Tide Of Times Of Those Afraid Of Trump
Most of the world is not afraid of the new United States President Donald Trump, now two months in office. There is no reason for them to fear him more than, say, his immediate past predecessor Barack Obama. Countries, which had become the best beneficiaries of the US munificence and trust, are now worried about Trump’s declared policy concerns is with their parochial interest in scope and dimension.
In the existing scheme of things and prevailing mood across the world, things are as usual in terms of economic cooperation and the prospects of the vast majority of global citizens recording marked upward swing in their living standards. Their station will be more or less the same for the next four years—not necessarily because of what a good part of the American elite seems to think as “unconventional” policies and practices.
Poverty will continue to affect most people on Planet Earth just as inequality in the dispensation of opportunities and anomalies in the right to be heard for most nations are as persistently rooted as they have been all through the post-World War II decades.
In the space of two months, The New York Times has carried more than three score opinion pieces contributed by its columnists and other scribes that are almost invariably critical—quite a few vitriolic attacks on the man holding what is touted as the world’s most powerful job. One of the most influential newspapers in the US, the Times has already carried more than two dozen editorials—almost all of them stinging criticisms of Trump and his administration.
Right from the United Nations to various significant international forums, it is the US and its closest capitals in Europe have monopolised the business of setting world agendas. They define, detail and what democracy and governance constitutes for the rest of the world that is expected to toe the line thus set. The economic clout they wielded with persistent presence and formidable force
Individual nations are given many a sermon as to what to do, how to do and why to do. Lots of lessons and moral obligations are presented for the militarily less powerful and/or industrially less developed to follow as the sole panacea for the “right” course and “better” quality of life.
Rather than out of conviction, nations have accepted such courses out of economic and/or security compulsions in a new form of colonial control underscored by a chorus submitted by an arrogant elite. News stories originating in “other countries” are more often than not dismissed altogether or accorded space and highlight far less than similar events and incidents occurring in the dominant few in the comity of nations. For them, “world” connotes the best automatically equated with anything that has to do with the West.
People and the majority of nations—especially in the largest continent and most populated Asia—have all along been given a relegated status. For too long they have been subjected to the agendas set by others. And that seems to be in the process of seeing a remarkable change—slowly but surely.
Hence, the “rest of the world” finds minuscule elite voices in the US amusing after decades of being coaxed to consider the US president as someone with superhuman powers working for the best of Americans and the rest of the world through fair, democratic and balanced means.
In its thirst for avenging their wrong conclusion on the outcome of the presidential polls in November, a section of the American elite is hell-bent on discrediting everything that the Trump team says or does. In a way, members of this elite group are reprimanding voters for electing someone who, they think, lacks the credentials and credibility to govern them and, by extension, the rest of the world.
The Trump administration is moving to deport illegal migrants, particularly those who have committed crimes. There is nothing wrong in that. Either law should not be made or the law enforcement agencies should not hesitate to implement the it; those flouting the law should face the music. This is an accepted fact everywhere, unless bribery and weak implementation mechanism deny its implementation.
Some of the gems of wisdom that American scribes since January described their president include “dangerously incapable”, “dysfunctional”, “liar” and “might have cooperated with the Russians” [American adversaries]. Had the US elite disliked the leader of another nation so much, they would have persuaded their government to activate foreign-funded local NGOs and secure the support of INGOs that would have played their prescribed part to berate and condemn the foreign leader seen as “overbearing”. Then scholars among beneficiaries of Western recognition would be mobilised against the intended target.
“How can we get rid of Trump?” an American scribe recently cried aloud. Writing in The New York Times, Susan B. Glasser spoke of “Fearing our Putin”, i.e., Trump. The fact is that most people and most nations across the world are not worried about Putin as such.
For several decades, the so-called world order has meant that foreign intervention by the powerful lot in Europe or the US in all parts of the world is approved by the West. Hence there is such global silence over the vitriolic attacks on Trump who is not their president, and, therefore, the American domestic business.
Calling the NATO “obsolete” for not confronting terrorism, Trump wants its members to meet their financial obligations instead of angling for a free ride in the military alliances. This worries many European capitals. So what? NATO, after all, hails basically from a highly developed continent with two veto powers that have willingly handed over the alliance’s captaincy to the US.
Some Americans are worried that Marine Le Pen, the far-right National Front candidate in the French elections for president next month has received Russian financing and is expected to win the most votes in a crowded field in the first round of voting in April, though she might be defeated in the May runoff vote. It does not bother much of the world that is also the least worried about Trump’s “America first” approach. Instead, such approach should be allowed to all nations without any hindrance from any quarter.
Some embarrassed losers, who got their political analyses drastically wrong about their own presidential elections in November, insist that the Russians might have been actively involved in an effort “to steal” the US election. So what? More than a few countries in the past several decades had the foul taste of “powerful” foreign forces mobilising the I/NGOs they fund to denigrate and demonise leaders of other countries.
The many INGOs who descend on Nepal, however, do not take their bag of conflict resolution principles and practices to the US where the minuscule elite gets roiled by the election results that surprised and shocked it inconsolably. They are busy helping folks like us but cannot take the issue to the world’s most powerful nation. Strange, indeed.