[Peace-discuss] Trump Way to the Left of Clinton on Foreign Policy - In Fact, He's Damn Near Anti-Empire

[David Johnson]

 <http://blackagendareport.com/> Description: Black Agenda Report 

 <http://blackagendareport.com/> Black Agenda Report 

News, information and analysis from the black left.

*	 

 

Trump Way to the Left of Clinton on Foreign Policy - In Fact, He's Damn Near
Anti-Empire

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

"Trump has rejected the whole gamut of U.S. imperial war rationales, from
FDR straight through to the present."

If the Bernie Sanders campaign has propelled the word "socialism" - if not
its actual meaning - into common, benign American usage, Donald Trump may
have done the world an even greater service, by calling into question the
very pillars of U.S. imperial policy: the NATO alliance; the U.S. nuclear
"umbrella"; the global network of 1,000 U.S. bases; military "containment"
of China and Russia; and U.S. "strategic" claims in the Persian Gulf. Were
the U.S. to actually rid itself of these strategic "obligations," the
military hand on the doomsday clock would immediately be rolled back, giving
humanity the breathing space to tackle other accumulated crises.

Of course, Donald Trump may over time rephrase, reverse or "clarify" out of
existence some of his profoundly anti-imperial, "America First" foreign
policy points, elicited in
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy.h
tml?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=
us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtyp
e=sectionfront&_r=0> extended interviews with major U.S. media. However, if
Trump's tens of millions of white, so-called "Middle American" followers
stick by him, despite his foreign policy heresies - as seems likely - it
will utterly shatter the prevailing assumption that the American public
favors maintenance of U.S. empire by military means. If the rank and file
right wing of the Republican Party is not a pillar of such policies, then
who is? - rank and file, Black, white and brown Democrats? If the Trump
candidacy can continue to thrive while rejecting the holiest shibboleths of
the bipartisan War Party, then we must conclude that the whole U.S. foreign
policy debate is a construct of the corporate media and the corporate-bought
duopoly political establishments, and that there is no popular consensus for
U.S. militarism and no true mass constituency for war in either party.

If Donald Trump is to be the catalyst for such a revelation, then may all
the gods bless him - because lots of assassins will be out to kill him.

"If Trump's tens of millions of white, so-called 'Middle American' followers
stick by him, it will utterly shatter the prevailing assumption that the
American public favors maintenance of U.S. empire by military means."

Trump's language is sloppy, but there can be no mistaking the thrust of his
position on key points. He calls NATO, the globe-strutting Euro-American
military juggernaut that extended its domain to Africa with the 2011 war of
regime change in Libya, an alliance that is "unfair, economically, to us."
Trump told the New York Times that NATO should focus on "counter-terrorism"
- clearly a fundamentally scaled-down mission.

He repeated his often-expressed willingness to withdraw U.S. forces from
Japan and South Korea, where American troops have been stationed since the
end of World War Two, unless both countries pay a lot more money to maintain
them. Trump actually seems eager to get out of the region, based on the
number of times he has brought the subject up in his campaign. As with
everything else in the Trump paradigm, he hooks the alliance to his quest
for a "better deal" - but the point is that he doesn't think the "price" of
the far-flung U.S. military commitment is "worth it." Trump's stated
intention to renegotiate virtually all of the "deals" the U.S. has made
around the world - the military architecture of imperialism - means he is
pointedly applying a cost-benefit test to the 1,000 U.S. bases around the
globe. He is reluctant to offer other nations the "protection" of U.S.
nuclear weapons.

The crucial point is: Trump does not accept the fundamental premise that
these bases exist for U.S. "security" interests, but rather, he frames them
as a kind of "service" that the clients should pay for. Once the "national
security" veneer is withdrawn, the military-imperial rationale evaporates
and all that is left is a business transaction - not enough to call a nation
to war, or to risk a world over.

"Trump shows no interest in 'spreading democracy,' like George W. Bush, or
assuming a responsibility to 'protect' other peoples from their own
governments, like Barack Obama and his political twin, Hillary Clinton."

Trump appears to welcome a strategic break with Saudi Arabia, threatening to
cut off U.S. purchases of oil from the kingdom unless it "substantially
reimburse[s]" Washington for fighting the Islamic State, or unless the
Saudis and the other rich oil states commit troops to the anti-jihadist
battle - at their own expense. It's all nonsense, of course, since
Washington and Saudi Arabia have been partners in global jihadism for two
generations - but so what? Trump seems to relish the idea of severing the
Saudi connection. "If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American
protection, I don't think it would be around," he said. His threat to
withdraw the "cloak" unless the potentates pay for protection would negate
the U.S. "national security" rationale in the Persian Gulf going back to
President Franklin Roosevelt's 1943 declaration that "the defense of Saudi
Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States." President Carter,
another Democrat, upped the ante in 1980 with his doctrine that the United
States would use military force if necessary to defend its "national
interests" in the Persian Gulf. Bush presidents One and Two were simply
building on these previous national security rationales. Trump recognizes no
such imperative, without which U.S. imperial policy in the region has no
political basis.

Trump plays the trade card rather than the military gambit in dealing with
China. He would threaten economic retaliation for China's fortification of
islands in the China Sea - not military encirclement. "We have tremendous
economic power over China, and that's the power of trade," he said. The
same, presumably, would apply to Russia.

The presidential candidate shows no interest in "spreading democracy," like
George W. Bush, or assuming a responsibility to "protect" other peoples from
their own governments, like Barack Obama and his political twin, Hillary
Clinton. On the contrary, Trump has stated that the U.S. should not have
invaded Iraq and Libya and killed their leaders, Saddam Hussein and Muammar
Gaddafi, because they killed terrorists - in contrast to Hillary Clinton's
macabre cackling over Gaddafi's body. He opposed the U.S. proxy war against
the al-Assad government in Syria, for similar reasons.

"Trump is busily delegitimizing U.S. imperial policy since World War Two."

He even briefly defied the ultimate taboo, using the word "neutral" to
describe the stance he would take on Palestine.

In sum, albeit sloppily, and with no guarantee that he won't change his mind
at any moment, Trump has rejected the whole gamut of U.S. imperial war
rationales, from FDR straight through to the present. For who knows what
reason, Trump is busily delegitimizing U.S. imperial policy since World War
Two.

It's not that the Empire has no clothes, but that it is being stripped of
its rationale to march around the planet in battle gear. Thanks, not to
Bernie, but to The Donald.

Trump has reduced white American nationalism to Race, his "trump" card - but
without his hero, Teddy Roosevelt's
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet> Great White Fleet sailing
the world to plant the flag on distant shores.

The first effect of Trump's intervention in the Republican primaries was to
demonstrate that his white hordes really don't give a damn for the GOP
establishment's corporate agenda; indeed, Trump gave them a chance to show
they hated what global capitalism has done to "their" jobs. The fact that
this cohort despises and fears non-whites of whatever citizenship status is
nothing new - it's a constant in U.S. politics, which is why there has
always been a White Man's Party. What makes this electoral season different
- and, hopefully, a turning point in U.S. history - is that much of the rank
and file of the White Man's Party, the GOP, is rejecting the economic agenda
of its corporate masters. If the Republican voters accept Trump's assault on
the ideological rationale undergirding U.S. foreign policy and its imperial
structures, there will be nothing left of the GOP for the corporate rulers
to defend. The Republican house of cards is collapsing, inevitably throwing
the whole duopoly system out of whack.

"It is sad beyond measure that the near-extinction of independent Black
politics has placed African Americans in the most untenable position
imaginable at this critical moment: in the Hillary Clinton camp."

The job of the Left, at this historic juncture, is to ensure that the
two-party duopoly is permanently broken, to create the space for a much
broader national discourse and, especially, to free Black America from the
<http://www.blackagendareport.com/victor_of_fear_blacks_and_dems> "trap
within a trap" of the corporate-controlled Democratic Party. As we have
written before in these pages, the best scenario of 2016 would be a fracture
at both ends of the Rich Man's Duopoly. It is insane - although perfectly
explainable - that the most leftish constituency in the nation, Black
America, is aligned with the right wing of the Democratic Party in the
person of Hillary Clinton, while white Democrats man the barricades for the
nominal socialist, Bernie Sanders. Blacks are the most pro-peace ethnicity
in the nation, but have also been the indispensable bloc behind Hillary
Clinton, the warmonger who is on her way to becoming the sole candidate of
both Wall Street and the Pentagon.

It is magnificent, grand and glorious that the duopoly system is in deep
trouble. But it is sad beyond measure that the near-extinction of
independent Black politics has placed African Americans in the most
untenable position imaginable at this critical moment: in the Hillary
Clinton camp. Fortunately, key elements of the Movement for Black Lives have
pledged not to endorse any candidates this election season. We hope that
they stick with that commitment, continue to build a grassroots movement,
and resist the corporate Democratic hegemony that has strangled and
subverted Black politics for the past 40 years. The Black Left, broadly
defined, must engage in a thorough reassessment of its politics and
practice, in light of the great fissures that are occurring in the
structures of the rulers' system. That's why the
<http://www.blackisbackcoalition.org> Black Is Back Coalition for Social
Justice, Peace and Reparations is holding a National Conference on the 2016
U.S. Presidential Election and the Struggle for Black Self-Determination, on
April 9th, in Harlem, New York City. This electoral season will see massive
realignments of parties and coalitions - events that will happen whether
Black people are organized or not. But Black self-determination is only
moved forward if people push it. The most optimum time to press issues of
Black self-determination is when the larger polity is in flux, such as
exists today - thanks, in great measure, to the racist billionaire, Donald
Trump.

Actually, there's no need to thank him. That wealth-born
son-of-a-rich-developer has already been paid. And by his own standards,
that's all that matters.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20160404/dc8b71ea/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10110 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20160404/dc8b71ea/attachment-0001.png>