It is becoming more and more difficult to ignore a particular observation made about Donald Trump. That observation, if memory serves, came from James Comey. Comey described Trump as having no external points of reference. And Trump seems all to eager to prove Comey right.
What proof is Trump providing? He ignores what scientists say about both pollution and climate change. For not only has he pulled out of the Paris Accord, he has appointed industry-friendly people for positions once held by scientists, he has revoked federal clean air and water standards put into place by the Obama Administration, and he has eliminated regulations that protect the environment.
Trump is declaring a National Emergency so he can build his wall despite the fact that funding for his wall was severely limited by Congress. Trump's declaration is despite the fact that the number of illegal crossings are down and that drug smuggling occurs through legal points of entry. At least, that is what experts have been saying. But Trump rejects that input. Here, Trump is setting a dangerous precedent for how future Presidents might react when their proposals are rejected by Congress.
Trump gave a inconsistent description of his intelligence advisors when he disagreed with them about threats in the world. Trump called them passive and naive despite the fact that it is Trump who minimizes the threat North Korea poses, not his advisors.
Finally, Trump is pulling America out of the INF treating by citing violations of the treaty by Russia. Russia countered by saying that because of the range of the new missiles in question, they have not violated the treaty. Trump is ignoring warnings that a new buildup of Intermediate Range Missiles increases the risk of a nuclear exchange.
When Trump consistently ignores the input of others so he can do what he wants, it is a sign that Trump is becoming more and more insular. We should note, however, that Trump does not have a monopoly on insularity. The Democratic Party leadership is rejecting popularly supported parts of the Green New Deal as well as medicare for all. And we should never forget that it was the Party's leaders who picked, through the use of superdelegates, Hillary Clinton as their nominee well before the popular choice could be made.
Truth be told that all of the above has been preceded by decades of American foreign policy where America's leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, did what they wanted in many countries regardless of the input they got from the world. In most cases, what has triggered American interventions is earning the disapproval of key American businesses or threatening strategic interests. For example, Iran was in the process of nationalizing their oil reserves. Britain asked the US for help in overthrowing the democratically elected leader there and in exchange, America's oil companies were able to profit off of Iranian oil. In addition, America sold the new Iranian government weapons such as our F-14 Tomcat jet fighters. All of that came in 1953 with the cost of installing a secular dictator in a strongly conservative religious nation.
A similar story but with a different cast of parties of interest occurred in Guatemala in 1954. The American sponsored coup there was because the newly elected President had promised agrarian reform which upset the American owned United Fruit Company.
Another similar story emerged in Chilé in 1972. There, the first 9-11 occurred when on that date, a military coup took place which preceded Chilé's embracing of Neoliberal Capitalism. Just prior to the coup, Chilé's democratically elected leader was planning to nationalize some industries at the dismay of some American companies. Chilé's new military dictator strongly suppressed dissent and was later indicted for committing crimes against humanity.
Then there is the Vietnam War where
going against the advice of close allies and an internationally established, democratic protocol that was to determine South Vietnam's fate. America
eventually invaded Vietnam and propped up a number of dictatorships all
in the name of anti-communism. But while American Presidents justified
the war by claiming that the war was essential to stop the march of
communism in the region, they never had to be accountable and prove
their case before the world. They just went ahead and invaded. And some
millions of dead later, after having lost the war, we found out what
others knew for decades, that the Vietnam War was all about
reunification, not the spread of Communism.
There are many other examples to use, but the most relevant one here is Bush 43's invasion of Iraq. After claiming that Iraq had violated past UN resolutions regarding the development of banned weapons, Bush's Administration started planning for an invasion. Before the invasion, Bush's Administration agreed to let weapons inspectors determine the truth of the charge made against Iraq. But before the inspectors could finish their work, having found no significant violations, the Bush Administration ordered the invasion of Iraq over massive worldwide protests, against the wishes and recommendations of Iraq's neighbors, and without any proof provided by the weapons inspectors.
When America capriciously intervenes militarily in other nations without accountability to others, it is called the rule of force. Here, without using any external points of reference, American Presidents have been deciding the fate of many nations with an uncomfortably growing ease. And now something similar is happening within our borders by our latest Presidents. Note the plural, Trump is not the only President who has ignored outside sources of information to show boundary issues that violate the rights of people. Obama increased secret surveillance of the American people and Bush 43 started it all of with his Patriot Act.
Overreach without accountability has been coming home to roost. And it seems to have reached its most comfortable state under Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment