Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton

S P SETH

There are jokes galore about Donald Trump as ‘president’ of the US, precisely because it has been considered unlikely until now. The joke could easily be on those making fun of the US electoral drama, with Trump being centre stage as the ‘pretend’ president. This is captured well in a Sydney Morning Herald cartoon, which shows a man kneeling and addressing his God pleading that he was only kidding when he said, “Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Donald Trump became president…”.  And normally it would be hilarious because you wouldn’t expect Americans, who are among some of the smartest people in the world, to even consider the idea of Trump as president of the United States. But things are getting serious now, with Donald Trump emerging as the presumptive Republican Party presidential candidate. So much so that some of the party heavyweights felt so revolted that they declared their intention not to attend the Republican Party convention where Trump might be anointed the party’s candidate, though they are now talking of party unity. Indeed, there was even a suggestion that Mitt Romney, the 2012 failed Republican presidential nominee, might be put up as an independent to deny Trump the prospective candidacy. But the Republican Party is coming around to the idea of Trump as their candidate, however distasteful it is to the party establishment.

As of now, opinion polls seem to suggest that in a straight presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the former might prevail, though the margin in her favour appears to be shrinking. But don’t bet on it. One important reason, as we have seen so far with the Trump campaign, is that he is merciless in lampooning his rivals, which is outside the limits of anything seen before. For instance, Ted Cruz was a ‘liar’, Marco Rubio was ‘little Marco’, Jeb Bush was ‘low energy’ and so on. And his appreciative and admiring audience liked such caricaturing of the political class for whom they have come to have a pretty low opinion. Trump projected himself as an outsider without any political baggage. Trump as ‘outsider’, with his self-promotion as a successful businessman, was the sort of person to fix up the ‘broken’ political system without wanting any financial returns, being already a billionaire in his own right.

In other words, Trump is not a corrupt politician involved in wheeling and dealing and hence was free to say things that needed to be said, which the country’s political class tended to avoid because they were all compromised. And this sort of silent conspiracy among the political class had brought the country to its low point with dangers all around, with friends and foes taking the US for a ride. For instance, Muslims, inside and outside the US, are a menace and must be kept out. The migrants, particularly the Mexicans with nearly 12 million of them considered illegals and more and more of them flooding in, would need to be walled off. The US’ western allies have lived off American security umbrella for years without making any worthwhile contribution to their defence. Japan has been piggy riding the US defence machine ever since the fifties, with no obligation to share US burden. As for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, their contribution in the Middle East is to stoke fires of Islamic fundamentalism.

It is not that what Trump says is true but he is articulating the disparate anxieties of many Americans, promising that he will make America great once again. How he will do is not important at the present? What is important is that he is saying these things and, in the process, highlighting the corrosion of the ruling political class. And that makes him a darling of many people, particularly the middle age and older whites who simply feel disempowered and sometimes even strangers in their own country. Again, it is not reality but they perceive this as their reality.

And he is also popular among many white blue-collar workers who believe that they have lost their jobs and prospects from cheaper manufactured and imported goods from low wage economies, like China and other developing countries. Indeed, these whites are becoming the new ‘blacks’, (economically speaking) looking to the state for help and handouts. Mitt Romney, the last Republican presidential candidate referred to them as among “freeloaders”. Writing in National Review recently, Kevin Williamson, was contemptuous of them as deadweight. He said, “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible…. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns… The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.” He goes on, “Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does  [opium derived] OxyContin.” In other words, Trump’s rhetoric and rant make poor whites feel empowered.  

Bernie Sanders also appeals to the American underclass but his message is more sophisticated to lift them economically by positing their misery against greed of the Wall Street, meaning the higher end of the town. The danger is that Sanders’s supporters might either shift their votes to Trump or simply not turn up to vote if Hillary Clinton, as seems most likely, becomes the Democratic presidential nominee. And that will only help Trump. Based on such arithmetic of grassroots white support, Trump has a very good chance of winning the presidency in a straight race with Hillary Clinton.

However, despite her lack of charisma and political baggage of her husband’s presidency, as well as her own dubious record as secretary of state, Clinton has been going about her task with considerable diligence and calculation. She has been trying to forge a coalition of African-American, Latino and other minority groups. And she is positing herself as champion of women’s rights. Indeed, she wants to be seen as making history to become the first woman president and is urging the country’s ‘sisterhood’ to make that a reality by voting for her.  It will make history if she were to become the country’s president, as with Obama as the first African-American President of the United States. It is not working as smoothly because many young women are not buying into this narrative as part of a continuing struggle for women’s liberation. But she does have electoral advantage over Trump among women voters.

The opinion polls seemed to suggest that Hillary Clinton is likely to prevail in a straight contest with Trump, though her lead appears to be shrinking. But wait till Trump has finished with his hatchet job of digging up dirt and spreading it all around. For instance, on her credentials as a champion of women, he has dubbed her as an ‘enabler’ in her husband’s sexual peccadillos. As for courting African- Americans, Bill Clinton’s record as president in terms of a big hike in their prison population, and Hillary Clinton’s enthusiastic support of it, is bit of a black mark against her. But she is still likely to get majority black vote any way. Overall, it is going to be a close contest, and don’t’ be surprised if Donald Trump manages to prove that he is for real, and not just a fictional character. 

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times.  

North Korea and the nuclear question

S P SETH

North Korea’s recent missile test to put a satellite into the orbit as well as other demonstrations of success in weapons and missile testing, further heated up things in the Asia Pacific region. Its leader, Kim Jong-un, was endorsed as the country’s supremo during the ruling Workers Party congress, which met after 36 years. Not that it was needed but Kim wanted his power base and nuclear policy given another seal of approval. Not surprisingly, North Korea’s neighbours, South Korea and Japan, as well as the US, are alarmed about Pyongyang’s nuclear antics. Even though there is some skepticism about the claimed success of its nuclear/missile tests, there is no doubt that North Korea is serious about its nuclear ambitions to deter the US and its regional allies from destabilizing the regime and the country.

North Korea is a pariah state and its regime feels that the US and its allies, South Korea and Japan, are always up to mischief with a view to destabilize their country and overthrow the regime, with Kim Jong-un as its new leader. He has inherited it, more or less, from his father Kim Jong-Il who, in turn, was anointed successor by his father and the founder of the present state, Kim Il-sung. All the three successive generations of grandfather, father and son are reputed, in the myths built around them, as having done wonders for the kingdom. And one of these wonders is the development of nuclear capability to keep the country secure from its enemies by developing a nuclear deterrence .

The Korean peninsula is a divided region following the armistice agreement for cessation of hostilities after the Korean War in 1953. Technically, the two Koreas (North and South) are still in a state of war, and at times it seems it might actually restart. The annual US-South Korean joint military exercises are always viewed in Pyongyang as the precursor to a move in that direction. Which inevitably leads North Korea to ratchet up its nuclear rhetoric and testing. Pyongyang is never short of bombast in its vocabulary when reacting to its perceived enemies, such as South Korea, Japan and their ally, the United States. They have some ugly epithets for South Korea’s President Park Guen-hye calling her “a confrontational wicked woman” who lives on “the groin of her American boss.”

Pyongyang’s biggest worry is that it is really the US that is seeking to destabilize North Korea. South Korea is simply the puppet regime that plays its game and hence a traitor to the Korean nation. In other words, Kim Jung-un--- and his father and grandfather before him--- are the real saviors of the fatherland, that includes both North and South, and striving to unite the divided nation. And its nuclear deterrence is for the ‘heroic’ defence of the Korean peninsula.

In this sense the armistice agreement of 1953 that divided the Korean peninsula across the 38^th parallel is a temporary boundary until the country is reunited peacefully or otherwise. During the Korean War that started in 1950, ending in cessation of hostilities in 1953, the US and China ended up fighting on opposite sides, with China sending troops to push back the US-led advance as Beijing perceived it a threat to its security so soon after its communist regime had won the civil war. North Korea thus became a security buffer between the US-backed South Korea and China, which developed a strong stake in its existence.

With the US forces stationed in South Korea as part of their alliance, principally against an erratic North Korea and a resurgent China, the Korean peninsula has been a tinderbox for a long time. And ever since it started to acquire nuclear weapons and making much of it, even its principal supporter, China, is not happy about its nuclear program. Beijing is in broad agreement with the US and other critics of North Korea that it should get rid of its nuclear program. And for this it initiated a process of dialogue in Beijing between Pyongyang and other dialogue partners to include China, US, Russia, Japan and South Korea. But its on-off meetings didn’t make much, if any advance, with North Korea quitting in 2009.

The main sticking point, and it is no ordinary obstacle, is that the US and its allied dialogue partners want North Korea to freeze/dismantle its nuclear facilities/arsenal first before they talk about any specific commitment to help with or underwrite its economic and political future. But for North Korea, without its nuclear program, it will have no leverage for any kind of future. The US and its regional allies have hoped to force Pyongyang into submission through wide ranging sanctions, which are impacting severely on its people but simply making the regime even more obdurate.

However, it is believed that if only China will enforce the sanctions regime fully by cutting off oil and food supplies, Kim Jong-un regime will be forced into abandoning its nuclear program, thus removing a major threat to regional security. Even though China is against North Korea’s nuclear program and has further tightened its sanctions regime, it is not for cutting off all its options with Pyongyang and hence favours dialogue. China obviously has its own reasons. An important reason is that it doesn’t have much political leverage with Pyongyang, even more so after Kim Jong-un ascension. Indeed, Kim junior had his uncle executed, his supposed political mentor/regent in the transition period after his father’s death, as he was suspected of being close to Beijing. Apparently, Beijing is not happy with Kim Jong-un as he has still not received an invitation to visit China.

At the same time, without being able to control the course of events within North Korea, China is not for creating political instability on its border with all sorts of unpredictable results. For instance, if North Korea is destabilized and there is no reasonable prospect of an emerging political order, China might be faced with a flood of refugees from that country, which it is not keen to face in the midst of all its other problems.

As it is, with Pyongyang upping the ante with its nuclear and missile tests, South Korea is getting even more nervous and further strengthening its security ties with the US.  Seoul recently announced that it has decided to formally start talks with the US to install a missile defence shield, which is anathema to Beijing because of fears that it will become part of a regional strategy to contain China. Indeed, China and South Korea had been cozying up in the recent past with extensive trade relations to the point that Seoul, it seemed, might slip into the Chinese sphere over time. But with Pyongyang ratcheting up its nuclear program and alarming South Korea, it is once again looking to the US for ultimate protection. And with South China Sea and East China Sea already a flashpoint, the world could do without further complications arising out of North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests.

This article was first published in the Daily times.

US power has its limits

S P SETH

A series of books on US foreign policy, reviewed in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, seek to grapple with the issue of limits on US power. It is a difficult issue for any country but when that country is a superpower, though not at its old heights, it is all the more problematic. Any empire or country with imperial interests tries to project its foreign policy as high ideals. In the process, these two—imperial interests and high ideals--- become indistinguishable. And such convergence of national interests and ideals is, therefore, considered not only good for the United States but also for the world. In other words, the US is doing it all for the good of humanity.

Americans, for instance, pride themselves on their ‘exceptionalism’, which puts them apart from the rest of the world. The world will be better off, it is argued, if it followed the US. And because the Americans are exceptional, imbued with high idealism, their version of democracy is a global recipe for good government. Hence, they are justified in promoting/pushing it elsewhere in the world. And since political democracy and liberal capitalist system are indistinguishable, ‘free’ markets and ‘free’ trade are good for the world.  And where it has been tolerating dictators and monarchs, as in the Middle East, these are temporary aberrations that would be fixed up in due course.

Another feature of US imperialism, as of empires before it, is a liberal sprinkling of religious and moral precepts, like ‘axis of evil’ and so on. The world is thus reduced to moral aphorisms of good and evil. In that case, if a country is not on the side of the United States as in its war on terrorism, it is unquestionably on the side of evil and might as well be damned.

There are a few broad divisions in the delineation of US foreign and strategic policy since the end of the WW11.  And it is generally defined and couched in terms of high idealism even when its real thrust is to promote US political and strategic interests. All through the Cold War period, for instance, the US-led “free world” was trying to keep the world out of the nefarious designs of the Soviet-led “iron curtain”. And it was this ‘high idealism’ which led to the Korean war early in the fifties during which communist China’s entry into the war on behalf of North Korea almost brought the world into another big war, with even talk of using the atom bomb to stop China. And it was the same fear of communist advance into Asia, the so-called ‘domino theory’, that led to the Vietnam war. In the early sixties, it created the scary specter of a nuclear confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union after the latter stationed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

As with all simplifications, the threat from a ‘monolithic’ global communist bloc was overhyped, so clearly revealed with the developing Sino-Soviet schism in the sixties, when the communist giants of China and the Soviet Union sharply clashed ideologically as well as their borders. Who could have imagined that the dispute between the Soviet Union and China would reach a point where the US and China entered into a virtual strategic partnership against the backdrop of a their shared strategic rivalry with the Soviet Union? And even more surprisingly, China and Vietnam started drifting apart from the seventies after China occupied some of the South China Sea islands claimed by Vietnam. The issue of contested sovereignty in the South China Sea between China and some regional countries is now creating/reviving new friendships and alliances around the US.

The US ‘victory’ in the Cold War created new problems. The US not only regarded it as assertion of its political and strategic dominance, being now the only superpower, but also the manifest superiority of its system of political democracy and free market capitalism. As the US political philosopher Francis  Fukuyama wrote at the time that it marked the ‘end of history’.  To quote him from his book, The End of History and the Last Man, liberal democracy may constitute the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government.” In other words, the US has evolved the perfect system and there is nothing after that.

But as we know it was all hyperbole. The world didn’t rally behind the US as its undisputed global leader. Rather its ham-handed efforts to assert supremacy created more problems. As Jessica T. Mathews writes in the New York Review of Books, “Freed from the constraints of the cold war… the US turned more and more from diplomacy to its unparalleled military power.” As a result, “America has been engaged in conflict for nearly all of the past quarter-century, having undertaken nine military actions, including the two longest wars in its history,” in Iraq and Afghanistan, still plunging the region into an unending nightmare.

As for Europe where the end of the Cold War was supposed to bring Russia into a new peace compact, that too has vanished. While the Soviet Union’s collapse also spelled the end of the Warsaw Pact, the US-led NATO Pact tended to expand coopting as its members some former members of the once-Soviet-led military pact. Simultaneously, these former Soviet zone countries were either joining or lining up to join the European Union making Russia increasingly edgy. And when Ukraine moved closer to do the same, after its pro-Russian president was overthrown, Moscow used its leverage in its eastern region to frustrate the attempt. Ukraine is now a divided country and diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation have so far proved unsuccessful.

In the process, Russia is now virtually a pariah state in the west subject to the US and western economic sanctions. Which is further skewing US foreign policy, creating uncertainty all around the world. For instance, Russia is now openly on the side of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, seeing no viable alternative to even worse chaos. Despite international peace efforts, the situation remains murky.

In the post-Cold War period, the US has tended to overreach itself in all sorts of directions, particularly in the wake of 9/11 terrorist attacks on its soil, thus creating serious weaknesses and flaws in its foreign and strategic policy. And when one considers the challenge posed by China’s projection of power, particularly in Asia-Pacific, the US would need to have another serious look at its currently disjointed foreign policy. And the first requirement for this is to recognize that the US power has declined and has clear limits. But this is hard to come by in the supercharged US political system. In the new ‘Trump’ world, there are no boundaries.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.