Trump Syndrome: Unveiling a New Phase in World Politics

Donald Trump has been sworn-in as 45^th President of the United States of America on the twentieth of this month. Before the last year November elections, majority of political pundits were pessimistic about the Trump’s triumph against his Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. But he proved all of them wrong.

Some experts deconstruct his success in combinatory rhetoric of “populism and nationalism”, ingrained with racism, patriarchy and casino-capitalism. Some even argued his presidency would bring a “worst form of democratic trajectory” in the world’s oldest democracy. Some even gone beyond it and said that he would be an “unqualified” person in the White House.

The election campaign of Trump had been highly controversial. One time he talks about banning of Muslims to enter into the US, and at another time he would say erection of a wall along the Maxico border and ‘making America great again’, a hyperbolic sense of nationalism.

Internally he asked for repealing of Obama Care, an affordable medical insurance scheme for poor unveiled by the outgoing US President Obama. Outside the US he talk about fixing of alliance partnerships, revisiting the relevance of NATO, undoing the climate agreement and some multi-national trade agreements such as TPP.

From the geopolitical point of view he started to question the Washington’s states-quo over the “One China” policy vis-à-vis Beijing. He even suggests that the Beijing’s manipulated economic trade and commerce and geopolitical assertiveness need to be fixed right and questioning “one China” would come as first bullet from the Trump’s diplomatic gun.

The worst scenario would come in the messy region of West Asia. He picked two hot points in the region. One side he asked for revisiting the whole US-Iran nuclear deal, a celebrated deal as it put a temporary freeze over the decade long Washington-Tehran bilateral animosity. On the other side he whispered an unqualified support to the Israel. On this issue a diplomatic rumor has already begun that the US may shift its diplomatic mission from Tel Eve to Jerusalem.

The Trump Syndrome has reached the Europe. A far right nationalist leadership has started to emerge strongly from London to Germany and France. Some are even looking for grim prospects over the united European Union. Some even go beyond that and suggest a new form of Fascism is emerging from Moscow Under Putin, Ankara under Erdogan to Washington under Trump.

There are some strong opinions, which argue that Trump administration would be more “transactional” in its approach not only in economy but in political and diplomatic domains as well.  A Trump-Putin convergence is one such move, which ask for ‘give and take’ approach in the current geopolitical scenario. He may push for a deal in West Asia with the Moscow over ISIL, Syria and would maneuver Russian support against the Beijing.  

The Trump Cabinet is also sounding a bad smell. The people he selected for top cabinet posts have complicated background and even some are nurtured by the big businesses. Some experts suggest that Trump administration would not go beyond big business trajectory.

The Donald Trump may have won the election through a well-drafted rhetoric, but it would be an interesting period to watch and see whether he would go for that in reality. But one thing can be easily inked down that America under the Trump would not be an easy phase in the US politics domestically as well as globally. A “Making America great again” would either push the Washington more ‘isolationist’ or more ‘interventionist’, may be in the military-industrial business sense. 

123 Agreement: A Case for India's Stable Nuclear Doctrine

(This paper was presented in the International Conference at Mumbai on 5th & 6th January 2017 and was published in the book titled "India's Extended Neighbourhood", Ed. by Dr Wagh)

                                                                       Abstract

A fundamental sense of nuclear doctrine is to provide raison d’etre for having nuclear weapons [2009: Singh Manpreet]. In this domain India’s official stand believe that basic policy orientation of nuclear weapons is meant for simple ‘deterrence usage’ and “Cold Start”, which per se encompasses ‘no first use policy’ [2013:Michael Krepon & Julia Thompson]. In this orientation the New Delhi has evolved a policy of ‘credible minimum deterrence’ [2008: Bharat Karnad]. It is pertinent to mention that the India’s nuclear system is three stage based wherein India is sufficient in thorium and deficient in uranium. It is this deficiency, which halts a progressive credibility of its nuclear program. The other reason is India’s neighboring nuclear powers that peruse irredentist designs, in particular with regard to the Chinese and the Pakistan’s.

The Indo-US nuclear agreement, which is also known as 123 agreement has brought a new “epoch” in the India’s nuclear programme since its unveiling in July 18, 2005, by then Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and his US counterpart President George Bush. The 123 agreement has ended India’s sense of ‘apartheism’ [1998: Jaswant Singh]. It is pertinent to mention that the India’s nuclear tests in 1974 and then in 1998 has halted its future progress due to the international sanctions particularly with regard to access of duel use technology and reprocessing technology. The 123 agreement has opened new gates for India and it has culminated a period of ‘exclusion’ for accessing a new technology in the domain of nuclear field. It is also path breaking in accessing a membership in nuclear regimes particularly in NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) and United Nations Security Council.

Indo-US Geniality in Asian Context

published in June 21, 2016.

The recent bonhomie between the New Delhi and the Washington has been termed as “consolidation” and “Strategic symphony” between the two countries. The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has visited United States four times since he took his office in 2014. The recent visit from June7-8 2016 has if one side substantiated the Indo-US bilateral partnership, but at the same time it has erupted new geopolitical fissures in the Asia Continent.

The consolidation of bilateral engagements between the India and the United States particularly in the defense field has not gone well in the geostrategic circles in the Islamabad and Beijing. The joint statement issued after one to one meeting between the President Obama and the Indian Prime Minister resolved that two sides would be “priority partners”. This is “consolidation” on the 2015 US-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The Indian Prime Minister’s speech in the US Congress avoided a direct reference to disputed South and East China seas. But, the Beijing understands that the Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia Pacific and the Indian Ocean between the New Delhi and the Washington is containment policy towards China.

The Chinese official statements during Modi’s trip to the US made it clear that India’s admission in the Missile Control and Technology Regime (MTCR) and Washington’s push to India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group would imbalance the geopolitical landscape in the region particularly between the New Delhi and the Islamabad. It is pertinent to mention that the New Delhi admission in MTCR paved its way to receive duel-use technology from the Washington. Moreover, last hiccups in the Indo-US nuclear agreement have also been resolved. The United States has agreed to start preparatory work for six nuclear reactors to be built by US company Westinghouse in the Andhra Pradesh state of India.

The Washington’s de-hyphenation policy between the New Delhi and the Islamabad would not help in resolving bilateral disputes between India and Pakistan. The Indo-US joint statement issued after the bilateral meeting has reiterated their mutual collaboration in fighting terrorism and a direct reference towards Islamabad. The fact cannot be concealed that the current crisis around the Af-Pak region is the US driven. It would not be a prudent policy to push Pakistan in isolation vis-à-vis fighting irredentist groups in the region.

New Delhi must understand that the US policy of containing China through New Delhi would not be a good move from Indian point of view. Antagonizing Chinese would be an imprudent policy in long run. We have seen how India was pushed by Washington to vote against Iran in the IAEA Board of Governors Meeting in 2005. The Iran-US nuclear agreement reminds New Delhi that how Washington changes its preference even upto 360 degree.

            Coming to South Asia the United States has never acted in sincerity to help in resolving Indo-Pak bilateral disputes. Rather it has always tried to manage their bilateral conflicts upto the level, where its own interest does not get affected. The recent bonhomie between India and the US would ultimately escalate tension in the Indo-Pak bilateral relationship and the same may happen between the Sino-Indo ties. There is a probability that Beijing-Islamabad would counter Indo-US consolidation, which at the end of day would hit a peace in the South Asian region. 

World under Donald Trump

The Donald Trump’s triumph in Indiana Primary has cemented his candidature for the 2016 US presidential elections. The debate has already started what and how the “Trump Syndrome” would impact on the global politics. There is no doubt on the fact that the US is still a leading geopolitical power in the world. Therefore, any shift in the US politics has an accentuated implication on the world politics.  

There are two scenarios to look in, if Donald Trump wins the 2016 US Presidential elections. One is what changes the Trump administration would bring inside the US. The immediate issues he has to look in are emerging gun violence, new kind of racial discrimination, as it became more critical after a brutal killing of a young black boy in the Ferguson last year, issues related to immigration, debts and trade deficit in the US economy etc. These issues may not be so much significant to the outside world. The issues, which are critical to the world outside, are related to the US foreign Policy under the Trump administration.
  As a student of US foreign policy, we don’t see any fundamental difference between the Democrats and Republicans on issues related to the foreign policy. There may be a difference of a degree that too on issue based. We did not see any fundamental shift in the US policy on West Asia from Bush era to the incumbent Obama administration. Notwithstanding, the Obama’s Noble winner Prague and Cairo Speeches on nuclear disarmament and reconciliation towards West Asia respectively did not altered the fundamental sense in the Pentagon, while dealing with the world. The Israel-Palestine issue is still lingering unabatedly. The Iran nuclear deal has brought more trouble than peace in the West Asian region as it has widened the gulf between the Saudi Arabia and the Iran and accelerated sectarian divisions in the region. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the Russia and the US has also not materialized; rather the US has pursued a development of new weaponry.

    Instead of the aforesaid fact the Trump’s foreign policy would be an interesting period in the global politics. It is difficult to realize what Trump would do once he takes the throne of White House. Would his speeches during election campaign are off more rhetorical than reality only time would tell us. But, some sense can be drawn from his recent foreign policy speech in which he talk about ‘New Rational American Foreign Policy’ based on American unilateralism, trade protectionism and fight with radical Islam.
Noam Chomsky, worlds leading think tank believes that world would be more dangerous if the Trump wins White House race. Trump’s arguments on issues related to conflicts in West Asia, South China Sea, East China Sea, contestation on issues related to global environment and trade are disastrous.
Donald Trump has hinted that he may revisit the Iran nuclear deal. He talk about war against “radical Islam” and even he suggested that Muslims should be banned from entering into the US. During his recent foreign policy speech he referred Israel as an important alley in the West Asia. Therefore, should be given more protection. He also hinted that the Missile Defense Programme in Poland and Czech Republic would be restarted, therefore more trouble with Russia. Coming to the South Asia he praised India while asking to make Pakistan more accountable. He may deal with India and Pakistan separately that won’t be good for peace and reconciliation between the two nuclear armed neighbors.
Hyperbolism during elections has always been disproved. Whether this happens in Trump’s case the future would tell us, if it does not happen then it is likely that he would bring more trouble to the world. 

Modi’s Charismas Visit: A New Level of Indo-Pak Diplomacy

The Modi’s surprised landing in the Lahore on this years Charismas day is a remarkable gesture in the recent past in the bilateral relations between the India and the Pakistan. It is pertinent to mention that the Indian Prime Minister had on two day summit level meeting in the Moscow from 24^th to 25^th December and thereafter, on the same day he inaugurated the Indian made Parliament at Kabul for Afghanistan.

The Modi’s surprised visit is full of secret diplomacy. It has always been noticed in the diplomacy that keeping the backchannels active is more fruitful than reaching openly in the areas of hard contestation. The ‘secrecy’ becomes more substantive when it is done between a pro-rhetoric media glaring. Though, it is hard to digest that the Modi’s arrival in the Pakistan would not have been pre-prepared. But nevertheless, if it is to be surprised, it may be a beginning of new era in the bilateral engagements.  

The two countries have recently agreed to resume a new level of ‘Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue’, earlier known as ‘Composite Dialogue’ which involves all the bilateral issues included contested issue of Kashmir. The comprehensive bilateral dialogue is a good beginning since there was a huge pessimism emerged from the Ufa meeting in the Russia in July 2015, which ended without signaling any direct talk over the issue of Kashmir.  

The Modi’s surprised visit has both philosophical and pragmatic dimension. From philosophical point of view, Modi is well equipped in giving diplomatic surprises. Earlier to it, he invited the Pakistan’s Prime Minister at his swearing-in-ceremony in the May 2014, which had not been seen in the Indo-Pak bilateral relations. Reaching the Pakistan in such a manner, Modi might be trying to send a massage from London to Washington that India believes in peace and diplomacy.

On the other side, the visit has some pragmatic dimension as well. Not-to-engage is not a good option between the two nuclear powers. The bilateral hostile relations are at the many costs in the two countries as well as for the whole South Asian region. Modi would be aware of his economic and strategic cost of an anti-Pakistan policy.

The two countries inhabit millions of poor, malnourished, and internally dislocated people due to unabated tensions particularly along the border areas between the two countries. It is well-written and accentuated truth that the South Asian region would not see the light of real prosperity and development until and unless the New Delhi and the Islamabad reconcile on all the outstanding bilateral issues included the most sensitive issue of Kashmir.

Some recent reports have revealed that both the India and the Pakistan are pursuing a sort new weapon race, which could be very dangerous particularly in a situation of bilateral hostility. Therefore, bilateral engagement and reaching each other is an indispensable option between the Indian and the Pakistan. There is no other way to address the bilateral issues other than dialogue especially when the two contestants are nuclear powers.

Book Review

Name of the Book       : Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the Twenty First Century

Author                         : Christian Caryl

Publisher                      : Basic Books, New York, 2013

Pages                           : 407   

A study of any new text is per se an interesting experience in the discourses of literature. It becomes more lucrative and extrapolates once a book is of contemporary relevance. The same is true with the Christian Caryl’s book Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the Twenty First Century. The fundamental sense of the Caryl’s book would be based on the argument that the twenty first century is born in 1979 which per see is premised on the fact that the existing ideological narratives and the “accelerative trust” on account of social, economic and geo-political, to which the todays world is engulfed in are directly or indirectly linked with the developments that took place during the year 1979.  

The author narrates the dying days of the 1978 and the beginning of the 1979 when two significant events took place in the two different socio-ideological composed societies quite far from each other. The first is about emergence of Deng Xiaoping in China who changed the Mao’s narrative of socio-economic development and put the China on new road whose main attributes were off ‘special economic zones’. The Deng’s liberalization of Chinese economy, though in Chinese context and ‘hide the capabilities’ made it a vibrant economic and political power in the twenty first century. A far away place from Beijing is London where in May 1979 elections put Margaret Thatcher as a new Prime Minister of the Great Britain. The Thatcher’s win was not important because she was a first women Prime Minister rather a significant aspect about it was what latter on came to known as “Thatcherism”. This new “ism” was based on restoration of a faith on the Adam Smith’s philosophy of market. The Deng and Thatcher’s emergence had common parlance in context of their full faith in the “values of entrepreneurship” with bit difference of degree.

The other dimension of the Caryl’s book is based on religion as a predetermining factor to the developments that took place during the 1970’s. The emergence of Iran as an Islamic Republic in 1979 redeveloped the quest for a sort of Pan-Islamism in the world particularly in the region of West Asia. The Iranian revolution is off multidimensional but one deconstruction of it would be based on a narrative that it questioned the US hegemony in the region and in its beyond. The other development was a new elected pope John Paul II who was not only non-Italian but also one of the staunch critiques of Soviet Communism.

These two developments one based on economy and other on religion in 1970’s not only altered the whole discourse but lashed on socio-political-cum-geostrategic dimensions of that era which eventually gave birth to present century in terms of its issues and developments.

The post Soviet intervention in the Afghanistan saw a repetition of religion as a reliable tool to confront geo-strategic challenges. The norm started by the pope John Paul II had vibrantly configured by the Western world headed by the United States particularly during the last days of the Cold war. The modern jihadism and AK47 was also invented during these days, which subsequently became a sort of convention for big powers to achieve their geo-political interests particularly in the third world countries.

The fall of Shah regime in the Iran put a significant strains in the US policy in the West Asian region and in its beyond. The Iran under Shah was a key alley to the US during the Cold War. The Iranian revolution put end to this alliance between the US and the Iran that subsequently gave birth to the present animosities and confrontation between the two countries. The Iran-Iraq war in 1980’s and some sectarian and ethnic conflicts prominently the Arab-Persian division on the basis of Shia-Sunni narrative gave birth to many proxies in the region to which the present Iran-Saudi Arabia cold War, ISIL, war in Yemen and Syria are the associated outcomes of the events celebrated in the 1970’s.

The Iranian revolution also created a sort of power vacuum in the West Asian region which also gave opportunity to the ex-Soviet Union to fish in the troubled waters of the region. A one fundamental sense of the US foreign Policy in the post cold war era has been around to put away Russian influence particularly in the two critical regions of West Asia and the Central Asia. The present Moscow-Washington confrontation from Syria to Ukraine are also some how linked to the developments of the decade of 1970’s.

Other than religious based conflicts, the environmental and the economic crisis are other critical areas of concern to the present world. The economic policies in the post ‘Thatcherism’ put excessive thrust on account of ‘market is rationale’, therefore, less role of state, private entrepreneurship, and over utilization of fossil fuels. The economic recession of 2008 engulfed the whole world is a product of same rationale. The emission of more greenhouse gases due to overutilization of fossil fuels and electronic gadgets are associated norms of modern life whose roots can be drawn from the same events of 1970’s. The Deng’s rationale of development makes today the China one of the leading polluter in the world. The “twin forces” of religion and market emerged in the 1970’s are substantively responsible factors to the present worries from Syria-Ukraine to economic recession and environment. Therefore, the Cayyl’s book is worth reading in order to understand the substantive perspective of the present challenges to which the world is confronted with.