My concern about Donald Trump being as the GOP nominee is fourfold, first it is with his trustworthiness, he blasts companies like Ford and Apple for manufacturing products outside the United States. He even threatened to stop eating Oreo cookies after he learned some production was moving to Mexico. But Trump does the same thing, his signature men’s dress shirts and ties are made in China, Bangladesh or “imported,” meaning they were made abroad. The Trump university lawsuit shows another trouble-example with his credibility, a hearing has already been schedule by the Judge in July 18, 2016. In the filing, the Trump University is accused of “persistent fraudulent, illegal and deceptive conduct,” false advertising, “operating an unlicensed private school,” refusing to provide mandated refunds, and other misdeeds.
Second, Donald Trump and the religious right are an unexpected match and his nomination could change the core trend of the republican party for good, a catalyst to loosen the stiffness of the establishment, which GOP may be in need of after all.
Third, trump’s ambitious presidential bucket list, such as rejecting NATO alliance may sound a bit naïve, an indication of lack of understanding of global order that has governed the world since the end of World War II to deter interstate conflict and thus maintaining global stability. Furthermore Trump’s primary objective in foreign policy is to extract cash from allies, he decries that the U.S. is protecting Saudi Arabia and not being properly reimbursed for every penny that is spent. He doesn’t see these alliances and commitments as security guarantees against global threats but fancy sorts of business deals. . As such, a Donald Trump president can make business deals with rogue states such as the theocratic regime of Iran and its terrorist mullahs, to him even human rights can be compromised and negotiated as long as the outcome is economically profitable.
And forth, the delegate math predicts that Trump will probably fall 50 to 100 pledged delegates short of the required 1237, however in the first ballot of convention in July 18-21 he may be able to compensate the shortage by convincing the super delegates to vote for him and become the GOP nominee. Regardless, by all kind of polls it has become evident that Trump as GOP nominee will lose national presidential election to Democratic nominee, either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. [DID]
President Barack Obama is trying but failing to reassure foreign leaders convinced that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. They’re in full-boil panic.
According to more than two dozen U.S. and foreign-government officials, Trump has become the starting point for what feels like every government-to-government interaction. In meetings, private dinners and phone calls, world leaders are urgently seeking explanations from Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Trade Representative Michael Froman on down. American ambassadors are asking for guidance from Washington about what they’re supposed to say.
“They’re scared and they’re trying to understand how real this is,” said one American official in touch with foreign leaders. “They all ask. They follow our politics with excruciating detail. They ask: ‘What is this Trump phenomenon? Can he really win? What would it mean for U.S. policy going forward or U.S. engagement in the world?’ They’re all sort of incredulous.” Read more…
There are plenty of passages in the Koran and other Muslim tracts that justify killing the nonconformists who refuse to submit to Islam. Anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, deemed to have insulted Islam according to various rules of Islamic jurisprudence, might be flogged, imprisoned or executed. The truth about the infrastructure of this religion and the real theme of this cult has begun to unfold, conveying the message that “Islam is not a religion of peace but a provocation of uproar” to the public and the citizens of earth.
Islamist Jihadists cannot be stopped by force; in other word killing the Islamist ideologists will not solve the problem as long as the ideology remains intact. The tolerance of religious beliefs and practices outside Islam cannot be possible within Islam unless its doctrine changes track. It is time for Islam to get itself a modern revision that fits the today society and this can only be done by the Islamic leaders in the world. They are the ones that can make their Islamic communities understand the vital need for a change in the Islamic doctrine and that the Quran should be reinterpreted to fit into the current age.
Egypt President, General Al SiSi himself asserted the vital need for such change in his speech addressed to Islamic leaders, part of the speech: “You cannot see things clearly when you are locked in this ideology, you must emerge from it and look from outside in order to get closer to a truly enlightened ideology. We must oppose it with resolve, let me say it again we need to revolutionize our religion. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition; we ourselves are bringing it to perdition.”
The problem is among the western politicians, Obama and western leaders are on denial that Islam principle is the root of terrorism since as part of U.S. hegemonic strategy they have planned to support some of the Islamists in the 3rd-world nations who advocate a leading role for Islam in government. There should be a universal will and support for people like Al Sisi to be able to tackle such an important matter, until then the world won’t see the peace it deserves. [DID]
On the morning after France’s long night of terror, the language of war has been impossible to avoid. President François Hollande declaredthe attacks on Paris “an act of war that was waged by a terrorist army, a jihadist army, by Daesh [the Islamic State], against France.” The Islamic State has hailed the “blessed” operation of its “soldiers” and has vowed continued attacks. Pope Francis has described the current state of events as “a piece” of a piecemeal Third World War.
The weather in Paris today is grim and gray, a reflection of the city’s somber mood. But as the French government prepares for a possible military response, France’s military allies — including the United States — would be wise to do the same. Paris would be within its rights to expect NATO to play a meaningful role in organizing a significant military response to the attacks.
In Brussels, at the political headquarters of NATO, and in Mons, the military “Pentagon” of NATO just an hour south, officials will be working through the weekend. The 28-nation alliance, after all, is founded on one key premise enshrined in the Article 5 of its founding treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked.” It is worth noting that the only country to ever activate Article 5 was the United States after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Read more…
“Obama is simply less personally engaged in foreign policy matters than any of his predecessors reaching as far back as Herbert Hoover.”
As he enters the Back Nine of his second term in office, President Barack Obama is clearly looking to establish his historical legacy. No doubt, his highest priority is the preservation of the Affordable Care Act, which his Administration views as no less important than Medicare and Social Security. Whether Obamacare will survive in its present form, or even survive at all, of course, remains an open question that will be determined both by the future composition of Congress and by the policy preferences of the next White House occupant.
In addition, it is clear that he wishes to be remembered as the president who defeated Al Qaeda by authorizing the successful operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. This legacy, too, is uncertain. It is not merely the host of unanswered questions about the Benghazi fiasco. More to the point is the fact that Islamic extremists, who are at the center of both the Syrian and renewed Iraqi civil wars, are increasingly assertive and violent in Africa and are far from dormant in Southeast Asia as well.
Finally, and most critically, Read more…
It’s painful watching the YouTube video of President Obama in Manila last week talking about hitting singles and doubles in foreign policy. Everything he says is measured, and most of it is correct. But he acts as if he’s talking to a rational world, as opposed to one inhabited by leaders such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
In the realm of power politics, American presidents don’t get points for being right but for being (or appearing) strong. Read more…
Secret mobilizations. Attacks with plausible deniability. Unclear alliance commitments. Vague statements of resolve. A battle for neutral parties. Highly provocative military movements. We have seen these events take place in the last few weeks in the crisis in Ukraine. We also saw these same dynamics at play almost exactly one hundred years ago on the eve of World War I .
The major powers of Continental Europe were maneuvering, and the wheels of war creaked into motion. In the coming battle, swift mobilization would be key, but even more important was the commitment of a powerful third party. Read more…
In the spring of 2012, The National Interest produced a special issue under the rubric of “The Crisis of the Old Order: The Crumbling Status Quo at Home and Abroad .”The thesis was that the old era of relative global stability, forged through the crucibles of the Great Depression and World War II, was coming unglued. In introducing the broad topic to readers, TNI editors wrote, “Only through a historical perspective can we fully understand the profound developments of our time and glean, perhaps only dimly, where they are taking us. One thing is clear: they are taking us into a new era. The only question is how much disruption, chaos and bloodshed will attend the transition from the Old Order to whatever emerges to replace it.” Read more…
Obama’s trips to Europe and Saudi Arabia reveal the limits of American power.
President Barack Obama spoke with condescension last week at The Hague when he identified the Russian Federation as a “regional power that’s threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out of weakness.”
From Moscow’s point of view, Obama’s embassy to world capitals at the end of March demonstrated that the United States has also become a regional power, one that can no longer get its way in Europe and the Middle East.
In The Hague and in Brussels, Obama spoke of economic sanctions against Russia while definitely ruling out military force to resolve the Ukraine crisis. No European leader disagreed. It’s not just that severe sanctions would damage the fragile recovery underway in the EU. The Europeans have long since accepted that the U.S. cannot do more than talk of an Atlantic-based alliance. Read more…
Our allies and our enemies have seriously recalculated where the U.S. stands. It was not difficult to define American geopolitical strategy over the seven decades following World War II — at least until 2009. It was largely bipartisan advocacy, most ambitiously, for nations to have the freedom of adopting constitutional governments that respected human rights, favored free markets, and abided by the rule of law. And at the least, we sought a world in which states could have any odious ideology they wished as long as they kept it within their own borders. There were several general strategic goals as we calculated our specific aims, both utopian and realistic.
(1) The strategic cornerstone was the protection of a small group of allies that, as we did, embraced consensual government and free markets, and were more likely to avoid human-rights abuses. That eventually meant partnerships with Western and later parts of Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and much of its former Empire, such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In Asia, the American focus was on Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan. The U.S. military essentially guaranteed the security of these Asian nations, and they developed safely, shielded from Soviet or Chinese Communist aggression, and more recently from Russian or Chinese provocations. Read more…
Why there is no appeasing Russia’s mad king. In early March, the Russian Federation, after staging a referendum under Kalashnikovs in Crimea, proceeded to annex the region and laid the groundwork — according to Moscow — for “new political-legal realities,” that is to say, a new Russian paradigm for a lawless world. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in her speech to the Bundestag on March 13, Russia is bringing the law of the jungle to the table. For those of us who have lived through Vladimir Putin’s attempts to reverse the results of what he calls “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century — the dissolution of the Soviet Union — what is happening in Ukraine is not unexpected. Nor does it mark the last act of the drama.
It should be abundantly clear now that Putin’s initial plan of taking eastern Ukraine by mobilizing the Russian population there has failed. Read more…