Trump’s “America First” campaigns has fed a latent US isolationism which has forced the Democrats to adopt some of his policies
By Tom arms
A Kamala Harris win this week is not good news for the UK and Europe. A Trump win is much, much worse.
Trump’s “America First” campaigns has fed a latent US isolationism which has forced the Democrats to adopt some of his policies, because, like it or not, America is a democracy and the president elected to represent all Americans.
According to one poll, only 22 percent of young Americans support involvement in the Middle East. Half of Republicans think that the US is supplying too much aid to Ukraine and only 44 percent of Republicans think that the US should play a leading role in the world. Democrats are more internationally minded with 65 percent in favour of an active foreign policy. The good news is that NATO has popular support with a bipartisan 70 percent approval rating. The fact is, however, that America is moving into its shell at one of the most dangerous periods for the world since the end of World War Two.
America’s diplomatic corps would be hard put to meet expectations even if there was a swell of opinion in favour of increased global involvement. It is still reeling from the Trump years when budgets were cut by 30 percent, ambassadorial posts were left empty and 60% of the diplomatic corps left either in protest or cutbacks. Biden has increased budgets but the damage done by Donald Trump will take years to repair.
Trump, of course, regularly threatens to withdraw from NATO. Biden and Kamala Harris have recommitted to the alliance but it was a Democratic president—Barack Obama—who first attacked NATO allies for failing to spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense. He also unveiled the “Asia Pivot” which shifts the military focus from Europe and the Middle East to East Asia. Trump, Biden and Harris have embraced the Asia Pivot.
Read- US elections: Immigration takes center stage
Defense costs money and the policies of Trump, Biden and Harris are undermining the economies of UK and Europe. Trump, again is the worst. His tariffs on all imports—possibly as much as 20 percent on British and EU exports will hit exports. It will, of course, also lead to a tit for tat tariff war in which everybody loses—especially the consumer.
Kamala Harris will continue Biden’s $738 billion Inflation Reduction Act” which is peppered with isolationist policies. The IRA includes such things as a $7,500 handout for the purchase of US-made-only electric vehicles, and tax credits only for products made in America. The EU has protested and threatened to take America to the World Trade Organization. But the WTO has been rendered useless by America’s 7-year refusal to agree to new judges for its appellate body.
Ten percent of America’s GDP is produced by the tech billionaires in Silicon Valley. Artificial Intelligence is acknowledged to be both a massive opportunity and threat to society. The EU has introduced the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) to regulate big tech. The US is allowing big tech to operate a Wild West economy which soaks up $1 trillion in foreign investment which could otherwise go towards British and European technology start-ups.
Read – Observations of an Expat: Kamala’s Foreign Policy
The fact is that the UK and EU need to start thinking of how to exist alongside an isolationist and protective America. For a start, it needs work to out how to fill the vacuum created by the withdrawal of the US. This means increased defense spending and cooperation, more foreign aid and more money spent on diplomacy.
A recent report by the London-based Coalition for Global Prosperity (CGP) called for 3.5 percent of Britain’s GDP to be spent on international affairs. This was needed, said the CGP, to combat threats to world peace and democratic countries. The expenditure would break down to 2.5 percent on defense and 0.5 percent on diplomacy. The report, “The Rising Price of Freedom,” also calls the restoration of the 0.7 percent spend on foreign aid.
The CGP says Britain is well-placed to play a bigger role with its permanent seat on the UN Security Council, major involvement in the World Bank and IMF, a key member of the Five Eyes, NATO and the Commonwealth.
Britain, however, does not have the resources to fill the yawning gap being left by Americans. Its logical partner is fellow democracies in the EU, but the UK left them with Brexit. When Theresa May negotiated the withdrawal terms she proposed that post-Brexit Britain participate in such projects as the European Defense Agency which encourages defense cooperation resource-sharing among members. The proposal was known as the Chequers Plan and it was rejected both by the European Commission and the UK parliament.
Read: Foreign Policy’s Impact on the November Presidential Election
The bones of May’s Chequers Plan were revived recently when Britain and Germany signed a “landmark defense agreement”. Under this agreement German defense company Rheinmetall will open a UK factory producing artillery shell (Britain stopped effectively stopped producing artillery shells in 2012). The two countries also agree to joint work on the development of drones and long range missiles, and the German air force will augment RAF patrols in the North Sea.
Britain and France also have the 2010 Lancaster House Treaty which set up cooperation in nuclear technology and testing and a structure for join army expeditionary forces.
Both those agreements—along with the agreed British attendance at EU foreign ministers meetings-are part of what the Labour government is calling an “EU reset”. The idea appears to be that Britain will participate in agreed areas of mutual concern but remain outside the official structure.
The fact is Britain and the EU’s joint concerns in Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan and on issues such as immigration and climate change make it essential that they work together. An EU reset is essential in the wake of increasing American isolationism.
Word Review
If you have a fortune of $5 billion-plus in a country with a GDP of £$24.6 billion you will be a whale in a puddle. Such is the fate of Georgia Dream Party founder and chief backer Bidzina Ivanishvili.
And, if you are willing to part with some of your fortune, you can bend the political structure and electoral systems to your will. Ivanishvili is accused of doing just that in the recent Georgian parliamentary elections which the Dream Party won with 53 percent of the vote,
Bidshina Ivanishvili was born into humble beginnings in 1958 but when the Soviet Union collapsed he moved to Russia to grab what he could in the Great Russian carve-up. He ended up with a multinational conglomerate encompassing banking, real estate and heavy industry. He returned to Georgia and in 2011 decided to try his hand at politics by forming the centrist, pro-EU Georgia Dream Party.
Backed with Ivanishvili’s fortune, the Georgia Dream Party won a landslide victory in 2012 elections and Ivanishvili became prime minister. He stepped down a year later saying that he had achieved all his goals and wanted to private life.
But Ivanishvili’s money insured that he remained the power behind the throne. And from that position he subtly tilted the Dream Party towards Russia. At the same time he sought membership with the EU. His behind the scenes influence led critics to brand Ivanishvili the “shadow leader.”
As the years passed it became increasingly difficult to walk the political tightrope between the goal of EU membership and the looming shadow of the bear. To keep Russia happy Georgia Dream introduced anti LGBTQ laws and a Foreign Agents Act. Both laws closely mirrored Russia’s laws on both issues. They also breached EU human rights provisions. As a result the EU broke off negotiations with Georgia.
Georgia Dream’s tilt to Russia was unpopular. Polls showed that 80 percent of Georgians wanted to move closer to the EU as protection from Moscow. All the indications. All the opinion polls, were that after three terms in office, Georgia Dream Party, would lose last week’s election, especially when they campaigned on a promise to ban opposition parties.
They won with 54 percent of the vote. The Opposition, EU election observers, President Biden, and even Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili, called foul. They claimed that Ivanishvili’s Dream Party was guilty of “bribery, intimidation and ballot-stuffing.”
The allegations were rejected by Ivanishvili and Dream Party Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze. They were welcomed by Hungary’s Vilktor Orban who hopes that eventually Georgia will become another “illiberal democratic” member of the EU. And the Russian bear? It stopped being silent and cheered.
____________________________________
Japan is a different democratic country. That is the reason for the lack of excitement in the wake of the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s failure to win a majority in the recent election.
The Japanese political system did not evolve over centuries like its Western counterparts. It was imposed on a socially conservative society with a strong respect for traditions, authority and seniority.
The result is a deeply Japanese political foundation with a democratic veneer, but a veneer which Japanese have come to treasure as much as their traditions.
The big word in Japanese politics is “wan” which is defined as being focused on consensus building and group harmony. It contrasts with the adversarial nature of Western politics
The electoral system reflects this consensus building nature. It is a mixed first past the post constituency-based system and proportional representation. The result is that quite often elections lead to a disparity between percentage of votes received and the percentage of seats in the Diet (the Japanese parliament).
Finally, there is little public involvement in Japanese politics. There exists a sort of social compact whereby the political elite is allowed to rule as they see fit as long they keep their peccadilloes discreet and their rule benefits—or at least does not damage—the lives of the general population.
The system has insured political stability and helped produce the world’s third largest economy from the ashes of war. But it also meant effective one party rule—the Liberal Democratic Party. The LDP has been out of office only three years in the post-war period.
But there are signs that the LDP edifice is cracking. Its Diet members have been in a number of scandals recently, especially involving the Christian-based Unification Church which has been accused of financing campaigns and bribing LDP politicians. On top of that, Japanese economic growth has been stagnant for the past 30 years with annual growth of only 1.4 percent.
The result is that the implied social contract is wearing thin, especially with younger voters. In the most recent election voter turnout was only 29.4 percent— a sure sign of political apathy which could lead to political passions which would undermine the consensus politics that keep the Liberal Democratic Party in power.
______________________________________
The Western Sahara was big news when I was a young diplomatic correspondent 50 years ago. You would think that the Algerian-backed Polisario Front would have by now reached an agreement with the Moroccan government. No such luck, and now the Western Sahara has become a bargaining chip for the major powers.
Problems started in 1973 with a colonial war between the independence-minded Polisario Front and Spain—the colonial power. The Polisario Front won and Spain recognized the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), the political creation of Polisario.
Enter Morocco, who also claimed the territory. Mauritania also demanded a slice and France sent troops to back the Moroccan claim. The result was a second war which lasted until 1991. It ended with a ceasefire that left the Polisario in control of roughly 20 percent of the Western Sahara. The rest, including the only major city Layyone, was controlled by Morocco.
The uneasy peace continued until 2005 when pro-independence riots broke out in the only city–Layyone. These lasted until 2011 when the riots died down and the two sides returned to their uneasy peace with roughly the same division of territory.
Then came the Abraham Accords. The US and Israel wanted to secure diplomatic recognition for Israel. King Mohammed VI wanted American and Israeli recognition of the Moroccan claim to the Western Sahara. The deal was made.
The reasons for French recognition—which came this week—are more complicated. Yes, they want to curry favour with a super power, but they also have major investments in Morocco. More importantly they are worried about stability in Western Africa. They have been forced to withdraw from Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso where they were helping to fight Islamic insurgents. They have been replaced in all three countries by the Russian Wagner Group.
Why does Morocco want 105,000 square miles of desert? There are potash reserves and phosphate reserves among the sand dunes, but of greater importance is the 685-mile long coastline. This gives Morocco a fish-rich 200-mile exclusive economic zone into the Atlantic. It also transforms Morocco from a North African power to a country straddling North and West Africa.
Read – Observations of an Expat: Trump Told You So
___________________
Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and the author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”
