The United States is threatening tariffs on allies like Canada and Mexico (higher than those threatened to our real economic rival, China). The President demands that the Panama Canal be \u201creturned\u201d. The Trump Administration seriously proposes that the Gaza Strip be evacuated of ALL Palestinians, bulldozed, rebuilt as the \u201cGaza Riviera\u201d, and patrolled by the US military. He\u2019s proposes a \u201cfriendly\u201d, or not so \u201cfriendly\u201d, takeover of Greenland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And he\u2019s made it clear that Ukraine better take whatever \u201cdeal\u201d the US negotiates with Russia, or face a total loss of military support. And, by the way, Ukraine needs to give half of its mineral resources to the US (of course America would pay, maybe?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are lots of ways to view world politics. The United States, since World War II, has tried to build alliances with our friends to offset those of our enemies. During the Cold War (1948-1992) the US built NATO, an alliance of European nations, CENTO, an alliance of middle Asian nations, SEATO, an alliance of South and East Asian nations, and ANZUS, Australia, New Zealand the US. Those treaty organizations gave leverage against the Soviet Union and \u201ctheir\u201d alliance, the Warsaw Pact, and China and the other Communist Asian nations, Vietnam and North Korea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Building alliances was a \u201ccooperative\u201d effort. The US asked for assistance, military base locations, support of the other national armed forces, votes in the United Nations, and the literal \u201cweight of the world\u201d against their rivals. In return, the US offered incentives. Some were military, as simple as Article 5 of the NATO declaration: \u201c\u2026an attack on one member Nation is an attack on us all\u201d. Article 5 has been invoked once, when non-governmental terrorists struck the United States on 9-11<\/em>. When the US went to war in Afghanistan, a wide variety of our allies joined us. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Alliances also offered protection: the US would use its mighty forces, particularly the Air Force and the Navy, to spread a range of defenses over our \u201cfriends\u201d. When the Soviets pushed the \u201cenvelope\u201d over the Arctic, or the Sea of Japan, or in Europe; it was US forces that countered their moves. And ultimately, it was the US nuclear deterrent that protected the world against the Soviet (and to a lesser extent, Chinese) nuclear threat: Mutual Assured Destruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our friends also got favored economic status. We used our manufacturing might, and also our agricultural abundance, to help our \u201cfriends\u201d develop and flourish. Sure, we might have made a few more \u201cbucks\u201d in other ways, but favors on the economic side led to responses on the military side. It was a way of sharing prosperity, and building security. It was a \u201cwin-win\u201d proposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the \u201cideology\u201d underlying the current Administration\u2019s policies has a wholly different basis.\u00a0\u00a0Instead of a \u201cwin-win\u201d concept, it is based on the \u201czero-sum game\u201d theory.\u00a0\u00a0They believe there is a limited amount of success, resources, and financial wealth in the world.\u00a0\u00a0When one Nation \u201cwins\u201d another must lose.\u00a0\u00a0And, since the United States is the biggest military and economic power in the world, one nation versus another, the US should ALWAYS \u201cwin\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cZero-Sum\u201d theory directly contradicts the \u201cwin-win\u201d theory of coalition building, because coalitions make all the nations \u201cwinners\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0In the \u201czero-sum\u201d theory:\u00a0”\u00a0To the biggest, baddest, strongest; goes the spoils\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0So the United States shouldn\u2019t be \u201cgood-old Uncle Sam\u201d, trying to make the world a better place.\u00a0\u00a0Instead, we should \u201cbiggest kid on the block\u201d, who takes what it wants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why talk about taking over Greenland?\u00a0\u00a0Regardless of what the Administration says about Greenland\u2019s geographic importance as a \u201cmilitary base\u201d, the reality is that as climate change causes the Greenland glacier to melt, it\u2019s revealing mineral resources.\u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s not about a place to put a base, but a place to put a mine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What about rebuilding Gaza? It\u2019s surely not about the Palestinians, who would be shoved off somewhere, anywhere else. Certainly Jordan, Syria, and Egypt don\u2019t want them. All three nations have bad memories of times when Palestinians were there before. It\u2019s about securing Israel\u2019s border, and making personal money at the expense of the US government. Can\u2019t you see \u201cTRUMP MED HOTEL\u201d on the Gazan coast, towering over the sand beach and rolling waves?<\/p>\n\n\n\n And why is Trump insulting the leader of Canada, calling him \u201cGovernor Trudeau\u201d? What does Trump really want? In many ways the Canadian economy is an extension of the US economy. Ford, Chrysler, GM, Toyota, and Honda all build cars in Canada for sale in the United States. Trump is looking for a new source of revenue to dramatically increase the US government account (why? \u2013 that\u2019s a different essay I\u2019m working on). Tariffs on Canada (and Mexico) could create some of that revenue. And who would pay for it? Since tariffs are ultimately passed onto the consumer, it would be the American buyers who would pay the new \u201chidden\u201d tax. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And what\u2019s really going on in Ukraine?\u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s personal.\u00a0\u00a0Remember that Trump\u2019s first impeachment was all about the corrupt bargain he was trying to make with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to stop Joe Biden\u2019s candidacy for US President.\u00a0\u00a0Zelenskyy didn\u2019t go along with the deal offered in the \u201cperfect phone call\u201d \u2013 payback\u2019s a bitch when it comes to Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, Trump wants to trade with Russia, another \u201czero-sum\u201d where Russia will supply the money now trapped in Russian oligarchs blocked accounts, for investment in the US (and maybe pay off Trump’s personal loans?).\u00a0\u00a0The only way to do that is to clear the sanctions over Ukraine.\u00a0\u00a0End the war, free the cash.\u00a0\u00a0And, by the way, Ukraine has little to \u201cplay\u201d in this deal, only their freedom as a democratic nation, something that Trump cares little about.\u00a0\u00a0But there are minerals in Ukraine (just like Greenland) that the US could use \u2013 so forcing them into a deal has all sorts of \u201cbenefits\u201d in Trump world thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The zero-sum world is one on one, bi-lateral. That\u2019s because one on one the US should always \u201cwin\u201d. The win-win world shares the wealth, the zero-sum world allows one nation to accumulate wealth. In the end Trump isn\u2019t crazy, talking about Greenland and Panama. He\u2019s simply taking his own personal Manhattan real-estate view of economics, and applying it to the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The question should be:\u00a0\u00a0is this the kind of world we want?\u00a0\u00a0Is democracy and national sovereignty in Ukraine more important that America\u2019s wallet?\u00a0\u00a0And more importantly, is democracy and national sovereignty in the United States more important than America\u2019s wallet?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n That may be the ultimate choice Americans will make.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Biggest Kid on the Block<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What About?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Ukraine<\/h3>\n\n\n\n