AT PENPOINT
US President Donald Trump raises suspicions about exactly how he formulates his foreign policy. He was faced with two major crises which made it necessary that he and his team be up and running to handle them as he took over, for which there was no learning curve: Ukraine and Gaza.
However, his latest initiative on Ukraine has created almost as many doubts as his Gaza proposal, leaving both to compete in awfulness and impracticability. The only thing to be said favourable about both is that they show thinking outside of the box (as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said about the Gaza proposal). They both throw into the question what constitutes sovereignty. While in Gaza Trump seems to be asking to be given something no one has the right to ask; in Ukraine he is asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to give away what he cannot.
Much of the outcry is at the way he is approaching the issues, and making his suggestions. To take the Gaza proposals first, one of the problems was that he made them without asking Egypt and Jordan whether they were willing to accept Gazan refugees. A gauge of how strong their refusal was, came from their not having even a semblance of discussion about how the refugees, about three million of them, would be divided between them. It was almost as if Trump imagined that Egypt and Jordan were bound to fall in with Israel’s wishes, just as he did. Though forced by the USA into signing peace treaties with Israel, he seems to have forgotten that Egyptian and Jordanian leaders are not as beholden to Israel to remain in office, as US leaders are.
After the meeting of the leaders of the countries Trump named, as well as Saudi Arabia, Trump seemed to move away from the idea of moving out the Gazans. The meeting, which might be seen as a pre-Arab League meeting, before the March 4 Summit, did not seem to overcome the main stumbling block, which was how to fund the project. A World Bank estimate puts the cost at $52 billion, comprising about $33 billion in reconstruction costs, $19 billion in foregone economic costs, and about $1 billion to cover removing the 41 million to 47 million tons of rubble and debris which has been generated.
Trump was in his element, like a property dealer, showing his readiness to house the Gazans outside of Gaza, getting Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to put up the money, and then to get Israel to let him have the development of Gaza. It would serve to give Israel what it has so far lacked, a rival to Beirut. That city, once the playground of the Levant, declined because of its Palestinian refugee population. Over 40 years ago, back in 1982, Israel attempted to solve the problem by supervising the massacres in Sabra and Chatila refugee camps by Falangist militias. However, though Beirut lost its lustre, Dubai has attempted to recreate it. Though Israel has recently gained access after the UAE recognized it, it still lacks a resort city of its own.
Unfortunately, it seems, both Jordan and Egypt rained on his parade. Both had separate bad experiences with Palestinian refugees. This is quite apart from the fact that the Gazans had not been asked their opinion.
Trump had not settled that issue when he plunged into the Russia-Ukraine conflict. First came his talks with Russia, to the exclusion of Ukraine. Then came his demand that Ukraine sign over its rights to rare earths such as lithium. The USA would earn $500 billion in profits, and Trump sees that as çompensation’ for the aid given to Ukraine in its war against Ukraine. Trump has called Ukraine President Zelensky a dictator, because he has not held elections last year as due.
The world can only hope there are no more crises during the rest of Trump’s term, He seems to be making a hash of the ones still on his plate.
This might be seen as Trump setting a condition which is bound to fail, giving him the excuse he wants to favour Russia. However, Ukraine has come up with a very interesting rejection: there are no security guarantees. Coupled with Zelensky’s statement that he is willing to resign as President if Ukraine is left to join NATO, it amounts to a negotiation.
However, there are two issues to be dealt with. Mineral rights always vest in the state. Only in a monarchy can the monarch give away mineral rights. In a state, on the other hand, a procedure must be followed. That procedure is prescribed by law, and only the lawmaker can change it. In Pakistan, for example, the provincial governments have Minerals Departments to deal with such cases. No President or PM could give mining rights away. Even a CM or provincial minister would only do so in the face of departmental objections, while someone would probably go to court.
Then there is the issue of why Ukraine should do so. Trump thinks this would be appropriate compensation for the help the USA has given Ukraine in fighting Russia. Trump has thus turned the USA into a mercenary from a state. According to prevalent concepts, the state pursues vital interests without looking too hard at the bottom line. It is supposed to help states which have some sort of ideological affinity, or shared values, though its strategic interests are paramount. It does not seek compensation as the USA now is.
This might be seen as a new stage in capitalism, beyond the comprador capitalism, imperialism, colonialism or neo-colonialism of Marxist theory. Trump might not see himself as a Marxist theoretician, but he has certainly taken Marxist theory a step forward, especially in the field of international relations. The next step might be the hiring out of mercenaries. It is not without precedent. Switzerland used to hire out troops from the late Middle Ages to the 19th century, when the standard of its troops was reputedly very high. The contract was with the individual canton, not the confederal Swiss government. The individual US states all have National Guards, which are state militias but which double as the USA’’s reserve.
Even if this proves only an excuse, Trump will have established precedent that would have countries like Pakistan aghast. What if US assistance had to be paid for? What if Trump asked for the Riko Diq project? Another consideration is the effect this might have on climate change aid. It is bad enough that the aid is being funneled in interest-bearing loans that will have to be repaid. But the President of the country which pollutes the most, and which should provide the most funds, is now headed by someone who is willing to take compensation in kind.
Trump insists that he wants to make America great again, but his proposals are so far removed from reality that they are not just impracticable, but provoke ridicule. That in itself is dangerous for the world at large, for the world needs its leading superpower to be taken seriously. If the USA was not taken seriously, then there would be chaos, or someone would have to fill the gap. China? Russia? It is something of a paradox that Trump wants to spearhead a conflict with one, while accused of having a soft spot for the other.
The world can only hope there are no more crises during the rest of Trump’s term, He seems to be making a hash of the ones still on his plate.
