Why we need to know ?
This Helps Your Acknowledgemet Grow
Will make you understand the world
What happens when discover?
Get your free analysis
US admits new strategy needed to stop N. Korea nuclear program
WASHINGTON — Acknowledging that U.S. efforts to curtail North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have failed, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will use a trip to Asia next week to look at new ways of approaching a problem that has vexed American presidents since Bill Clinton.
“All of the efforts we have taken thus far to attempt to persuade North Korea to engage in meaningful negotiations have fallen short, to be honest,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters in Washington Wednesday. “So we need to look at new ways to convince them, to persuade them, that it’s in their interests.”
Toner’s remarks are a rare and frank public admission from the U.S. government that the approach taken toward North Korea in recent years — which became known as “strategic patience” — hasn’t worked and isn’t likely to now. For almost two decades the U.S. has refused to engage in direct talks with North Korea.
Last year, North Korea conducted two nuclear weapons tests and fired 24 ballistic missiles. So far this year, a missile test in February was followed by four ballistic missiles fired this week, which landed inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone.
Toner spoke days before Tillerson departs for Japan, South Korea and China to meet top leaders. North Korea will be a focus of the talks, which will study “what our options are and new ways to look at resolving the situation,” the spokesman said.
President Donald Trump’s administration is reviewing all possible options in North Korea, even those that aren’t likely to be adopted. According to The Wall Street Journal, the administration is weighing everything from the use of military force to recognizing North Korea as a nuclear state.
This week, the U.S. unloaded two mobile missile launchers in South Korea to start deployment of its Thaad missile-defense system. While the U.S. military has said the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system was aimed solely at defending South Korea against North Korean missiles, China sees Thaad as a threat aimed at it as well.
Toner wouldn’t say whether the U.S. was willing to consider direct talks with North Korea, saying only that the administration is open to dialogue that would lead to denuclearization talks.
“I don’t want to get into possible formats because we’re so far away from that right now,” Toner said. “What we’re saying is if North Korea were to signal that it was capable of and ready for these kinds of negotiations, then that’s something we would consider. But we’re not there.”
Frustration over North Korea’s weapons programs prompted France’s United Nations envoy to say his country will seek additional European Union restrictions on Pyongyang. Speaking at the U.N. earlier Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley called North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un an “irrational” actor, and said the country must show “some sort of positive action” before the U.S. and European allies can take the regime in Pyongyang seriously.
Toner brushed off Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s suggestion that the U.S. suspend military drills with South Korea as a way to get Kim’s regime back to the negotiating table. He said the drills are “in no way comparable to the blatant disregard North Korea has shown with respect to international law.”
The Empire Strikes Back at Trump’s White House
February 21, 2017
When Donald John Trump took over as president of the United States a month ago, there were – not many though – reasonable, cold analysts who, based on his pre-election statements, predicted that a man who is going to wage war against the establishment (the empire) is entering a conflict with a very uncertain result. Some of them even did not hesitate to say that Trump is bound to lose this battle. Judging by what is happening now, those who spoke about a war with uncertain results were completely right, and those who predicted Trump’s defeat might be right. We will see in the not-so-distant future.
Trump’s throne – if one can say so – was seriously shaken the moment one of his closest associates, national security advisor general Michael Flynn, was forced to resign. And, let us not be misguided, not because he was “insincere” with Vice President Pence, but because he dared to contact (how horrific!) the ambassador of Russia before the elections and – allegedly – spoke with him about the possibility of abandoning sanctions against his country. And when, immediately after that, a White House spokesman said that Russia is expected to return the Crimea peninsula to Ukraine, there was no doubt whatsoever whether Trump would be able to fulfill what he promised in the election campaign. With those promises, the key ones, he managed – despite his lack of political experience, despite his sexism, and despite his entertainment past – to arouse the hopes of all those in the world who were fed up with the American policy of interventionism and with its imposing of what has been “sold” for decades as democracy, with massive help from an enormous army and more than 700 military bases around the world. Just to remind you: Trump explicitly promised that America will stop imposing regimes, or as he put it in his inaugural address: ‘the American way of life.’ And, very important, he expressed his willingness to normalize relations with Russia, which were deteriorating rapidly and dangerously. General Flynn backed such a policy. And that is the reason why he had to go. His resignation is the first serious blow delivered by the system (establishment) against the new man in the White House. After getting rid of Flynn, influential circles not only in the Democratic party (including the Clinton clan), but in the Republican party too (which never really got to terms first with his nomination as presidential candidate and after that with him as the president), as well as those who are often described as the ‘invisible centers of influence,’ directing the politicians as actors on the stage – they all smelled blood. And this is not a conspiracy theory, this is something quite obvious to everybody who is willing to see, to hear, and to draw the only possible conclusions from what he (or she) saw or heard, without becoming the victim or the hostage of anybody’s propaganda, regardless of whose. Do not be mistaken: those who smelled blood will not stop.
And who is, after all, this general Michael Flynn? He is former chief of the US military intelligence, the most decorated high-ranking American officer in this position over the last two decades. From this position he was relieved when he dared to put into question the way the US intelligence community worked and its results (the very same intelligence community which spies for years now on whomever it wants, around the globe, including heads of states, American allies; this is, by the way a proven fact!). Did he speak with the Russian ambassador prior to the elections? Yes, he did. Did he, by doing so, violate an old act (the Logan Act) which forbids, to put it in the simplest terms, private persons to engage in diplomatic activities? Again: yes, he did. But, did anybody invoke this same act when some 8 or 9 years ago a certain Barack Obama, at that time just a presidential candidate (a private person too) travelled around the world meeting heads of states and governments? The answer is: no! Had Flynn have spoken with ambassadors of, let us say, Germany or France, nobody would have said a word. But he sinned, because he spoke with the Russian ambassador and Russia is, as everybody “knows,” an enemy of the West, an enemy of democracy, a power which is on the verge of sending its armed forces to conquer Europe (if one would believe the mainstream media, or for that matter, the Secretary-general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg).
On the tracks of the anti-Russian hysteria, which becomes more and more present, Flynn was accused, without any evidence, that for him “Putin comes first and only then the US.” Demands are being made, imperatively, to investigate all links between the general and Russia. And all this only to be able to repeat the “old song” from the US election campaign: Russia’s role in the US presidential elections should be investigated (although this role was never proved by solid evidence, or what the Americans call a “smoking gun” – it was only talked about). And all of this to repeat that Trump is a puppet in Russian hands, backed now with the “expertise” of more than 30 “shrinks” who have concluded, on the basis of Trump’s behavior and his statements, that he is not fit to be the president of the U.S.
And again: the story will not stop here. The empire (establishment) strikes back and hits a man who thought, because he practically alone, against all odds, won the presidential elections, that he can change the system. It is more than likely that he cannot. The war hero, CIC of the Normandy invasion and later US president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was clever (or wise) enough to mention the military-industrial complex and its dangerous role only at the end of his term in office. Trump, who cannot be compared with legendary Ike in any way, did practically the same thing in the first days of his mandate, challenging this system. And sealed, thus, his destiny – as it seems now. He will be, with the “logistic help” of the Europeans who are already describing him as somebody able to launch in the next two years “a cultural revolution” (allusion to communist China) either be chased out of the White House (under any pretext), or he will be forced to become a tool in the hands of others. After all, one should remember Obama and his big promises with which he won the Peace Nobel price (hand stretched to the Muslim countries, a world without nuclear weapons etc.) He did nothing of that sort, but continued the policy of his predecessors, becoming “famous” because of his bombings of a number of countries and destabilizing the Middle East, not to mention the direct and indirect support to those who are today known as Islamist terrorists. In short: he allowed himself to be “eaten” by the system. And this is the least that could happen to Trump.
Why did this “deconstruction” of Trump begin with General Flynn? The answer is simple: because the general backed the normalization of the relations with Russia, even more he backed the cooperation with Russia in the fight against global terrorism, which means stopping any support and help for the Islamists, who are still called by many in the West “opposition,” “armed opposition,” or “fighters against tyranny and for freedom.” The military-industrial complex lives from wars and it imposed on the West the confrontation with Russia, the policy of enlarging and strengthening of the NATO (which, being a genuine relict of the Cold War, was called “obsolete” by Trump), the policy which resulted in bringing to Europe hundreds of American tanks and thousands of troops.
To put it quite simply: without the confrontation with Russia, without the continuation of the policy of imposing regimes and taking control over energy sources and main energy routes, there is no money, there is no profit. This is the reason why those who evaluated the fall of socialism in Europe as their final victory, only to see how Putin is putting into question this victory (namely standing up against a unipolar world), after absorbing the shock of Trump’s victory and his announced foreign policy, decided to take things into their hands again. Thus we may expect strengthening of anti-Russian sentiments (allegations of Russian meddling in elections, though never proven, are being repeated again and again, now prior to the presidential elections in France). We may expect a changed rhetoric both from President Trump and from the White House. And we should stop hoping for the end of the renewed Cold War. This war means profit, and those who are making this profit are not prepared to let anybody else take it from them, or to stop them making it at all; despite the fact that it is a bloody profit, “earned” at the cost of hundreds of thousands of human lives. General Flynn had this experience. President Trump, from what can be concluded right now, still has to learn the lesson.
And the “rest of the world”? Well, those who survive will tell the story.
Trump’s Iran Policy: A Lonely Pursuit
February 20, 2017
Summary
There are more questions than answers when it comes to how President Trump will execute the Iran file while he’s in office. Not least in the calculus is pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently visited Washington and without a doubt discussed Iran with Trump. The Iran nuclear deal was just one of the main sources of tension in the relationship between Washington and Jerusalem under Obama. But now things seem to be changing. It’s evident that Trump will adopt a more “aggressive” stance toward the Islamic Republic; he recently announced new sanctions following Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests, conducted on January 29 near Semnan. The Iranian leadership stated these tests were fully legitimate under the nuclear deal, since the tested missiles are not designed to carry a nuclear warhead. The missile test did not violate any other rules or limits in UN resolutions concerning nuclear or conventional weapon systems tests. But what the tests clearly show is that all the ingredients for a new escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States are present: missile tests, new sanctions, and a cycle of recriminations from both sides.
But should President Trump seek to rally US allies and once again isolate Iran for supposed violations of the nuclear deal, will other governments actually heed the call?
What Military Options Are on the Table If Trump Scraps the Iran Nuclear Deal?
February 20, 2017
Summary
The Russians must be excited about the burbling Iran crisis, which has set the Middle East chessboard back a decade or so. Under a questionable pretext, the Trump administration has somehow reworked the ‘Axis of Evil’ paradigm that led to George W. Bush’s foreign policy magnum opus: the invasion of Iraq. The White House has advanced the notion that Iran is the world’s biggest producer of terrorism. But, unlike Iraq in 2003, crippled by some of the toughest sanctions the UN has ever enforced, Iran has recently acquired a powerful S-300 missile defense system from Russia. The Russians are eager to show off their military industry’s capabilities, and President Trump could end up giving them a persuasive endorsement should he persist in reversing the United States’ commitment to the Iran nuclear deal.
President Trump and his generals must consider the inherent risks in threatening – let alone attacking – Iran. Under the Iran nuclear deal that Obama approved, Tehran can maintain some nuclear facilities that American inspectors visit as they see fit. Nuclear weapons require 90% enriched uranium; the agreement limits enrichment to 3%. Though President Trump criticizes it, many would argue that it’s a good deal considering Washington’s geopolitical restrictions.
The other option would be a strike on Iran’s centrifuges – a risky gamble, and one that could cause Iran to redouble its efforts to achieve nuclear weapons-grade uranium and develop a weapon in order to deter future attacks.
The Weakest Link in Trump’s War on Terror
February 8, 2017
The Trump administration’s first special operations attack certainly didn’t go as hoped. On the night of January 28, in a village in central Yemen, the first raid authorized by the new president allegedly killed 14 Al-Qaeda fighters, at least 11 women and children, and one US commando. In addition to causing the deaths of civilians and a member of the US military, it’s questionable if the attack even achieved its stated objective. While the raid succeeded in killing its target, Abdel Raouef Dhahab, a suspected leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), it might well cause unintended consequences. Farea Muslimi, chair of the Sanaa Center for Strategic Studies, claimed that his death will merely stoke anti-US feelings, since “he is a tribal sheikh and has nothing to do with AQAP.”
It’s well known that the US’ history of killing civilians only plays into the hands of the terrorists they are supposedly targeting. And Trump’s statements that he believes torture works, his comments that he might revive CIA-operated “black site” prisons, and his attempts to ban visitors from seven majority-Muslim countries, are likely to backfire, giving terrorists more motivation to attack US targets.
However, one of the most insidious holes in US counterterrorism policy is likely to be Djibouti, the very base that serves as a launch pad for the administration’s war on terror in Yemen and East Africa. Despite Trump’s oft-repeated quip that he would take out the families of terrorist suspects – a clear infringement of the Geneva Convention that amounts to nothing less than a war crime – there is one black swan event that could make him rethink the entire drone program: China’s moves inside Djibouti. How the former real estate mogul negotiates this relationship will have drastic consequences for America’s relations with other small and medium countries that are nevertheless important for national security.
Djibouti, a barren, forgotten “sandlot” of a country roughly the size of New Jersey, is the host of America’s only bricks and mortar base in Africa. Camp Lemonnier, leased for $60 million per year, houses 4,500 troops and contractors who lead missions against Al-Shabab in Somalia and AQAP. The US military bought the base from the French soon after 9/11, seizing on its strategic potential. They selected Djibouti for its relative stability in a volatile region and for its position, close to both East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Since then, other powers have taken note of Djibouti’s increasingly critical placement. The country also hosts Japan’s only overseas base, Spanish and German anti-piracy soldiers, and Saudi Arabia is set to start building its own installation as well.
Despite Djibouti’s undeniably choice location, US officials might have made a deal with the devil in choosing to partner with such a government. Ismail Omar Guelleh, the four-term president that rules with impunity over this pin sized country, is now one of China’s closest allies. The Middle Kingdom is the biggest investor in the East African nation, prompting the Djiboutian finance minister, Ilyas Moussa Dawaleh, to say that relations with China are “much more important than any other long-standing partner.”
What’s more, Beijing decided to break with decades of foreign policy restraint and open its first foreign military base here. In 2015, the US was reportedly ordered to vacate a supply base in the Obock region so that it could be turned over to the Chinese. Guelleh has also attempted to give Beijing a concession over its key port, which would force the US military to run key supplies through a Chinese-run zone.
It’s highly unlikely that the new US administration will look kindly on Djibouti’s efforts to play both sides while still receiving injections of US funds. Trump himself has sharply questioned the value of foreign aid during his campaign, saying the US should stop sending such funds to “countries that hate us.” As a candidate, he said little to nothing about US policy in Africa, only recently breaking the silence to ask State Department staff a series of questions that only further demonstrated his skepticism about aid to the continent.
When considering Trump’s hostile stance towards China, it’s not impossible to see the White House deciding to take a step back and scaling down its drone wars in East Africa while the relationship with Djibouti is reassessed. Were Camp Lemonnier compromised by Chinese counterespionage – as the US ambassador there worried – the short-fused Trump would likely take drastic action and simply move the base or start a proxy war with Beijing.
And therein lies the rub: while many analysts worry about US alliances with other G20 members (as the ruckus over the call with the Australian Prime Minister showed), some forget just how dependent Washington is on a network of small, rarely-mentioned countries that act as its “unsinkable aircraft carriers.” Djibouti is just one example out of many: Lithuania, Austria, and Greece hosted CIA black sites and participated in the “extraordinary rendition program,” Romania boasts the American missile defense shield, and Kuwait has no less than four camps used by US forces. Each of these countries has a special interest in working with the Trump White House, but their US allegiances should never be taken for granted. Greece has been flirting with Russia, the Austrians are deeply skeptical of the U.S., and Kuwait has historically been one of Iran’s closest allies.
Moving forward, it’s important to take note of these undercurrents streaming across the global landscape. America’s approximately 800 military bases spread across more than 70 countries is perhaps the biggest indicator of the sheer size and unparalleled reach of the US military. Both the special ops program and the drone program are utterly dependent on these installations and it remains to be seen how Trump will navigate through these rocky waters.
Donald Trump and US Nuclear Policy in East Asia
February 5, 2017
There were so many controversial statements made by Donald Trump during the US presidential race, which made many underestimate Trump’s chances of victory. One of these controversial statements came during an exclusive interview with the New York Times on March 20, 2016. Trump said if he were elected US president, he would be open to Japan and South Korea producing their own nuclear deterrents, and that they should not always be depending on the US military to protect them from North Korea and China. The US military would not be able to protect Japan and South Korea for a long period of time. He argued that the United States cannot always be the policemen of the world.
Trump also asserted that there will be a point when the U.S. would not be able to do all that anymore. North Korea probably has their own nuclear arsenal, so he would rather have Japan and South Korea have a nuclear capability too, as we are living in a nuclear world right now.
This controversial statement alarmed the world and received a strong reaction from various sides. President Obama, during the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 1, among others, stated that all this time the U.S. involvement in the Asia-Pacific region has been important because it has been the key to maintaining peace between the U.S. and countries in the region up until now. Having US presence is very important to forestall any conflicts with and between these countries. Therefore, Obama continued, the person (Donald Trump) who made such comments does not know much about policies, as well as nuclear policy, or the Korean peninsula, or even about the world in general. Japan and South Korea have been considered important pillars of US presence in Asia Pacific, as this advantages the U.S. quite substantially on the trade side, and prevents nuclear escalation and conflict.
Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fumio Kishida as quoted by CNN, also reacted by expressing his disagreement with Trump’s proposal, saying it’s impossible for Japan to build a nuclear capability. Japan is the only country that has experienced a nuclear attack, and if they follow Trump’s proposal, there will be a chance that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedy could happen again.
Jonathan Cristal, a professor and observer from the World Policy Institute in New York, also commented by saying that Trump’s proposal is contrary to the government’s commitment to strengthening alliances with various countries like Japan and South Korea, the two strongest US allies in Asia. Cristal stated that Japan and South Korea will consider various other options if it comes to be true that the U.S. is no longer protecting them. One option is that Japan and South Korea will pay more for their own protection, similar to the way Estonia contributes 2% of their GDP as per NATO rules. Another option is that Japan and South Korea develop their own nuclear weapons. Cristal concluded by saying if Trump ignored the US alliance in Asia and encouraged Japan and South Korea to produce their own nuclear weapons, there would be a domino effect of other countries following suit.
Trump’s statements on the matter ignore international convention as regulated in the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty), set by the United Nations in 1968, and ratified by the United States itself. Basically, the NPT consists of three pillars: first, non-proliferation, i.e. nuclear-weapon states pledge not to increase, and must reduce as well as revoke/separate their nuclear warheads; second, disarmament, i.e. nuclear weapons eradication in which non-nuclear-weapon states pledge not to acquire and manufacture nuclear weapons; third, peaceful use, which is that nuclear energy should only be used for peaceful purposes. As a matter of fact, the NPT was inspired by President Eisenhower, one of Donald Trump’s predecessors (also from the Republican Party), following his “Atom for Peace” speech to the UN General Assembly in 1953.
Almost all states have ratified the NPT, with the exception of India, Pakistan, and Israel. North Korea ratified the NPT in 1985 and then withdrew from the treaty in 2003. Upon the signing of the NPT, there were only five states recognized as ‘nuclear-weapon states,’ namely the U.S., Russia, UK, France, and China.
Enter President Trump…
Whatever our opinions are about the above statements from Trump, as the new US leader, he will do his best for the people of the U.S., to ‘make America great again’ as promised in his campaign.
Trump’s statements probably stem from some of the following: First, the U.S. trying to reduce the burden of being guarantor of the security of Japan and South Korea; second, renegotiating the terms of payment to be received by the US from having their troops on the ground, as many as 54,000 in Japan and 28,500 in South Korea, for which Japan pays USD 1.6 billion and South Korea USD 866 million annually; third, creating a balance of power among nuclear-weapon states in East Asia, which is currently being monopolized by China and increasingly North Korea; fourth, if there is a nuclear race, triggered by Japan and South Korea, the U.S. will be very much advantaged as the main supplier, although it would violate the NPT, which the U.S. is one of the signatories; fifth, creating East Asia as the new crisis region besides the Middle East, where the U.S. will benefit economically, politically, and militarily; sixth, balancing the military/arms advancement of China as well as countering the aggressiveness of North Korea.
Following Donald Trump’s election win, there is an interesting development that can be analyzed further: the signing of a nuclear agreement/treaty between PM Shinzo Abe of Japan and PM Narendra Modi of India on November 11 in Tokyo. The agreement calls for Japanese companies to be able to export nuclear technologies to India. We know that India-China relations have been hostile for a long time, and just recently tensions over the Senkaku Islands have also escalated. The Japan-India nuclear agreement gave a strong indication that both countries are on their way to creating an alliance, in parallel with strengthening the longstanding strategic alliances between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, to counter the expansionist behavior of China and aggression from North Korea.
Many hope that Trump’s statements on the campaign trail will not become policy now that he is president. The role of the UN in encouraging Trump to comply with the NPT is very much needed, similarly to Japan and South Korea as member states of the Treaty, to adhere with the NPT and not to produce a nuclear weapon. As we know that Japan and South Korea are very advanced and have a solid grip on nuclear technology – it will not be hard for either country to produce a nuclear weapon.
If Trump follows through on his former stance and Japan and South Korea implement the idea, it will create a domino effect where other states in the Asia region will scramble to follow suit. They will definitely take measures to keep and defend their sovereignty. There may be an ASEAN state that will extricate itself from the joint commitment of the SEANWFZ (South East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone) Treaty, putting its national interest above all else. On the other hand, China and North Korea will keep on competing to enhance their nuclear capabilities. As a result, the East Asia region, including ASEAN, will be a hot zone and it is not impossible that a nuclear war may be the ultimate result.
The Trump Train is Headed for Europe
November 14, 2016
The “Trump Train” (once a Twitter hashtag and then a successful metaphor of the assertive, and to date unstoppable, reform winds blown by Donald Trump) has finally arrived at the White House. But this is very likely not the final destination of its journey. The Trump Train could soon arrive in Europe.
And it would be a return trip. As Donald Trump frequently made reference to, his campaign owes a lot of its inspiration to the Brexit movement. Surely Trump got into politics well before that, but after June he’s started referring to his rise as a “Brexit plus plus plus.” And it wasn’t just a motivational motto.
The Trumpist’s and Brexiteer’s final arguments strictly resemble one another: a proudly nationalistic rebuttal of the adverse fallouts of globalization, from industrial outsourcing to the (Western) self-hating ideology of extreme multiculturalism. The Trump Train and the Brexit share also a common grassroots social base of support, which are the White working and middle classes of small cities and rural areas especially.
Even if US society remains very different from that of Europe, the rampant globalization of recent decades has made them quite close compared to half a century ago. Both the U.S. and Europe has experienced massive deindustrialization with a geographical concentration of the remaining high-tech industries in a few islands of happiness – few compared to the many rust belts of the Western world. Both the U.S. and Europe have seen a deep financialization of their economies. Both the U.S. and Europe have been overwhelmed by the new ideology of the so-called politically correct, a post-modern, constructivist, relativist and anti-Western set of theories and practices. It’s true: in the U.S. you can find also the Bible Belt, but if we consider the European Union as a whole, we could see a Catholic Belt in its Eastern countries, opposed to Sweden (a European California) or London and Paris (European New Yorks) or in general the more liberal Western countries. Exactly as in the U.S., also in Europe, post-modernism is currently hegemonic in colleges and mainstream media, which are trying to inculcate it also in the common man, and the common woman – and the common *… Finally, the massive immigration flows of last decades into Europe are making her society more and more resemble the composite ethnic mix of North American society.
In such similar environments, it is predictable to find similar political trends and demands. Brexit- and Trump-like movements are in high gear throughout Europe, with very few notable exceptions (as Spain, but maybe only because the Partido Popular is quite more right-wing than its conservative counterparts in other countries). The working class vote has yet largely migrated from the Left to the Right, whereas the upper class is now proudly leftist in majority. Larger cities are the liberal strongholds while the suburbs are swarmed by Brexiteer-style so-called “populists.”
You have read in every possible way how Trump prevailed among White electorate by 60%-40%, losing Blacks (10%-90%) and Hispanics (35%-65%) by substantial margins. Surely we cannot trust too much pollsters’s statistics, but they are perfectly in line with surveys in previous elections. Now, take the Brexit vote: White voters chose Leave by a notable (and indeed determining the final result) margin of 53%-47%, which would be ever wider if it was not for the Scotland and Northern Ireland’s White voters, who had very particular and local-specific reason for prefering Remain. Anyway, they were not Scots or Irish the ethnic groups that by a larger majority voted for remain in the European Union. They were Asians (65%-35%), Muslims (70%-30%) and Blacks (75%-25%) instead.
No wonder if, looking into the foreign-born voters in Europe, or also second and third-generation immigrants, we will find a clear support for the Left. And since those groups are now numerically very considerable in many countries, they can actually determine the outcome of an European election. Precisely as Blacks and Hispanics in the US have been decisive in the elections of Presidents Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Obama, all with minor approval among Whites. Prompting White voters to move rightwards
With all these similarities in place, it becomes very likely for Europe to follow on the path already taken by US politics. Bets are open on which major European country will be the first stop of the Trump Train.
The Geopolitical Legacy of the Most Embittered US Election on Record
November 8, 2016
Summary
There’s a lot that’s exceptional about this latest election cycle in the United States: vitriol from both candidates (perhaps not so exceptional), bombshell political interference from government agencies, threats of legal score-settling after the election, tampering attempts from foreign countries, and last but not least – the fanning of populist passions in an increasingly divided electorate.
These forces will remain long after all the votes are counted, regardless of who emerges victorious on Tuesday night. They will add to the partisan rancor that has descended over Washington in the past decade, making it impossible for either party to govern effectively. This means more bickering and more deadlock, putting effective economic stewardship out of reach of US lawmakers, and thwarting attempts at building a comprehensive foreign policy that maintains the international system the U.S. created after World War II.
Assessments USA
