01 November 2016
By Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal
Upon successfully facing the presidency poll challenge from a senior
politician Hillary, now Trump has to face and decide the issues in foreign
policy.
When Donald Trump became a serious contender for the presidency many eyebrows
were raised but when he, against all predictions, trounced the establishment
candidate Hillary Clinton, many doubts were raised too about his capabilities
to the USA and world. While some of the doubts could be valid, there is no
solid proof to say Trump would fail himself, America and world. As for his
foreign policy, Trump is likely to embrace some variant of the policies that
have been pursued for the past few decades by the nation's foreign policy
establishment. Trump would choose a few elements as reference and consider his
own ideas to change the format of US policy.
President Trump may break sharply with the establishment consensus that the
USA as super power must play the lead role in imposing order on the world,
many signs indicate that Trump will continue to ensure that the USA plays the
dominant role in policing the world.
Trumpophobia
On the eve of presidency poll, Hillary
and pro-Hillary media outlets let loose Trumpophobia – fear of Trump-
essentially to terrorize the voters and defeat Trump. However, that strategy
backfired as people saw through the ugly democratic strategy and Trump was
elected to presidency. Now she is trying to cast doubts about the poll itself.
Certainly, many Washington inside
rs feel differently about Trump whom
they consider dangerous. On Election Day, former State Department official
Daniel Serwer presented the standard view of the foreign policy establishment
that the ''dramatic differences'' between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
made Trump a problematic candidate. Trump ''prides himself on
unpredictability'' while Clinton ''has a long track record well within the
post-9/11 foreign policy consensus,'' Serwer explained, adding that Clinton
''wants to maintain the stability of the international system and restore
American authority.'' With his remarks, Serwer indicated that the foreign
policy establishment could trust Clinton but not Trump to use American power
to actively enforce a system of global order. The New York Times captured the
basic establishment concern that Trump would no longer enforce the system of
postwar order that his predecessors had maintained throughout the postwar
period.
Trump, making the latest stop on a so-called ''thank you'' tour of states
critical to his 8 November election win, introduced his choice for defense
secretary, General James Mattis, to a large crowd in Fayetteville, near the
Fort Bragg military base, which has deployed soldiers to 90 countries around
the world. He vowed a strong rebuilding of the US military, which he suggested
had been stretched too thin. Instead of investing in wars, he said, he would
spend money to build up America's aging roads, bridges and airports.
Critics say Donald Trump's win foreshadowed an America more focused on its own
affairs while leaving the world to take care of itself. They issued more
serious warnings about Trump presidency 4 long years, saying Trump would
reverse decades of foreign policy practice by withdrawing the USA from its
deep engagement with the world. The basic establishment concern is that Trump
would no longer enforce the system of postwar order that his predecessors had
maintained throughout the postwar period. For the first time since before
World War II, Americans chose a president who promised to reverse the
internationalism practiced by predecessors of both parties and to build walls
both physical and metaphorical but that has never happened.
Leftist scholar Noam Chomsky supported
Bernie Sanders during the Democratic presidential primary but Sanders himself
was a proxy working for Hillary. Chomsky had a message for voters who refused
to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton to prevent Donald Trump from winning
the White House: You made a ''bad mistake.'' Chomsky insists that voters did
not have to ignore Clinton's serious shortcomings in order to recognize Trump
as the much more serious threat. ''What it means is now the left, had Clinton
had won, she had some progressive programs. The left could have been
organized, to keeping her feet to the fire. What it will be doing now is
trying to protect rights…gains that have been achieved, from being destroyed.
The GOP ''is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of
organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.''
Chomsky is too naive not to recognize the act that now since Sept-11 hoax
there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats as both are eager to
justify the illegal invasions from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya to Syria
and legalize crimes against humanity in Islamic world where millions of
Muslims have been slaughtered by US led NATO and Israel..
.
As he toured the USA in the wake of Donald Trump's devastating electoral
victory last month, senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders used his growing
influence within the Democratic Party and among the voting population at-large
to outline how the country can prevent slipping backward and in fact can move
forward—even with Republicans soon in control of both the White House and
Congress.''We can beat this guy. We can beat this agenda, but we have to do it
in a way that we have never done it before. We have got to bring people
together because we are fighting for the future of this country.''
Indeed, Chomsky further warned in the
aftermath of the election: ''The outcome placed total control of the
government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the
Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world
history.'' Chomsky refuses to admit that Mrs. Clinton now controls the White
House and entire system and President Obama is just a puppet. Had she won she
would have strengthened the Zionist criminal regime to attack Palestine. She
would defend the Israeli regime and its crimes against humanity. She would
oppose any move for credible peace in the region and support all Zionist
schemes with UN veto.
Certainly, many Washington insiders feel differently about Trump. Warnings
have been given out by many about the Trump's uncertain regime without a solid
agenda.
Now that Hillary is gone, almost forever, the focus is on Trump's policy as he
has declared to make peace between Israel and Palestine obviously by
supporting the establishment of Palestine with his UN veto.
Obama insisted that much of the media
commentary about Trump missed the fact that most US officials continue to
share the same basic foreign policy goals. Certainly, ''there's enormous
continuity beneath the day-to-day news that makes us that indispensable nation
when it comes to maintaining order and promoting prosperity around the
world,'' Obama stated. ''That will continue.'' Citing the meeting that he held
with Trump at the White House after the election, Obama said that Trump
expressed a great interest in maintaining '' our core strategic
relationships.'' Trump, in other words, appeared eager to continue working
closely with US allies to enforce a system of global order.
US national interest and core
strategic position
Trump's
win took the supporters of ''status quo'' by shock and foreshadowed an America
more focused on its own affairs while leaving the world to take care of
itself. The New York Times captured the basic establishment concern that Trump
would no longer enforce the system of postwar order that his predecessors had
maintained throughout the postwar period.
Certainly, many Washington insiders feel
differently about Trump. On Election Day, former State Department official
Daniel Serwer presented the standard view of the foreign policy establishment
that the ''dramatic differences'' between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
made Trump a problematic candidate. Trump ''prides himself on
unpredictability'' while Clinton ''has a long track record well within the
post-9/11 foreign policy consensus,'' Serwer explained, adding that Clinton
''wants to maintain the stability of the international system and restore
American authority.'' With his remarks, Serwer indicated that the foreign
policy establishment could trust Clinton but not Trump to use American power
to actively enforce a system of global order.
More serious warnings were issued by pro-Clinton sources. For example, on the
day after the election, The New York Times, having failed to get Hillary
elected, warned that Trump would reverse decades of foreign policy practice by
withdrawing the USA from its deep engagement with the world. ''For the first
time since before World War II, Americans chose a president who promised to
reverse the internationalism practiced by predecessors of both parties and to
build walls both physical and metaphorical,'' the newspaper reported, Trump
would weaken US power.
Although
the foreign policy establishment of Bush-Obama-Hillary remains concerned with
Trump's unpredictability and perhaps even his neglect of decades of
establishment thinking, several high-level officials in the Obama government
have recently begun to suggest that the USA will continue to play the lead
role in enforcing a system of international order. President Obama himself has
made the case that Donald Trump would not be able to simply dictate a new
strategy to the vast bureaucracy that manages the nation's foreign policy.
The foreign policy decision-making process, according to Obama who seeks
continuity in full so that the permanent war agenda of Bushdom reign
continues, is the result not just of the President, it is the result of
countless interactions and arrangements and relationships between Pentagon and
other global militaries, and US diplomats and other diplomats, and
intelligence officers and development workers. Obama insisted that much of the
media commentary about Trump missed the fact that most US officials continue
to share the same basic foreign policy goals. Presidents simply cannot change
the course according to their individual fancies. Certainly, ''there's
enormous continuity beneath the day-to-day news that makes us that
indispensable nation when it comes to maintaining order and promoting
prosperity around the world,'' Obama stated.
Do Obama and Trump share
objectives, values?
Obama
wants Trump to maintain the existing world order. Citing the meeting that he
held with Trump at the White House after the election, Obama said that Trump
''expressed a great interest in maintaining ''our core strategic
relationships.'' Trump, in other words, appeared eager to continue working
closely with US allies to enforce a system of global order.
Trump and the Obama have always shared many of the same foreign policy
objectives, even though Trump made every effort during his campaign to condemn
Obama's policies as dangerous and destructive to both the United States and
the world. For starters, both Trump and the Obama have made it clear that they
intend to ensure that the USA remains the most dominant military power in the
world. In March 2016, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter presented the basic
position of the Obama government when he assured the Senate Committee on Armed
Services that the Department of Defense ''will keep ensuring our dominance in
all domains.'' The following month, Trump declared his support for the same
objective. ''Our military dominance must be unquestioned,'' Trump stated.
Trump has displayed similar commitments on other fundamental issues. Trump has
made it clear that he intends to prioritize the interests of the USA above
everything else. Trump announced during his campaign that America First will
be the major and overriding theme of his government. Indeed, Trump insisted
that he would base his foreign policy on the premise that the USA should only
take actions in the world that work to its own advantage. ''We're going to
finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests, and the
shared interests of our allies,'' Trump stated.
President Obama has confirmed that his government has adopted an America First
strategy. When he recently commented on his decision to commit the US to the
Paris Agreement in order to address the threat of global climate change, Obama
confirmed that he was primarily motivated by the US interests at stake.
Although Obama has not used the same slogan, he has adopted exclusively an
America First strategy. Vice President Joe Biden pointed to Obama strategy
when he toured Asia in July 2016 as part of ''rebalance'' to Asia. ''It's
overwhelmingly in our interest''. Two months later, State Department official
Antony J. Blinken provided more direct confirmation of Obama's strategy. ''We
don't work with other nations as a luxury, or as charity,'' Blinken explained.
''Our national interest demands our global engagement.''
Currently, ''the biggest threat when it comes to climate change and pollution
isn't going to come from us — because we only have 300 million people,'' Obama
explained. ''It's going to come from China, with over a billion people, and
India, with over a billion people.'' With his remarks, Obama indicated that
the USA needed to join the Paris Agreement to prevent countries such as China
and India from harming America with their pollution.
Both Trump and Obama have also made it clear that they intend to completely
destroy the Islamic State (ISIS or IS). In November 2015, Trump outlined his
position during a radio commercial in which he pledged to ''quickly and
decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS.'' Secretary of State John Kerry took a
similar position. The USA has an interest in ''terminating ISIL/Daesh, as fast
as possible,'' Kerry stated.
In fact, the Obama government has been busy working to fulfill its Syria
mission. In the time since it began its air campaign in August 2014, USA and
coalition forces have conducted more than 15,000 airstrikes against IS and
have killed more than 45,000 ISIS fighters. In the end, the outgoing Obama
government will soon hand over power to a Trump government that generally
shares some of the very same foreign policy commitments.
Trump team
Trump is now getting ready with his team by appointing his future ministers
one by one. Gov. Nikki Haley has been appointed by him as ambassador to the
UN. Donald Trump's critics say he is not a unifier, not a moderating voice, a
darling of the Republican mainstream. As governor of South Carolina, she's
been an outspoken opponent of white supremacists, a proponent of immigration,
including properly vetted Muslim refugees. And, obviously, a woman, one who
sharply criticized him during the presidential campaign. In that light, her
nomination as ambassador to the UN marks something new for the coming Trump
government.
Some of the president-elect's previous picks have been beset by claims of
racism and bigotry. Governor Haley represents a hairpin turn. Those who have
seen Gov. Haley's improbable rise say the daughter of Indian immigrants is a
force to be reckoned with, who has earned considerable respect among black
South Carolinians, most of whom are Democrats. It is a kind of symbolic
appointment by Trump, to beat back charges of bigotry and misogyny and to be
able to make the case that he doesn't hold grudges against those who
stiff-armed him during the primary.
Haley has also triumphed in becoming the first female governor of a state
where women have traditionally been marginalized from the political process.
''She is an Asian-American woman governor of a state whose constitution was
written to weaken the governor's office just in case a non-white man won the
office one day, a state that still has one of the worst records of female
legislative leadership in the country. She was the first to breakthrough, has
made her mark and ended up being the governor to bring the Confederate flag
down.
Trump has decided the
persons for many important posts and positions to support his government.
Despite the fact that the foreign policy establishment remains uncertain about
Trump's intentions, the president-elect has provided many signals that he
intends for the USA to continue playing an active role in enforcing a system
of global order. As Trump has put it, using the standard language of the
foreign policy establishment, his government would mainly be ''focusing on
creating stability in the world.''
Trump's foreign policy
President Trump is likely to make his
own foreign policy while retaining basic structures of it developed for years
cutting across the bipolar politics. He would strive to break with the
post-9/11 foreign policy consensus of Bush-Obama- Hillary that focused on
securing energy and route requirements and considerably reducing Islamic
population by murdering millions of Muslims world over with help from
countries like Germany led EU, Israel.
Experts the world over express predictions about President Trump's possible
policies, both domestic and foreign. Many argue that he would just continue
with Bush-Obama policies. Although the foreign policy establishment remains
concerned with Trump's unpredictability and perhaps even his neglect of
decades of establishment thinking, several high-level officials in the Obama
administration have recently begun to suggest that the USA will continue to
play the lead role in enforcing a system of international order.
Amid all the uncertainty prevailing about what a Trump presidency means for
the future role of the USA in the world, one possibility is that Trump will
embrace some variant of the policies that have been pursued for the past few
decades by the nation's foreign policy establishment. Although Trump may break
sharply with the establishment consensus that the USA must play the lead role
in imposing order on the world, many signs indicate that Trump would continue
to ensure that American superpower plays the dominant role in policing the
world so that it does not appear to be weak.
The standard view of the foreign policy establishment is that the ''dramatic
differences'' between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton made Trump a
problematic candidate. Trump ''prides himself on unpredictability'' while
Clinton ''has a long track record well within.
Foreign policy, though made by the president and his foreign ministry, it is
the foreign minister who is responsible for applying foreign policy
stipulations. Hence foreign minister plays important role in implementing
foreign policy. Trump is seriously considering many names for the coveted
post. His supporters are split in a big factional fight over this premier
Cabinet position.
Who should be Donald Trump's Secretary of State? It's the followers of
establishmentarian Mitt Romney versus those of loyalist Rudy Giuliani. To the
winner goes Foggy Bottom and its prestige. It's possible the spat will end
with a third candidate stealing the prize. But one important part of this
struggle may be the manner in which it's being conducted. Perhaps
surprisingly, Trump invited Romney to a meeting last weekend at Trump's
Bedminster, N.J. golf course. The two men seemed to hit it off as the confab
lasted longer than expected. Afterward, word leaked that Romney was a
secretary of State candidate as well.
Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway publicized it via Twitter, perhaps as
way to undermine former Massachusetts Governor Romney's chance. Giuliani was
the early favorite here. Following the election he reportedly told associates
he was set for the Secretary of State post, since he'd told Trump it was the
only thing he wanted. He'd been a loud and strong Trump surrogate throughout
the campaign's ups and downs. He deserved a reward, he thought. That hints
Trump government internal discussions may play out in public on social media,
in real time. Buckle up – the Trump years may be dramatic, and exhausting.
But the announcement wasn't forthcoming. And as any veteran of the Washington
appointment wars knows, to linger is to suffer denigration by a thousand
published cuts. The press started chewing on Giuliani's business ties with the
government of Qatar and other foreign entanglements. Obviously, as far as
President-elect Trump was concerned the former New York City mayor wasn't
''set'' for the job. Specifically, the loyalists within Trump's political
operation who think Romney an apostate have turned up the dial on their
disapproval. And they're waving their hands to get Trump's attention the best
way they know how: in public.
Trump needs an efficient and honest person to deal with the world as foreign
minister. Henry Kissinger, a Jew chosen to boost the criminally fanatic Jewish
nation in Mideast, whatever his accomplishments as Secretary of State to
Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, had spent considerable time crossing the globe
in shuttle diplomacy, continually spilled internal gossip to journalists.
US presidents have the privilege of maintaining multiple specialists to decide
the course on an issue. That's a quick hook that all the current claimants to
the Secretary of State office might be wise to keep in mind. George Shultz,
though, was indeed such a Secretary of State to Ronald Reagan. Loyal,
phlegmatic, wise in the ways of government, he gave Reagan lots of good
advice. Some was ignored – he hated the operation that morphed into the
Iran-Contra scandal, for instance. But Shultz was Reagan's second Secretary of
State. The first was Al Haig, a former general who was also a loud, proud
international business operator and skilled bureaucratic infighter who thought
he knew best about international affairs. He exhausted Reagan's patience, and
when offered Haig's resignation after only 18 months in office, Reagan
accepted it.
However, going by
his latest statements, Trump now is seen taking new positions on foreign
policy of USA.
Observations
Domestic policy is a settled matter for
USA but not its foreign policy, especially when in order to showcase its
military prowess as advertisement for orders for its new terror goods from
across the globe, it has unnecessarily committed the people a core part of
cause of deeply involved in terror wars to perpetrate genocides of Muslims and
deduction of their assets.
However, as the superpower it has a role to guide the world by a positive
foreign policy. Without a credible policy abroad, incumbent president Obama
has not been able to positively and successfully assert its global leadership
role due mainly to its prolonged and illogical support for the criminal
Zionist regime in Mideast and its misuse of UNSC veto facility to shield the
Israeli military crimes against humanity.
Bush-Obama duo promoted not only Israeli fascist regime in Mideast to threaten
energy rich Arab nations but also the occupation of the American mind by
outsiders, especially Israel and US Jews, and process must end.
President-elect Trump maybe inexperienced and lacks the nuanced knowledge of
the complex crises the world is passing through but he as a businessman can
comprehend the problems particularly in the areas including the US-NATO led
terror wars in Islamic world, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Sunni-Shiite
war, and the civil war in Syria.
Reports suggest, Donald Trump has laid
out a US military policy that would avoid interventions in foreign conflicts
to engineer destabilization and regime change. We will stop racing to topple
foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved
with,'' the president-elect said on in Fayetteville, near Fort Bragg military
base in North Carolina. ''Instead our focus must be on defeating terrorism and
destroying Isis, and we will.'' Trump's remarks came a few hours after Barack
Obama delivered what was billed as the final national security address of his
presidency.
President Obama, in
spite of efforts, has thus far failed to solve the seven-decade old
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mainly because he refused to support the
Palestine cause at UN and refused to vote for the establishment and thereby
only to indirectly promoted Israel and its crimes by gifting huge pile of
terror goods. He is also not serious about credible peace talks. That is the
reason why his chief mediator Secretary of State John Kerry failed to end the
crisis and Israeli aggression and expansionism because he also does not take
into account the psychological dimension of the conflict, the agony and pains
of Palestinians under Israeli brutality.
Notwithstanding intensive negotiations in 2009-2010 and 2013-2014, the gulf
between the two sides has become even deeper and wider, and Palestinians
continue to suffer while Israel gain support of all anti-Islamic nations,
getting high precision terror goods from USA and EU.
USA and NATO instigated the conflict
between brothers Sunnis and Shiite leading to Sunni-Shiite war and ISIS-Shiite
wars. Russia has joined the onslaught of Muslims in Syria. The civil war in
Syria will not end unless the US changes its approach to the war by putting
both Putin and Assad on notice that the slaughter of Syrian civilians must
immediately come to an end.
ISIS, apparently launched by USA to continue with its global permanent war
project, has made the plight of global Muslims worse. Defeat of ISIS, however,
is not to bring an end to the Sunni-Shiite conflict as long as Shiite Iran and
Sunni Saudi Arabia are fighting for regional hegemony. They will continue to
wage a proxy war in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to secure their goal.
ISIS has been invented to divide both
Iraq and Syria. But the lack of natural resources (i.e. oil) in the Sunni
dominated areas is the bottleneck. Maintaining a united Iraq or Syria has
become problematic now. Only a long period of peaceful coexistence between the
two sides will allow them over time to develop a closer, more trusting, and
friendlier relationship. This would also bring an end to the bloodshed between
Sunnis and Shiites and to weaken ISIS. This will greatly satisfy the Saudis as
the Sunnis will maintain a strong foothold in Iraq while Iran will still be in
a position to exert some influence on the Shiite government.
The USA cannot assert its commanding regional role and at the same time save
the Syrian people from near-complete destruction by leading from behind and
merely providing military equipment and material to the rebels. USA has put an
end to 81 years of the continuous Sunni rule of essentially a Shiite Iraq and
is eager to end Shiite rule of Sunni state Syria but Russia supports Iran and
also supports Syrian regime. The Iraqi Sunnis now find themselves at the mercy
of the Shiite governing majority, which has systematically discriminated
against and marginalized them from the first day the Maliki-led Shiite
government came to power.
Image
of US super power would increase as genuine phenomenon. Only by creating the
social, political, and psychological atmosphere conducive to peace, and with
the support of the Arab states, the EU, and other major powers, can the
negotiations be resumed with a far better prospect of success. Trump said USA
has become dumping ground for everybody else's problems. Trump's entire
campaign is built around the idea that foreign influences are infecting the
USA. One way of understanding the different directions of Bush-Obama duo is
through American exceptionalism. Sanders voters want to make America more like
the rest of the world. Trump voters want to keep America a nation apart. Trump
wants to build a strong honest America.Fo
cusing on a process of reconciliation
between nations that would mitigate the profound mutual distrust, Trust must
try to instill a sense of mutual security, and disabuse the strong
constituencies on both sides that they can have it all.
The USA must recognize that Russia has been for decades seeking a strong foot
hold in West Asia to replace USA but now USA has given that opportunity in
Syria. Russia will be a permanent fixture in Syria backed by Assad and Iran.
Iran will not relinquish its longstanding interest and influence in Damascus
as Tehran views Syria as the linchpin to the Shiite-dominated crescent of land
between the Mediterranean and the Gulf.
There could be chaos in Syria even if
the war ends. Apparently, Assad alone can keep intact the bureaucracy,
military and internal security apparatus to prevent a replay of what happened
in Iraq following the US invasion. By the way, a replay of what happened in
Iraq following the US invasion could happen in Syria after the removal of
Assad or end of war. Trump must convey in unequivocal terms to Putin and Assad
that they must stop the indiscriminate bombing and killing of tens of
thousands of innocent Syrians while erasing one neighborhood after another.
Given Putin's desire to work closely with Trump, he is likely to be more
receptive in finding a solution to the conflict.
As the super power, USA has the responsibility to bring peace to world. It is
quite likely that new president of USA would decide to end terror wars and
stop misusing NATO for the Pentagon's showcasing the prowess of US militarism.
In the end, the outgoing Obama administration will soon hand over power to a
Trump administration that shares some of the very same foreign policy
commitments. Despite the fact that the foreign policy establishment remains
uncertain about Trump's intentions, the president-elect has provided many
signals that he intends for the USA to continue playing an active role in
enforcing a system of global order. As Trump has put it, using the standard
language of the foreign policy establishment, his government would mainly be
focusing on creating stability in the world.
President Trump has got the firmness to persuade either side to make the
significant concessions needed to make peace possible. By further pursuing the
neutral line of thinking, of Obama, he can make Israel realize that US support
for Israeli crimes against humanity is cannot be taken for granted Israel will
have to concede the reality that Palestine will come into existence with full
sovereignty. Trump can persuade Israel in his talk with Netanyahu in March to
make the significant concessions needed to make peace possible by whole
heartedly supporting the creation of Palestine state.
Election of Trump sent warning to Israel. Israel has stopped terror attacking
the Palestine Gaza strip or kill children there ever since Trump emerged
victory. Israel fears Trump. The current relative calm therefore should not be
taken for granted as the simmering tension can explode any time when Trump
faces problems in USA or if the Palestinians see no prospect of ending the
occupation in the foreseeable future. Trump must not hesitate to pressure
Israel now to seek a solution and save it from its own destructive path and
for Israel's own future security and political integrity.
Alongside, President Trump should also try a multi pronged approach in solving
global problems. Occupation of Palestine and Kashmir by colonialist powers
with nukes; war crimes by the Lankan military under Rajapaksha, etc should the
focus of his government. Trump should not leave the Palestinians at the mercy
of Israel and let it emerge as a genuine nation by ceding all criminal
thoughts and plans. A credible peace situation would emerge if Israel accepts
to promote the Arab Peace Initiative of 2003.
Trump can easily resolve the fake dispute between India and Pakistan over
neighboring Jammu Kashmir which they jointly occupy now, brutally killing
Kashmiri Muslims. Kashmir has already lost over 100,000 Muslims by Indian
military brutality. Having got selfish agenda, India and Pakistan cannot be
trusted to resolve the Kashmir crisis and therefore he must intervene to get
peace deal done next year itself.
Establishment of Palestine and Kashmir as soverign nations will considerably
enhance the image of Trump as sensible peace maker and prestige and status of
USA as the dependable ally for the cause of peace and prosperity.
Fortunately for Trump and humanity at large the Nobel Peace committee did not
honor the president elect Trump with Peace Prize as it has falsely done when
Obama was elected as US president as he had just became a usual American
politician promoting colonialism, imperialism and capitalism.
Americans taught valuable lessons to Obama through defeating his presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton.
Possibly Trump would be honored new year with a Nobel Peace Prize as the
leader who worked sincerely and successfully for the freedom and independence
of Palestine and Kashmir, and as a genuine crusader for global peace
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments