Taking the bull by horns

US President Donald Trump has commenced his presidency with a big bang under the watchful and astonished eyes of the world.  The experts had opined that promises made by him during his campaign were far-fetched and unrealistic. They also believed that the powerful Washington DC bureaucracy would successfully scuttle these proposals.  The perceived nature of Mr. Trump’s impracticable promises projected him as a weak Presidential candidate. This prompted Mrs Hillary Clinton to play the gamble of helping Mr Trump win the Republican primaries in anticipation of a cake walk in the final run. The gamble did not pay off and Mrs. Clinton lost. Subsequently, the flurry of courageous decisions announced by him in the early days of his presidency has created a crisis of credibility of his detractors. 

Notwithstanding this crisis, there is an uncanny resemblance between the detractors of President Trump and Prime Minister Modi. Both were called ‘Feku’ – liars - by the detractors. However, contrary to the pictures painted by their critics, one sees no traces of ambiguity in President Trump's actions and promises. He has carefully selected a team which is supposed to carry out his policies in managing the affairs of the State. While his critics are rooting for his failure and his political opponents are busy discussing opportunity for impeachment, he (like Modi) is not wasting a minute over their hue and cry. While the United States policies normally remain the cynosure of the world politics, President Trump’s policies are clearly pointing at a massive upheaval of priorities in 2-3 decades old domestic and foreign policies. It is thus imperative that the promises he made during his election campaign and his vision of America's foreign policy be understood in the correct perspective by us.

Mr. Trump's foreign policy is destined to revolve around three important threats – Radical Islam, Illegal Immigration and Economic Downturn. The first threat to be tackled is, of course, radical Islam. President Trump and his team believe that radical Islam poses an existential threat to America. They also believe that these forces are incompatible with the ethos of American social and cultural life and therefore need to be defeated and uprooted permanently at home and at source. His team does not differentiate between Sunni radicals or Shia radicals or other radical sects. Any form of radical Islam is perceived as cancer. These factions controlled by evil forces are believed to be operating with global political aims under the garb of religion. The team’s view point is likely to target all radical organisations, their sectarian/doctrinal differences notwithstanding. This is a huge shift in USA’s decades old declared policy on radical Islamists. On the domestic front, the POTUS is expected to be ruthless against the home grown radical Islamists, American citizens or illegal immigrants.

Frankly, such clear perception of radical Islam as an existential threat has been largely absent in American presidents let alone its explicit vocal expression. President George W. Bush, in whose tenure the 9/11 attacks took place, was one exception. The nature of radical Islam and perhaps how to respond to it was clear in his mind. However, the prevailing circumstances prevented him from expressly conveying it in so many words. Nevertheless, he aptly described it as the Ideology of Terrorism.

In 2001, America was overly dependent on oil imports from the Middle East, which limited his degree of freedom in responding to the brutal threat. It was impossible to ignore the House of Al-Saud in his days. The Arab Kingdom was wary of the rising dominance of Ba’athist Arab Nationalism in general and particularly of Saddam. The American intervention in the Gulf War was mainly at the behest of the Saudi Monarchy.

In 2002 his Ambassador Robert Blackwill called India a “Natural Ally” in America’s ’War on Terror’. Awaken by the 9/11 attack about America’s dependency, President Bush took steps to make America free from her over dependence on imports of middle eastern oil. America is now enjoying the fruits of his vision. We have no doubt that had America been more independent of the middle eastern oil back in 2001, President Bush would have taken similar steps as President Trump.

During the final weeks of his presidency, Mr. Bush made advanced technology available to Indian govt which enabled India to intercept live communication between the attackers in Mumbai and their controllers back in Pakistan. In November 2009 after his tenure, when Mr Bush visited India, he stayed at the Hotel Taj and met its employees who had shown tremendous courage in saving some of the guests those nights. This was a warm gesture to the victims of radical Islam.

The oil dependency continued to prompt subsequent American President to acquiesce to the wishes of the Saudi king, and support the downfall of Gaddafi in Libya and back the rebels in Syria against Assad. The cooperation of radical groups with America was ensured by Saudi Arabia to accomplish their own objectives. American stance seemed hardly altered from its support to the mujahideen against the soviet backed regime in 1979, to the support to Chechen rebels against Russia in the 21^st Century. American support to the partition of Yugoslavia, which essentially resulted in a Sharia-ruled Kosovo, only bolsters the dubious approach adopted by America on radical Islam.

Putin has been consistent in exposing American policy makers’ duplicity in handling radical Islam. From Russian viewpoint, American response to radical Islam reeks of ad-hocism. Instead of developing an ideology-based stable policy which can deal with radical Islam comprehensively as a single threat diffused over countries, ‘transactional’ nature of its approach, held hostage to cold war era compulsions, has had an upper hand. But now President Trump can initiate a change in this policy while circumstances allow him the freedom besides his ideological commitment. President Trump seems ahead of President Bush by a couple steps. Ideologically, he could be in sync with the Russian President on Radical Islam.

Since it has been argued by American media and politicians that President Trump was actively catapulted into presidency by a campaign run at the behest of Russian state, it may be thus perceived and expected that President Trump would ease the tensions over this challenge between the two states and cooperate in eradicating the radical Islam as a political force to reckon with in coming years.  It would be interesting to see on what terms and execution plan such cooperation could be bargained and implemented as the “to be affected” list of countries is not unpredictable at this moment.

In pursuance of the perceived danger to America's very existence by the radical Islam, it is but logical that President Trump has initiated his second important set of measures of controlling undesirable immigration into USA from Mexico as well as Islamic countries. The illegal immigrants are seen by American people as usurpers who are taking away their jobs. The immigrants’ willingness to accept lower wages has resulted into falling income levels of the citizens gradually. The illegal immigration is naturally taken as a peril against which American civilization needs to be protected. There is a strong belief that a section of illegal immigrants is involved in terror plots, sleeper cells, drug trafficking and other criminal activities, and in turn pose a grave danger to homeland security. Trump administration is contemplating new laws against persons colluding to suppress or materially hide known evidence.

However, it is not just the fear of losing jobs or falling incomes that prompt stringent measures against immigrants in general and Muslim immigrants in particular. It is the fear of radical Islam which has put the Americans on high alert. American citizens have witnessed how Europeans have suffered in their own land. Countries accepted immigrants from North Africa and Middle East as cheap labour over many decades and in the last few years also the refugees fleeing the Syrian conflict. But now, there are social tensions. The huge socio-cultural gap between the Western Civilisation and the Middle East is making their co-existence extremely difficult. In complete disregard to the challenges faced by the host citizens, the European "libtards" have continued to engage into convincing the terrorised citizens that THEY should bend backwards and adapt themselves to the immigrants’ way of life and be ‘tolerant’ to the crimes committed by them!

Their incessant propaganda resulted into a total surrender with no opposition by the locals into accepting as the last resort the responsibility of integrating the immigrants into their lives in the hope of negotiating a semblance of peace. That however was not to be, despite their best efforts as is today exposed by the increasingly aggressive behaviour of the immigrants and their unabated insistence on adhering to Sharia in disregard to the law of the land which they have adopted as their own. The radical Islam’s combative approach stinks of aiming at establishing political rule of Islam - Sharia in Europe by bending the host countries backwards and forcing them to make Europe “All Rights No Liabilities” heaven for themselves. This has jolted common Americans out of deep slumber and made them think and question whether they too would get subjected to the same pattern of disguised imposition of Sharia under the camouflage of integration as projected by the propaganda of the American liberals and the behaviour of the immigrants prompted by radical Islam. American citizens suspect that there is a well-organized coup to usurp American law. The libtards have indulged in sabotaging the national interests in collaboration with the radicals. President Trump's efforts to control immigration have been therefore welcome domestically by majority Americans. His efforts have also directly impacted America's foreign policy vis-a-vis Islamic Civilisation. The stance taken by the US will also force other countries including Europe to reconsider and recalibrate their foreign policy and immigration policy.

The third objection made by President Mr. Trump against his predecessors, is pertaining to the unfair trade agreements in complete disregard for the well-being and survival of American businesses. The Trump administration has serious objections to NAFTA and TPP.  Trump has already withdrawn from TPP - the Trans Pacific Partnership which, as alleged by President Trump in his election campaign, have raped the American businesses. The renegotiation of terms of NAFTA would be next item on the agenda with Trump proposing levy of 45% duty on goods received from countries that indulge the unfair trade practices. Pacts like TPP and NAFTA have gradually lowered the shutters on American manufacturing units and reduced local job opportunities.

Although China is not a party to TPP, it is marked as enemy number one by this administration in their fight against unfair trade practices. Mr. Trump had during the election campaign taken serious objection to one - China’s currency manipulation which adversely affected American business interests and second - to the dumping of steel and Aluminium in American market. China is further seen as infringing upon the American Intellectual Property Rights and adopting other unfair trade practices. Thus, Mr. Trump believes that China is already at economic war with America in which it is emerging as the winner. They believe this problem was aggravated when China signed the WTO agreement in 2001. China is aiming at establishing its own financial empire and deposing America as world’s largest economy. Trump administration believes that China thus needs to be challenged head on.

The early measures initiated by President Trump are not a solution in themselves but they point to the direction this administration would proceed in the next 4 years. It is obvious why India should have deep interest in Mr. Trump's agenda. The liberals in Europe will staunchly oppose this direction – shades higher than the opposition President Bush faced. But for India, President Trump’s open position against Chinese actions on economic front as well as the South China Sea have been heartening to her strategic interests. The mutual interest in these spheres explains how and why India's National Security Advisor Shri Ajit Doval was given an audience in DC in the first few days after 20th Jan.

Unlike what was made out by the critics, President Trump is thus very serious on his electoral promises as he is aware that he will be able to win over and sustain American popular opinion with his initiatives. America First and Economic Nationalism are the key words around which America 's tax policy - fiscal policy - economy - immigration and foreign affairs will revolve in next 4 years. America’s relationship with Russia – Iran – Saudi – European Union – China – N Korea – Japan and of course India will be viewed from this framework. There is no escape. World needs to be prepared for this onslaught and make plans to respond to the same.