¿A QUÉ VA A WASHINGTON?

El presidente López Obrador (AMLO) y el canciller Marcelo Ebrard confirmaron que en los primeros días de julio AMLO realizará su primera visita internacional (después de un año y siete meses de asumir la presidencia), para ir a Washington a reunirse con el presidente de Estados Unidos (Donald Trump), y presumiblemente con el Primer Ministro de Canadá, Justin Trudeau.

Según AMLO y Ebrard este encuentro fue propuesto por el gobierno de México, a pesar de que antier AMLO ponía en duda la visita. Pero apenas Trump afirmó públicamente en Yuma, Arizona que pronto AMLO lo visitaría en la Casa Blanca, las dudas de AMLO desaparecieron, e ipso facto, tanto AMLO como Ebrard aseguraron que se realizará el primer viaje fuera del país del presidente mexicano en el año y siete meses que lleva en el puesto.

¿A qué va AMLO? Según él, a poner en marcha el Tratado México-Estados Unidos-Canadá (T-MEC; USMCA por sus siglas en inglés), que entrará en vigor el 1º de Julio, sustituyendo al Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN; o NAFTA por sus siglas en inglés).

Pero la realidad es que AMLO va a que Trump le vuelva a recetar en privado, y quizás hasta en público, la letanía de obligaciones que nuestro país se ha obligado ante el amo gringo: detener a los indocumentados de todas las nacionalidades que pretenden dirigirse a los Estados Unidos; aceptar a todos los solicitantes de asilo que las autoridades estadounidenses envíen a México, para que esperen aquí la resolución del gobierno norteamericano; seguir las directrices y exigencias de la DEA en el combate a los cárteles del narcotráfico, que sigue bajo la responsabilidad de las fuerzas armadas mexicanas; próximamente, aceptar a los inspectores estadounidenses para que verifiquen que México cumple con lo ordenado por el T-MEC en materia laboral (pero México no puede enviar inspectores a Estados Unidos para verificar cómo tratan o maltratan a los trabajadores mexicanos allá); seguir recibiendo las indicaciones de autoridades hacendarias y del aparato de inteligencia estadounidense para que se congelen cuentas de todos aquellos mexicanos o extranjeros que Estados Unidos tenga sancionados o considere un riesgo a su seguridad, sin importar que para México no lo sean o no exista en nuestro país causa judicial alguna en su contra; recibir directrices a las fuerzas armadas mexicanas para que sigan comprando equipo y armas estadounidenses y seguir recibiendo su capacitación contrainsurgente, que continúa reproduciendo los manuales de la “doctrina de la seguridad nacional” que se desarrollaron en los años sesentas y setentas del siglo pasado, para adiestrar a los ejércitos de las dictaduras centro y sudamericanas.

En fin, que AMLO va a recibir unas palmadas en la espalda de parte de Trump, por ser uno de los pocos buenos alumnos en el mundo que han hecho todo lo que el “bully” les ha dicho, ya sea en buena forma, pero en general a través de amenazas de sanciones económicas (aranceles a las exportaciones mexicanas) y/o de seguridad (como el cierre de la frontera o la denominación como grupos terroristas a los cárteles del narcotráfico).

AMLO y el candidato de Washington para ser el próximo presidente de México, Marcelito Ebrard, han cumplido las órdenes de Washington en casi todos los órdenes (el único caso en que no han seguido el guion del gobierno de Trump ha sido en el asunto venezolano; situación que por lo visto pronto podría cambiar, pues Washington ya está sancionando a ciudadanos mexicanos por su apoyo al régimen de Maduro, y el gobierno de López Obrador lo está ayudando en eso).[1]

Además, dada la absoluta ignorancia de AMLO en temas internacionales, su aversión a aprender acerca de política internacional y su nulo conocimiento del inglés, no hay que descartar que cometa algún error mayúsculo (como aquél presidente salvadoreño que se aventó la puntada de besar la bandera estadounidense); y/o que Trump y Trudeau lo traten como el mayordomo, tal como le sucedió a Peña Nieto en una de sus últimas reuniones con Obama y el primer ministro canadiense, en donde ni tomaban en cuenta al “chaparrito” Peña, dejándolo atrás en una larga caminata (mientras Peña trataba de alcanzarlos), sin siquiera preocuparse por él.

Siendo como es Trump, y además en medio de la campaña presidencial, cada vez más disputada, es lógico que utilizará el encuentro para sus ambiciones reeleccionistas; y una vez más, como lo hizo Peña en 2016 con esa estúpida invitación a Trump en plena campaña presidencial, un presidente mexicano servirá ya sea como el “payaso de las cachetadas” para el mandatario estadounidense y/o como evidencia del “apoyo” que da México a la reelección de Trump. Con lo que el presidente mexicano se ganará la muy justificada animadversión de los demócratas, y de su candidato presidencial, Joe Biden.

De plano, este país sigue demostrando que es, no el patio trasero, sino el escusado de Estados Unidos, y los presidentes mexicanos están dispuestos a seguir jugando el papel de lacayos del imperio. Patético.

---

[1] https://www.forbes.com.mx/mundo-eu-pone-en-lista-negra-a-empresas-y-ciudadanos-mexicanos-por-vinculos-con-venezuela/

Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo: Loathsome Peas in a Pod

by MELVIN GOODMAN

JUNE 23, 2020

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/23/trump-bolton-and-pompeo-loathsome-peas-in-a-pod/

For nearly a year and a half, from April 2018 to September 2019, the Trump administration was in the hands of a “war cabinet.”  With Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, and John Bolton as National Security Adviser, Donald Trump created one of the most aggressive foreign policy teams in the history of the presidency.  Bolton and Pompeo were fixated on going to war against Iran; were contemptuous toward our European allies and the entire European Community; and were opponents of arms control and disarmament.

President George W. Bush had his own “war cabinet” with Dick Cheney as Vice President and Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.  A compliant and deferential national security adviser at the time, Condi Rice, was no match for either one of them.  President Dwight D. Eisenhower had a team of hawks that included Vice President Richard Nixon, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, and CIA director Allen Dulles, but Eisenhower was a commander-in-chief fully in control. He ignored their importuning to use force against Vietnam in the 1950s. Trump similarly rejected the use of force that Bolton and Pompeo relished.

Long before the publication of Bolton’s book (“The Room Where It Happened”), we knew that Trump was “erratic” and “stunningly uninformed.”  Nevertheless, the media extolled his book before they actually had a copy because it would confirm Trump’s linkage between military aid to Ukraine and investigations into his political foe Joe Biden.  The Washington Post even referred to Bolton as a “man of principle” and a fearless infighter for the “sovereignty of the United States.”  Post oped writer Kathleen Parker noted that Bolton wasn’t interested in the money he will earn from the book, but that he was only interested in “saving his legacy.”  And what a legacy!

Less than a month into the job of National Security Adviser, Bolton dissolved the Global Health Security Team, which the Obama administration had created to prepare and respond to pandemics and other biological threats.  Bolton took this action as an Ebola outbreak was underway in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Two months later, Bolton requested the Pentagon to provide the White House with options for military strikes against Iran, a policy option that he had advocated since his days as an official in the Bush administration.  Between his tours of duty with Bush and Trump, Bolton had written op-eds that called for use of force and regime change in Iran and North Korea.  Bolton was so opposed to Trump’s historic meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in the demilitarized zone in June 2019 that he flew to Mongolia for no obvious reason.

In May 2019, Trump—not known for a sense of humor—provided a good laugh when he remarked that “I actually temper John, which is a good thing.”  In the cases of Iran and North Korea that was certainly true.  But Bolton was also to the right of Trump on Cuba and Venezuela, where Bolton hatched a coup plot that resembled aspects of the Bay of Pigs in 1961 in terms of the “perfect failure” that it was.

Pompeo sided with Bolton on these issues and—like Bolton—was a veteran of politicizing intelligence to justify his positions.  In his previous positions at the Department of State and the United Nations for the Bush administration, Bolton had falsified intelligence to argue for use of force against Cuba and Syria.  Pompeo politicized intelligence on Iran and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran nuclear accord) to justify withdrawal from a successful disarmament treaty.  As CIA director, Pompeo took control of the Counterintelligence Center, presumably to interfere with the collection of intelligence regarding links between Trump associates and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign.  Bolton and Pompeo was formidable allies in removing the United States from the Iran nuclear accord and the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

When the CIA concluded with “high confidence” that Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, Pompeo disputed the assessment and declared there was no direct evidence linking the Crown Prince to the murder.  Pompeo ignored congressional restrictions regarding military aid to Saudi Arabia that was used in war crimes in Yemen; he then fired the Department of State’s Inspector General was investigating Pompeo’s deceit.  No intelligence has ever been produced to justify Pompeo’s claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was needed to disrupt an “imminent attack” by Soleimani operatives.

Like Bolton, Pompeo opposed Trump’s summitry with Kim Jong-un and, on one occasion, sent a note to Bolton that stated Trump’s remarks to the North Korean leader were “full of shit.”  Pompeo’s predecessor, Rex Tillerson, never recovered from calling Trump a “fucking moron,” so don’t expect Pompeo’s comments to be forgotten by the thin-skinned president.  Foreign Service Officers will never forgive Pompeo’s disgraceful treatment of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, the victim of a conspiracy-driven smear campaign by the Trump White House.

Peter Baker’s story on the Bolton book in the New York Times was titled “Bolton’s Book Reveals Portrait of a President Who’s In It for Himself.”  Well, the same could be said for John Bolton.  Times’ op-ed writer Bret Stephens, who professes to share “many of Bolton’s hawkish foreign-policy views, concluded “It’s a shame he didn’t” leave the administration “while he still had a chance to preserve his honor.”  The last three decades of Bolton’s decision making indicates there has never been such an opportunity.

Trump certainly remains first and foremost in this loathsome trio for the damage and havoc he has done to governance, particularly his campaign against the Department of Justice and the justice system itself in undermining the rule of law.  His war against the intelligence community has compromised our national security.  His anti-intellectual campaign against science and reason harms key agencies of government and has cost lives in the pandemic.  But we should never forget the truckling of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton.

In rejecting the administration’s efforts to stop publication of Bolton’s book, the federal judge conceded that the book could “imperil national security.”  No, we have Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo to thank for the dangers to U.S. security.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent book is “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming “The Dangerous National Security State” (2020).” Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

¿DEBERÍA MÉXICO PROCLAMARSE COMO UN PAÍS NEUTRAL?

Ahora que México ha sido elegido por quinta vez como miembro No Permanente al Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas y tomando en cuenta que el presidente López Obrador insiste una y otra vez que México es una nación pacifista, que no busca confrontaciones con ningún otro país y que no tiene como objetivo incrementar su armamento, sería bueno considerar que se estableciera en la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, en su artículo 89 en donde se incluyen los principios de política exterior que debe seguir el Estado Mexicano, que nuestro país será un Estado Neutral.

Como sabemos, varios países en el mundo se han declarado neutrales, esto es, que no toman parte en ningún bando en caso de guerra, en cualquier parte del mundo (el más antiguo de todos es Suiza, desde 1815), con lo que de antemano, ante los constantes conflictos bélicos que se desarrollan en el planeta, el país en cuestión se “vacuna” para no pronunciarse a favor o en contra de cualquiera de los beligerantes; pero por lo mismo, no emite declaración u opinión alguna sobre las causas y desarrollo de dicho conflicto.

Para muchos internacionalistas y estudiosos de la política mundial, el declararse Estado Neutral conlleva una especie de aislacionismo de parte del estado que lo hace, pues limita su posible influencia y participación en situaciones de gran relevancia en el ámbito de las relaciones internacionales.

Pero por otro lado, evita inmiscuirse en conflictos que pueden obligarlo a decantarse por uno u otro estado o coaliciones de estados, poniendo en riesgo su seguridad nacional, debido a las posibles represalias de uno u otro de los beligerantes, ya sean militares, políticas o económicas.

El presidente López Obrador ha sido muy enfático en que nuestro país quiere tener buenas relaciones con todos los países del mundo, algo que en la práctica es imposible, puesto que siempre surgen eventos o se desarrollan ciertas políticas que provocan fricciones y desavenencias entre los países. Pero se entiende que el presidente de México quiere decir que busca no tener conflictos mayores con ningún país, y ha reiterado que no pretende “meterse” en las disputas entre grandes potencias, como las que desde hace una década se vienen desarrollando entre Estados Unidos V.S. China y Rusia, reeditando una nueva clase de Guerra Fría.

El problema que tiene el gobierno de México es que desde el inicio de la administración del presidente López Obrador, con objeto de minimizar las diferencias con el gobierno de Donald Trump, ha llegado a convertir a México en casi un protectorado estadounidense (próxima entrada en vigor del nuevo tratado de libre comercio T-MEC; cambio brusco de la política migratoria para satisfacer las demandas del gobierno estadounidense; próximamente, supervisión de Washington a la política laboral mexicana; completa subordinación de la política de seguridad y de las fuerzas armadas mexicanas a las directrices estadounidenses).

Incluso, cuando se le ha preguntado a López Obrador si México es un “aliado” de Estados Unidos, él lo ha afirmado de manera categórica, con lo que ha demostrado su escaso conocimiento de lo que significa aceptar, aunque sea verbalmente, que se es aliado de la potencia hegemónica.

Una alianza política implica la concordancia en ciertos fines y metas que se deben conseguir, de manera conjunta por dos entes, organizaciones o países.

Para Estados Unidos, por supuesto que México es un aliado en este sentido, pues como ya apuntamos, prácticamente todas las políticas en materia bilateral están subordinadas a los intereses estadounidenses.

Pero en política exterior, México todavía ha mantenido cierta autonomía, especialmente en el caso venezolano, en el que no se ha alineado por completo con las exigencias estadounidenses.

Así también, México no ha apoyado las acciones bélicas de Estados Unidos en Medio Oriente, ni tampoco sus numerosas sanciones contra varios países que se niegan a subordinarse a la hegemonía estadounidense como Rusia, China, Irán, Siria, Corea del Norte, Cuba, Venezuela y Nicaragua.

Tomando en cuenta lo anterior, parecería conveniente que México reafirme esa autonomía en materia de política exterior, declarándose un Estado Neutral, en previsión de que la competencia y rivalidad entre Estados Unidos y los países antes mencionados se agudice, y en algún momento Washington exija la completa aquiescencia mexicana a las sanciones políticas y económicas que impulse contra dichos países; y aún peor, que intente obligar a nuestro país a ingresar a una coalición militar en un posible conflicto bélico.

Desgraciadamente es tal el pánico que el actual gobierno mexicano le tiene a las élites estadounidenses, que es imposible que algo así pudiera darse; pero sin lugar a dudas el que el país pudiera dar el paso para declararse neutral, podría ayudar a atemperar el dominio estadounidense, que cada vez se hace más y más sofocante sobre México (“I can’t breathe”).

Nixon-Trump vs. the Strategy of Tension

June 18, 2020

by Pepe Escobar 

https://thesaker.is/nixon-trump-vs-the-strategy-of-tension/

Nixon 68 is back with a vengeance, with President Trump placing himself as the guarantor/enforcer of Law & Order.

That slogan guaranteed Nixon’s election, and was coined by Kevin Phillips, then an expert in “ethnic voting patterns”.

Philips makes for a very interesting case. In 1999, he became the author of a seminal book: The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America, where he tracks how a “small Tudor kingdom” ended up establishing global hegemony.

The division of the English-speaking community into two great powers – “one aristocratic, ‘chosen’ and imperial; and one democratic, ‘chosen’ and manifest destiny-driven”, as Philips correctly establishes – was accomplished by, what else, a war triptych: the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the U.S. Civil War.

Now, we may be at the threshold of a fourth war – with unpredictable and unforeseen consequences.

As it stands, what we have is a do-or-die clash of models: MAGA against an exclusivist Fed/Wall Street/Silicon Valley-controlled system.

MAGA – which is a rehash of the American dream – simply cannot happen when society is viciously polarized; vast sectors of the middle class are being completely erased, and mass immigration is coming from the Global South.

In contrast, the Fed as a Wall Street hedge fund meets Silicon Valley model, a supremely elitist 0.001% concoction, has ample margins to thrive.

The model is based on even more rigid corporate monopoly; the preeminence of capital markets, where a Wall Street boom is guaranteed by government debt-buybacks of its own debt; and life itself regulated by algorithms and Big Data.

This is the Brave New World dreamed by the techno-financial Masters of the Universe.

Trump’s MAGA woes have been compounded by a shoddy geopolitical move in tandem with Law and Order: his re-election campaign will be under the sign of “China, China, China.” When in trouble, blame a foreign enemy.

That comes from serially failed opportunist Steve Bannon and his Chinese billionaire sidekick Guo Wengui, or Miles Guo. Here they are in Statue of Liberty mode announcing their no holds barred infowar campaign to demonize the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to Kingdom Come and “free the Chinese people”.

Bannon’s preferred talking point is that if his infowar fails, there will be “kinetic war”. That is nonsense. Beijing’s priorities are elsewhere. Only a few neo-conned Dr. Strangeloves would envisage “kinetic war”- as in a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Chinese territory.

Alastair Crooke has masterfully shown how the geoeconomic game, as Trump sees it, is above all to preserve the power of the U.S. dollar: “His particular concern would be to see a Europe that was umbilically linked to the financial and technological heavyweight that is China. This, in itself, effectively would presage a different world financial governance.”

But then there’s The Leopard syndrome: “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”. Enter Covid-19 as a particle accelerator, used by the Masters of the Universe to tweak “things” a bit so they not only stay as they are but the Master grip on the world tightens.

The problem is Covid-19 behaves as a set of – uncontrollable – free electrons. That means nobody, even the Masters of the Universe, is able to really weigh the full consequences of a runaway, compounded financial/social crisis.

Deconstructing Nixon-Trump

Russiagate, now totally debunked, has unfolded in effect as a running coup: a color non-revolution metastasizing into Ukrainegate and the impeachment fiasco. In this poorly scripted and evidence-free morality play with shades of Watergate, Trump was cast by the Democrats as Nixon.

Big mistake. Watergate had nothing to do with a Hollywood-celebrated couple of daring reporters. Watergate represented the industrial-military-security-media complex going after Nixon. Deep Throat and other sources came from inside the Deep State. And it was not by accident that they were steering the Washington Post – which, among other roles, plays the part of CIA mouthpiece to perfection.

Trump is a completely different matter. The Deep State keeps him under control. One just needs to look at the record: more funds for the Pentagon, $1 trillion in brand new nuclear weapons, perennial sanctions on Russia, non-stop threats to Russia’s western borders, (failed) efforts to derail Nord Stream 2. And this is only a partial list.

So, from a Deep State point of view, the geopolitical front – containment of Russia-China – is assured. Domestically, it’s much more complicated.

As much as Black Lives Matter does not threaten the system even remotely like the Black Panthers in the 60s, Trump believes his own Law & Order, like Nixon, will once again prevail. The key will be to attract the white women suburban vote. Republican pollsters are extremely optimistic and even talking about a “landslide”.

Yet the behavior of an extra crucial vector must be understood: what corporate America wants.

When we look at who’s supporting Black Lives Matter – and Antifa – we find, among others, Adidas, Amazon, Airbnb, American Express, Bank of America, BMW, Burger King, Citigroup, Coca Cola, DHL, Disney, eBay, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, IBM, Mastercard, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Netflix, Nike, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Sony, Starbucks, Twitter, Verizon, Walmart, Warner Brothers, and YouTube.

This who’s who would suggest a completely isolated Trump. But then we have to look at what really matters; the class war dynamics in what is in fact a caste system, as Laurence Brahm argues.

Black Lives Matter, the organization and its ramifications is essentially being instrumentalized by selected corporate interests to accelerate their own priority: to crush the U.S. working classes into a state of perpetual anomie, as a new automated economy rises.

That may always happen under Trump. But it will be faster without Trump.

What’s fascinating is how this current strategy of tension scenario is being developed as a classic CIA/NED playbook color revolution.

An undisputed, genuine grievance – over police brutality and systemic racism – has been completely manipulated, showered with lavish funds, infiltrated, and even weaponized against “the regime”.

Just to control Trump is not enough for the Deep State – due to the maximum instability and unreliability of his Demented Narcissus persona. Thus, in yet another priceless historical irony, “Assad must go” metastasized into “Trump must go”.

The cadaver in the basement

One must never lose track of the fundamental objectives of those who firmly control that assembly of bought and paid for patsies in Capitol Hill: to always privilege Divide and Rule – on class, race, identity politics.

After all, the majority of the population is considered expendable. It helps that the instrumentalized are playing their part to perfection, totally legitimized by mainstream media. No one will hear lavishly funded Black Lives Matter addressing the real heart of the matter: the reset of the predatory Restored Neoliberalism project, barely purged of its veneer of Hybrid Neofascism. The blueprint is the Great Reset to be launched by the World Economic Forum in January 2021.

It will be fascinating to watch how Trump deals with this “Summer of Love” remake of Maidan transposed to the Seattle commune. The hint from Team Trump circles is that he will do nothing: a coalition of white supremacists and motorcycle gangs might take care of the “problem” on the Fourth of July.

None of this sweetens the fact that Trump is at the heart of a crossfire hurricane: his disastrous response to Covid-19; the upcoming, devastating effects of the New Great Depression; and his intimations pointing to what could turn into martial law.

Still, the legendary Hollywood maxim – “no one knows anything” – rules. Even running with a semi-cadaver in a basement, the Democrats may win in November just by doing nothing. Yet Teflon Trump should never be underestimated. The Deep State may even realize he’s more useful than they think.

America: Too Weak To Rein In Its Own Empire?

Donald Trump 'withdrawing' troops from Germany isn't a crisis of national confidence; keeping them there is.

JUNE 17, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/america-too-weak-to-rein-in-its-own-empire/

MATT PURPLE

A grievous blow to international security has just been dealt with. President Donald Trump has announced that American troops are to be withdrawn from…Germany. Yes, Germany. Why are American troops in Germany? Because we have to fight them over there so we don’t fight them here, you see, and there are few generators of terrorism and chaos in the world today quite like the Berlin club circuit.

The real surprise isn’t that we’re pulling troops out of Germany; it’s that they’re still there 75 years after World War II ended. And according to the White House, they aren’t even all being withdrawn, just a quarter of them, a reduction of 9,500 that will leave 25,000 American boots on German soil. And of the 9,500, a senior administration official tells Reuters that at least some will be redeployed elsewhere. Poland, with its closer proximity to Russia and plans to build a Fort Trump panderopolis, is a likely destination.

Which is to say: this is less a withdrawal than another Trumpian “withdrawal,” a stagey bit of realist theater that ultimately leaves America just as militarily overextended as she was before. It’s similar in that way to Trump’s “withdrawal” from Syria last year, which saw American forces leave only to boomerang back in on a cynical mission to protect that country’s oil fields. Yet that hasn’t stopped the usual suspects from shrieking about how Trump is playing demolition man to the postwar order. Critics have accused him of initiating the Germany pullout to spite Angela Merkel. Twitter this week was hot with speculation that he was acting at Putin’s behest. House Republicans, channeling the Hans Blix puppet in Team America, sent Trump a letter.

Hans Binnendijk, a fellow on the Atlantic Council, warned at DefenseNews that pulling American troops out of Germany could undermine NATO attempts to protect Europe against Russia. The alliance’s “deterrent posture,” he intones, “is already fragile.” Worse, “a withdrawal would be a clear signal that Trump is not serious about defending Europe. It would undercut the very deterrent strategy that both the Obama and Trump administrations have put in place to contain an aggressive Russia.”

But who’s really undermining deterrence here? Who’s really unserious about defending against spooky Russian imperialism? Is it the United States, which is burying itself in debt to maintain tens of thousands of troops on the European continent? Is it Donald Trump, who has beefed up America’s military presence in Poland and sent an additional 20,000 soldiers to Europe for anti-Russian military exercises? Or is it Germany, which since the Cold War has slashed its armed forces to fund its benevolent welfare state and balance its budgets? Is it the Bundeswehr, the German military, which internal reports have found to be plagued by deterioration and dysfunction? Is it Angela Merkel, whose government announced two years ago that not only would it not meet NATO’s required 2 percent of GDP on defense spending, it wouldn’t even clear its own downscaled goal of 1.5 percent?

Germany now says it intends to hit the 2 percent mark by the lickety-split deadline of 2031. If Russia really is the primed-to-blow menace that the foreign policy establishment claims, then such foot-dragging ought to have elicited outrage from Arlington to Foggy Bottom. Instead, the response was mostly muted. The elite narrative still holds: Donald Trump is steering America towards ruin and Angela Merkel is the new leader of the global sisterhood of the traveling pants. That the reality, at least on military spending, looks like the molecular opposite matters little. That America’s troop presence has clearly enabled the problem, entitling the Germans to protection without ever making them pay for it, is rarely acknowledged.

Elsewhere, at the Free Beacon, the hawkish writer Matthew Continetti has his own dire assessment of the “withdrawal.” Most of what he writes is the usual Kagan-Esque noisemaking: as the U.S. pulls out, chaos moves in; neurotic “host governments” are in constant need of reassurance; et cetera. But Continetti also makes a more striking claim: pulling troops out of Germany, he says, is of a kind with the protests and riots that followed the killing of George Floyd. The reason? Both are symptoms of “a loss of national self-confidence, an outbreak of intellectual and moral uncertainty, and an unpredictable, erratic, and easily piqued chief executive.”

Continetti is certainly correct that Trump is erratic. And I suppose he’s right about “intellectual and moral uncertainty,” if only because international relations have done right rarely offers up absolute certainties. But the baton twirler in his parade of horribles, “a loss of national self-confidence,” now that’s interesting. It, too, is technically correct—hefty majorities of Americans tell pollsters we’re headed in the wrong direction—but Continetti skips over the reasons why. He says nothing about our invasion of Iraq and subsequent failures there, which brought to an end the credibility and swagger that America enjoyed internationally after the Cold War. He is mum, too, on how our wars in the Middle East have served to distract us from simmering problems closer to home, which has lately come to a boil.

It isn’t a marginal downsizing of America’s empire that’s shown a crisis of confidence; it’s the fact that the empire is still there, long after it stopped being a net positive. That the United States is still supplying boots and bases to the most powerful country in Europe is preposterous. That it’s still trying to mend the Middle East more than a decade after Iraq fell apart is lunacy. That it’s still covering the defense of South Korea, another wealthy powerhouse, is self-defeating. It isn’t that Americans don’t want to bring the troops home; Trump was elected on a platform to do just that. It’s that Washington lacks the mettle to change course. It doesn’t want to accept that change is necessary; it certainly doesn’t want to undertake the discomfiting business of shuttering bases and ruffling allies. Far easier to let the thing run on autopilot, flying drones on borrowed money, relegating it all to faint background noise.

If we really had our national confidence about us, we wouldn’t be afraid to respond to shifting circumstances. We would follow Dwight Eisenhower’s example after the Korean War and set about bringing the military-industrial complex in line with our needs. We would demand that other countries step up, content that multilateralism need not be incompatible with leadership, and even a little nationalism. We would stop pretending to be the global savior. Instead, the establishment seethes because Trump has acknowledged the Third Reich is no longer a threat. May God have mercy on the cabarets.

Can the US really stop being the world’s cop?

Source: Global Times Published: 2020/6

"We are not the policeman of the world," US President Donald Trump said as he set out his vision for the use of the US military during the commencement address at West Point on Saturday. 

"The job of the American soldier is not to rebuild foreign nations, but defend, and defend strongly, our nation from foreign enemies. We are ending the era of endless wars," the president said.

This is not the first time Trump made the declaration that the US is no longer the world's policeman. During his trip to Iraq in December 2018, Trump defended his decision to withdraw troops from war-torn Syria by making similar remarks.  

Trump's bemoaning of the US' overseas commitment and the remarks that the country should stop being the world's cop are in line with his diplomatic philosophy that emphasizes "America First". At a time when his relations with senior military officials are strained and racial tensions are roiling the nation, Trump hopes to appease the US public, especially his supporters, by highlighting his attention on domestic issues. In this way, he is emphasizing the role of the US military in protecting domestic security. 

But can the US really stop playing policeman of the world? There is no sufficient evidence in history or now to indicate that the US is willing to, or could, stop policing the world. Instead, domestic issues have not prevented the US from interfering overseas.

This is inevitable and determined by the country's hegemonic nature. In order to maintain its hegemony, the US must expand its overseas influence. The US has also long regarded it as a lofty mission to promote so-called democratic values and freedom worldwide. 

Therefore, the US' role as the world's cop is a part, even a symbol, of US hegemony. As long as the US remains a hegemonic power or tries to sustain its power, its world police actions will not change. Can the US withdraw all its troops from overseas? Will the US give up its attempts to incite color revolutions in other countries？The answer is definitely "no." Therefore it's unlikely that the US will abandon its world's policeman status. Trump was just making empty talk at West Point. 

As a matter of fact, what Trump said during the commencement address shouldn't be taken seriously. It is just a mere attempt to lower dissatisfaction within the military amid a widening rupture between Trump and troops. 

In addition to claiming the US military is not the world's policeman, Trump spoke highly of contributions that soldiers have made to the country. He boasted of  

his administration's achievements in the military field, such as establishing a Space Force and investing two trillion dollars for defense spending.    

Since Trump took office, the US military has gradually been distancing itself from the president. Be it the conflicts between Trump and top US military officials including former secretary of defense Jim Mattis, or the controversy and differences over what role the US military should play in the ongoing riots in the US, it shows that Trump's perception of the US military's role is different from how the military perceives itself.

Trump, as the president and commander in chief of the military, believes the military should obey all of his orders. That's apparently not what some top military leaders think. 

Trump's threats to use troops to quell domestic riots triggered by the death of George Floyd have made the conflicts between Trump and the military more obvious. There is now a deep rift between the two sides. This cannot be bridged by empty talks and sweet words.  

The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Yu Jincui based on an interview with Zhang Tengjun, an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies. yujincui@globaltimes.com.cn