Home / Articles / Another ‘Ugly American’ in the making

Another ‘Ugly American’ in the making

So far Donald J Trump has not outgrown his campaign style, he continues to manage his transition in the same manner from the 58th floor of Trump Tower. Smart and experienced Republicans are being sidelined in favour of men having a track record of hate. Initial indicators point out that: a man associated with white supremacy may be the chief strategist; future attorney general may be a person dropped to judgeship on account of alleged racism; and an Islamophobe may be the National Security Advisor. Trump’s new partners in shaping world economy are likely to be ‘Brexit and make in India lobbies’. indeed another ‘Ugly American’ may be in the making.

During his post-election visit to Europe, President Obama faced tough questions about the future of America-Europe relations. Though Obama played down the fears of abandoning Europe, it is clear that there would be no free lunch for European allies.

Birds of same flock
Birds of same flock

A US district judge John Primomo has ruled that “Accept Trump as president or go to another country”—that is the evolving American model of tolerance for difference of opinion. Pull of presidency doesn’t seem to moderate Trump’s thought processes. Campaign boys are busy gathering arguments to suggest that trump’s all campaign promises could be carried through. Caution is due: President Trump may be as ugly as Candidate Trump. Only hope for Pakistan is that he remains adamant of mediating between India and Pakistan to resolve Kashmir dispute as well.

Trump appears fixated into some regressive ideals of yesteryears. Banning the entry of Muslims, tearing apart Iran nuclear deal, watering down support to Palestinian right to statehood, strict immigration measures including medieval concepts of wall building and electrified fencing, retooling trade relations with China, incorporating protectionist trade regime in favour of the US; withholding ratification of 12-nationTrans Pacific Partnership (TPP) etc. are just some of Trump’s day dreams. Good things include: toning down post Crimea neo-cold war rhetoric with Russia alongside enhancing multi-dimensional cooperation; asking Europe to take more financial responsibility of their defence; offer to mediate between India and Pakistan on Kashmir dispute etc.

Some of the dormant and abandoned post 9/11 laws, in their revamped form, are being seen as worth re-implementation with respect to immigration, profiling and registration. Even though some of them had been overturned by American superior judiciary and others were thought as no longer relevant in view of their inconsistency with America’s obligations with regard to Human Rights.

Trump administration may go ahead with speedy construction of a US-Mexico border wall through an executive order, bypassing congressional approval. Even though both houses of the Congress have Republican majority, singly and conjointly, yet, Trump has apprehensions that Congress may still stand in the way of such regressive lawmaking and approvals. Revocation of 2012 order granting temporary deportation relief and work permits to more than 700,000 undocumented children of illegal immigrants is also being contemplated.

Trump said on November 13, in an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes”, that once he took office, he would remove immigrants with criminal records who are in the country illegally: “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.” However, America looks forward to securing the border before getting on to any statutory immigration measure. Raising of a deportation force is not on cards. Trump referred to undocumented migrants without criminal records as “terrific people”. However, he did not describe in detail what his policy would be toward them. The US already has a large infrastructure for arresting, detaining and deporting migrants. Over eight years, Barack Obama has deported more than 2.5 million people, more than any other president, and more than doubled the number of border patrol agents.

To implement Trump’s views on “extreme vetting” of some Muslim immigrants, a proposal is under consideration for reinstating a national registry for immigrants and visitors from Muslim countries who enter the US on visas from countries where extremist organizations are active. A similar National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), was imposed by President Bush after 9/11, whereby people from “higher risk” countries were required to undergo interrogations and fingerprinting on entering the US. This law was abandoned in 2011 after it was deemed redundant by the Department of Homeland Security. Trump campaign has also restored ‘Muslim ban’ proposal on website that was earlier presumed to have been taken down on November 08.

Trump’s economic policy stance has been evident in his oft-repeated inward-looking pronouncements. Globalization engendered inequalities have been at the heart of Trump’s economic policy declarations. Reversal and or renegotiation of some of the earlier trade agreements and policies may be on cards. The core elements of trade policy include imposition of higher tariffs on imports in general, and from China and Mexico in specific. Under the circumstances, Pakistan’s desire of preferential access to the US market may not bear fruits.

With America being the world’s largest importer with a share of almost 14 per cent in world imports, imposition of higher tariffs will naturally be detrimental to world trade. And even then the US economy may not gain because attempt to push domestic manufacturing may imply higher costs and inefficient production. As the largest export market for India with a share of 15 per cent in India’s total exports, higher tariffs in the US may dilute India’s existing comparative advantage in the IT services and other sectors.  US initiative towards protectionist instruments is likely to be countered by retaliatory measures by other economies. And Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement, may emerge as an alternative trade configuration for the Asian economies, minus the US.

Dr Marvin G Weinbaum, an expert on Afghanistan and Pakistan, is of the view that that South Asian region will not be on the priority list of the new US administration.  “It might be the second or third priority unless something blows up,” Dr Weinbaum said on November 15 during a roundtable discussion at the US embassy. He also does not see any significant changes in the US policy on Afghanistan under the new administration rather there can be a surge of US troops. “I don’t think withdrawal will happen. I won’t be surprised if US sends 5,000 more troops” he added.

Afghan instability and Taliban advances are likely to prompt the Trump administration into slowing down the draw-down. Trump may be less hesitant than his predecessors in penalizing Pakistan for failures in Afghanistan, instead of own cohorts. Afghanistan’s own failures at political unity, state cohesion and economic inefficiency will likely create tensions between any new US administration and Pakistan. Also Trump may not see aid as an incentivizing instrument for better cooperation. American political and military cultures have always focused on accountability with regard to military expeditions abroad; these are projected either as outright victories, or responsibility is squarely fixed for bogging down. Trump is likely to follow the tradition. Safeguarding Pakistan’s interests will need vigilance. Islamabad will need a proactive approach to navigate the complexities of new face of power—albeit crude one.

Trump’s embrace of hyper-nationalist governments, like one that of Narendra Modi, matching his own brand could come more naturally than bonding with Pakistan. However, for any global power, there may be no exits from strategically located Pakistan.  Trump could, at least in theory, reshape the fabric of US policies, both qualitatively and quantitatively, through exercise of his an unprecedented hold on all state institutions. This is enormous critical mass of power, vested in a single party since 1928. Such preponderance of power, in a single individual is likely to have its implications, both for the better and or for the worse.









About admin

Check Also

Civil and Military judicial systems: Need for bridging the gap

Military judicial systems, the World over, are known for delivering swift, speedy and credible justice during extraordinary times. Especially so when the routine of the run judicial system is unable to deliver justice due to any of the accepted multiple genuine reasons. Post 9/11 setting threw up such extraordinary environment when circumstances had rendered the normal judicial channels ineffective, particularly when it came to punishing hard core terrorists. This situation prevailed for about fifteen years and none of the terrorist was awarded meaningful penalty for heinous crimes, it was often observed that those arrested on these accounts were promptly granted bail and were repeatedly caught committing same crimes again and again. Under these conditions National Action Plan was formulated to counter terrorism and military courts were setup for a limited time. These courts served the purpose and award of meaningful punishments to had core terrorists helped in quelling the waves of terrorism promptly.Military courts were established for two years and during this period civil judiciary was expected to fix its weaknesses and be able to re-takeover the task. However, it failed to do so, so the military courts were asked to carry out the task for another two years; this period is to end in January 2019. However, civilian courts are still no better than what they were in January 2015. It is yet another testimony of the lack of faith in the country’s criminal justice system and the sheer ineptness of political system to reform it. Reasons that led to setting up of military courts continue to persist. And it goes to the credit of swift action by military courts alongside military operations that terrorism is on its fag end. Certainly Army’s Judge Advocate General’s team will have to answer many question, as to why pointed out technical gaps and procedural voids were not plugged-in during the trial proceedings. While at the same time, PHC bench needs to account for basing such decision mainly on technicalities, while mainly ignoring the substance matter, and that too in case of heinous crimes. There are many rungs between capital punishments and outright acquittal and one does not have to go berserk to jump straight from capital punishment to acquittal option without preferring to choose from whole assortment of lower degree punishments. Under the circumstances remanding the case for retrial should have been a win-win situation for all sides. Hopefully, a worthwhile solution would be found out. Army needs to undertake capacity enhancement of its JAG branch to avoid recurrences. And PHC should avoid outright choking of one of the parliament approved and constitutionally established judicial sub-system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *