos­sess a vast amount of nu­clear weapons. They are not only ca­pa­ble of de­stroy­ing each other, but the en­tire world. There­fore, good re­la­tions be­tween these two coun­tries are ex­tremely im­por­tant to the pro­mo­tion of world peace, sta­bil­ity and pros­per­ity.

What is of con­cern, how­ever, is the op­po­si­tion Trump is faced with to push him away from hav­ing bet­ter re­la­tions with Rus­sia. The pres­sure is be­ing heav­ily ap­plied by the main­stream me­dia, who have sub­sti­tuted the ‘Com­mu­nist bo­gey’ for the ‘Rus­sian bo­gey.’ This is the a re­flec­tion of the link be­tween the mil­i­tary in­dus­trial com­plex and the main­stream me­dia.

We have seen the in­tel­li­gence com­mu­nity ap­ply­ing their own pres­sure, most likely to jus­tify their own mas­sive ex­is­tence. They have spo­ken of Rus­sia’s in­ter­fer­ence in the elec­tions with­out pro­vid­ing any ev­i­dence to the pub­lic.

Trump was right to point out that they got it wrong when they charged Iraq with hav­ing “weapons of mass de­struc­tion”. On that ba­sis, the U.S went to war and more than a mil­lion per­sons were killed and one of the most pros­per­ous coun­tries in the Mid­dle East now lies in ru­ins.

We can pin­point many other sim­i­lar cases, for ex­am­ple, the “at­tack” by North Viet­nam on the U.S war­ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. This was also staged by Amer­i­can in­tel­li­gence and led to a huge war in which hun­dreds of thou­sands of lives were lost and mas­sive de­struc­tion took place.

It is hoped that Pres­i­dent Trump will stand up to the mas­sive pres­sures be­ing placed on him.

The other pol­icy that Trump has that can con­trib­ute to peace and sta­bil­ity in the world is his po­si­tion re­gard­ing North At­lantic Treaty Or­gan­i­sa­tion (NATO).

He is right that NATO has been a drain on the USA’s re­sources at a time when there are great na­tional de­mands on his bud­get. He spoke about build­ing back the in­fra­struc­ture of the U. S. That would cost bil­lions and/or tril­lions of dol­lars. Those monies go­ing to build NATO can be di­verted to re­build Amer­ica’s in­fra­struc­ture to meet the needs of the poor in that coun­try.

It should be re­mem­bered that the War­saw Pact col­lapsed al­most three decades ago. There­fore, the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for keep­ing NATO is ex­tremely weak.

Af­ter all, Rus­sia has no mil­i­tary bases sur­round­ing the U.S or any of its al­lies. It has not placed weapons on the bor­ders of any NATO mem­ber state, ex­cept those that bor­ders her. Her weapons are in­side its ter­ri­tory and not in any other coun­try. Rus­sia stated that this was a re­sponse to NATO plac­ing weapons on her bor­ders.

The t alk about a Rus­sian threat is, there­fore, highly ex­ag­ger­ated and the de­mo­niza­tion of Pres­i­dent Putin is un­war­ranted.

Pres­i­dent Trump’s at­ti­tude to NATO would lead to the less­en­ing of ten­sions and im­prove world se­cu­rity.

The com­ing months and year ahead would be very in­ter­est­ing to see how the USA’a pol­i­tics would de­velop.

How­ever things de­velop, the Trump pres­i­dency is al­ready set to go down as one of the most con­tro­ver­sial in the his­tory of the United States.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Guyana

© PressReader. All rights reserved.