New political dynamics in the US
United States after 20 January, 2017 will set new standards and the world will have to find solutions to emerging problems
Muhammad Zamir
Several question marks have surfaced within the United States political and economic paradigm as its citizens prepare themselves for the swearing-in of their new President- Donald Trump a few days from today. The rest of the world will wait and watch as the new dynamics create their own connotations within the international arena.
2016 ended with charges of cyber hacking and tampering by Russia in the US Presidential electoral process. There was however no allegation of interference with the voting process on November 8- the Election Day. President Barack Obama on 15 December vowed necessary retaliatory action in the light of allegations that Russia had meddled in the US presidential election campaign. It may be recalled that (a) data and thousands of emails were stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clintons campaign chairman, John Podesta, among other targets, (b) US intelligence agencies in October pinned blame on Russia for campaign-related hacking and (c) Wikileaks, which published much of the information obtained by hacking refused to reveal its sources.
Obama went on to warn that if and when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections then we need to take action- and we will at a time and place of our own choosing, Obamas allegation had emerged after some in the US CIA and the FBI had suggested that such a course of action by Russia had probably taken place. As expected, Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov retaliated by pointing out that it was indecent of the United States to groundlessly accuse Russia of intervention in the US election campaign. Russia also asked the US to submit necessary proof in this regard. US President-elect Donald Trump however not only dismissed the assessment of the United States intelligence community that Russia had hacked the election but also sarcastically mentioned that this snooping in Democratic Party servers and emails of Clinton campaign staffers could have been done by China or even someone sitting in
New Jersey.
These criticisms and counter accusations revealed not only the anger of the Democratic Party but also indicated that Trumps Republican Party, according to the CNNs Elise Labott, Kevin Liptak, Jim Acosta and Matthew Chance was also fast lurching into a mini-Cold War with itself -- this time over working with Russia rather than against it. It must be understood at this point that not everyone within the Republican Party is willing to support Trumps affinity for Russian President Putin. They are proud of their hawkish history regarding Moscow and consider US triumph over the Soviet Union as one of its defining achievements.
Analysts have noted that the Washington showdown over how to combat Russian interference in the election is also testing the uneasy truce that has prevailed between the White House and the Trump operation since November. It is also a sign of the unusual intra-party dilemmas beginning to unfold in Washington rooted in the next Presidents unorthodox approach to policy and wielding power. Some senior Republicans have also mentioned that the idea that Russia may not pay a price for the startling allegation of seeking to undermine American democracy with a series of cyber breaches is infuriating and putting even those less hostile to Trump in a tough political spot.
Trump and his team are however concerned that the issue is being used to delegitimize his victory. Trump aides have consistently accused the Democrats and critics of Trump in the CIA of drumming up the hacking issue to undermine his victory in November. This has been taken forward recently by Obama through the expulsion of 35 Russian Officials from the Russian Embassy in Washington. Putin however, very cleverly used this to his advantage by refusing a tit-for-tat situation. Instead he refused to expel any US diplomats from Moscow. He also invited children of US Officials in Moscow to a party to celebrate the year ending season festivities.
There is also anxiety that if anger continues to rise within the Republicans, it could eventually affect the nomination of Tillerson (the former Exxon- Mobil Chief) as Trumps next Secretary of State. Only a few Republican Senators would need to defect for his nomination to be in jeopardy, assuming most Democrats in the chamber -- where the GOP has a 52-48 majority -- vote against him. Many among the leadership have also expressed concern about Tillersons views on human rights and climate change. Their queries feed into broader questions about whether his lifetime career at Exxon Mobil and the corporate focus on profit are the best preparation for being the top US diplomat.
Another element that is beginning to worry the Trump camp is the possible hardening of position within the influentials among the Republican Party over the possible reorientation in US policy towards the sanction issue toward Russia. The possibility that Trump could consider lifting US sanctions on Russian entities and officials imposed to punish the annexation of Crimea has gradually gained credibility after a former campaign surrogate showed up in Moscow in December. This possibility of softening the position on sanctions and improving relations with Russia has been explained by Walid Phares, a Trump adviser as a possible effort by the President-elect to improve relations with Russia with hopes that it would help boost administration priorities in the region, including ending the war in Syria.
However, it is still far from clear as to how Trumps Russia policy will unfold. While foreign policy observers have deduced he will try to forge a working relationship with Putin -- of whom he spoke admiringly on the campaign trail -- Trumps exact conditions for a rapprochement are still fully unknown. There are some willing to offer Trump the benefit of the doubt.
Another important point has raised eyebrows within Washingtons diplomatic community and the international arena. It relates to Trump picking his campaign adviser David Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer with hardline views on Israel, to serve as US Ambassador to Israel. Concern has been raised about this decision among many countries because of Friedmans immediate statement that he looked forward to this appointment as it would enable him to help move the US Embassy to Israels eternal capital, Jerusalem. That would fulfill a promise made by Trump on the campaign trail to relocate the diplomatic mission from Tel Aviv, upending decades of US policy. This nomination has however raised eyebrows within the international community which is guided by UN Resolutions. They are recalling that Trump, during his campaign had stated that peace would depend on whether Israel is willing to make sacrifices and had said that he would remain neutral in the negotiations.
The evolving sensitive situation regarding Palestine and the Two-State effort has however already drawn international attention because of the dramatic vote on the UN Security Council Resolution adopted on Friday, 23rdDecember. The resolution passed on a 14-0 vote, with the US abstaining. United States and Palestinian officials later denied the Israeli accusation of colluding on the UN vote. The resolution was originally put forward by Egypt but it was withdrawn under pressure from the Israelis. Subsequently, four countries, New Zealand, Venezuela, Malaysia and Senegal, brought it up again for a vote. The vote was a blow for Israel as the world effectively lined up to censure its settlement building in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, as this is seen as an obstacle to stalled peace talks and the ever more elusive notion of a Palestinian state. Trump however tweeted after the vote that As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th. Despite Trumps tweet, Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian leader has however commented that This is a victory for the people and for justice and international law. White House officials upset with Trumps direct intervention on the matter with Egypt also aired their frustration that Trump had acted so boldly on the global stage before assuming the Presidency. Ben Rhodes, Obamas Deputy National Security Adviser underlined this by pointing out correctly that theres one President at a time.
The President-elects reorientation of US-Israeli relations could have unpredictable results internationally. A decision to move the US Embassy, for example, would cause outrage among Palestinians and could erupt into violence.
Critics of moving the Embassy say doing so would inflame Arab opinion and make it impossible for the US to ever be a broker between Israel and the Palestinians in future. Moving the Embassy and a shift toward Netanyahu could also cause fissures with Trumps relations with some European allies who are already perturbed by his election. It could also intensify interest around the world in the boycott, divestments and sanctions movement (BDS) led by Palestinians to punish Israel.
Next item on the slate is future relationship with China. Trump is deliberately challenging long-held tenets of US relations with China, especially over Taiwan.
The visit of the Taiwanese President to Houston on 7 January and other parts of the USA over the next few days will generate further tension. Questions are now being asked as to whether Trump will receive her for a meeting. This however is still
not clear.
Trump appears to be putting the entire basis of the US-China relationship in play and seems willing to bring up an issue -- Taiwan -- which is of existential importance to Beijing. Obama tried to manage the highly delicate relationship with China with as little confrontation as possible, using the protocol-heavy formulations that have endured for 40 years. The policy was tested by President Xi Jinpings increasingly assertive and nationalistic leadership style and Beijings aggressive pursuit of territorial claims in the South and East China Seas. There was disagreement between the two sides but caution enabled Beijing and Washington agreeing to join the Paris climate accord. Trump on the other hand has intentionally escalated a showdown with China. This has called into question the bedrock principles that have governed US relations with Beijing. Analysts are interpreting this approach as an indication that he is willing to use the One China policy (that has ensured no open conflict between the US and China over nationalist Taiwan since 1971) as a leverage particularly with regard to several nuances related to trade activities with China. This view has been taken forward with Trump picking investment adviser Peter Navarro, a fierce China critic, to be the head of a newly formed White House National Trade Council.
The reaction from China and elsewhere to his statements meanwhile have underlined the vast difference from Trump being a candidate - where a potential Presidents comments are often taken by foreign powers with a pinch of salt -- and being President-elect whose comments have a huge impact around the world.
One needs to conclude with Roger Cohens cogent comments in the New York Times on 5 December. He has mentioned that it is still too early to say what Mr. Trump will do and how many of his wild campaign promises he will keep, but its safe to predict turbulence. Irascibility, impetuosity and inattention define him; however curtailed they may prove to be by his entourage and the responsibilities of power. NATO will grow weaker. Baltic States will feel more vulnerable. Syrias Bashar al-Assad, backed by a Putin-Trump entente, will grow stronger. Chinese-American trade tensions will sharpen, in approximate sync with military tensions in the East and South China seas. The Iran nuclear deal, painstakingly negotiated by the major powers, could unravel, making the Middle East exponentially more dangerous. The worlds Paris-enshrined commitment to fight climate change will be undermined. The approximately 65 million migrants on the move, about one-third of them refugees, will find shelter and dignity scarce as xenophobic nationalism moves into the political mainstream across Central Europe and elsewhere.
United States after 20 January, 2017 will set new standards and the world will have to find solutions to emerging problems.
Muhammad Zamir, a formerambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs,right to information and goodgovernance. He can be reached at [email protected]
