President Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton was in Moscow last week organizing what promises to be an historic summit meeting between his boss and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bolton, who has for years demanded that the US inflict “pain” on Russia and on Putin specifically, was tasked by Trump to change his tune. He was forced to shed some of his neoconservative skin and get involved in peacemaking. Trump surely deserves some credit for that!
If the Trump White House had let it be known a couple of months ago that it was working with the Kremlin to schedule a summit meeting between the two presidents, all hell would have broken loose in the Washington Beltway. But that isn’t happening. There is an eerie calm in Washington, as if Trump’s detractors have run out of ammunition.
The US Treasury Department report for April published on June 15 revealed that Russia sold $47.4 billion out of the $96.1 it had held in Treasury bonds (T-bonds). In March, Moscow cut its Treasury holdings by $1.6 billion. In February, Russia reduced its bond portfolio by $9.3 billion. Other holders did it too. Japan sold off about $12 billion, China liquidated roughly $7 billion. Ireland ditched over $17 billion.
Trump appears intent on undermining the whole US-led post-war, or rather post-1971, order. Here Hugo Salinas Price shows that the ever-growing US trade deficit is a necessary component of that order. It feeds US government spending and ensures the flow of dollar into the global system. Logically, the US must move from being the consumer of last resort to being once again a productive economy, another professed Trump goal.
Way back in 1995, when Mexico was in the throes of another financial crisis, I figured out the problem of the existing world’s monetary system, based on the paper dollar as the fundamental currency of the world.
“Speaking at the Future of Asia conference, Mahathir also mooted the idea of an East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC), a regional free trade zone he first proposed in 1997, to included Asean countries, China, Japan and South Korea, saying that a Pan-Asian bloc like EAEC could more effectively negotiate with major powers.”
Sensing the ebb of US power in Asia, Mahathir is quick to repose the question of East Asia economic unity in a situation where Washington was no longer “in the position to demand that we not form the EAEC”.
There seem to be two factions inside the US ruling class: one which favours a permanent Cold War and the Trump faction. Trump has now prevailed and duly moved to end the Cold War. He has thus cleared the way for constructive engagement with China. As China is America’s largest creditor and provider of consumer goods it is only logical that the US should try to reach an agreement with her. This not about free trade but free movement of capital and the reinvestment of US debt in means of production inside the US thus eliminating the US trade deficit. This would also enable the creation of a new global currency system. Obviously, there is opposition to such an outcome inside the US elite but apart from a prolonged paralysis and humiliating decline the only other option is a war with China. Many on the left, in particular, seem to regard this as an inevitability. However, the USA has no history of taking a major power head on and the military balance is no longer favourable if it ever was. Furthermore, Trump has already created facts on the ground which gravitate against such a scenario. He has undermined the so-called special relationship with the UK, always a willing partner in any recklessness. He has also undermined the whole notion of the “free world” as the West likes to style itself and, thus, the possibility of a coalition of the willing. For all the contrast in style and ideological posture, there is some continuity from the Obama presidency. Obama undoubtedly sought detente with Russia but his deal was killed stone dead by factions within the US military when they attacked the Syrian army. A similar derailment of the Trump deal cannot be ruled out but he has gone to great lengths to guard his back: he has spent recklessly on the military and, unlike Obama, he has appeased the Israeli lobby. He also appears to have brought on board those within the military who particularly fear reckless overseas engagements.
On June 12, all eyes were on U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung Un, in the first ever meeting between the heads of states of the two countries. Athough pundits debatewhether it was North Korea or the United States that benefited the most from the summit, there was a less visible player that came out a clear winner: China.
By reaffirming the Panmunjom Declaration, the US President has committed to bringing its military back from South Korea and thus a complete denuclearization of the South as well as the North
The Trump-Kim geopolitical reality-TV show – surreal for some – offered unparalleled entries to the annals of international diplomacy. It will be tough to upstage the US President pulling an iPad and showing Kim Jong-un the cheesy trailer of a straight-to-video 1980s B-grade action movie – complete with a Sylvester Stallone cameo – casting the two leaders as heroes destined to save the world’s 7 billion people.
Tulsi Gabbard is near lone voice on the left in giving peace a chance after Trump’s historic joint declaration with the North Korean leader Kim. It is only right and proper that the word of any US leader be treated with all due scepticism. However, simply to dismiss a peace process on the grounds of Trump’s right wing persona is simply irresponsible. As if it wasn’t right wing politicians who launched detente with China or the Northern Ireland peace process. Compare her comments to those of Bernie Saunders who has tweeted regarding Trump’s fall out at the G7 as follows:
“I find it very strange that President Trump has such a hard time getting along with the leaders of the world’s major democracies but feels very comfortable with despots and authoritarian leaders like Putin, Xi Jinping, Duterte and Mohammad Bin Salman.”
This is simply the old West against the rest line and within the context of the multipolar reality which is emerging can only be described as backward. The far left, meanwhile, sees this as the moment to take to the streets against Trump. Socialist Worker, for example, “knows” that the deal won’t bring peace despite their admission that the USA is negotiating from a position of weakness, a reality they are well aware of as they have seen the CIA’s attempt to overthrow Assad, which they supported, fail. Given their failures on multiple fronts it is only sensible for the USA to attempt to engage constructively with the rest of the world and with Asia, in particular. Whether that is done by a left or right wing US president is neither here nor there.
While most of the liberal intelligentsia either ignore the summit or dismiss it as a stunt, the centre-left New York Times simply despairs at what it sees as a Trump surrender- as if it was not an American surrender that was required after decades of demonising and isolating North Korea.
It sure looks as if President Trump was hoodwinked in Singapore. Trump made a huge concession — the suspension of military exercises with South Korea. That’s on top of the broader concession of the summit meeting itself, security guarantees he gave North Korea and the legitimacy that the summit provides his counterpart, Kim Jong-un.
“In parallel, diplomats in Brussels confirmed to Asia Times there are insistent rumbles about Trump possibly dreaming of a G3 composed of just US, Russia and China.”
With all going quiet on the home front and the campaign to indite Trump as some kind of Russian agent, Trump may finally be moving towards the logical next step for US foreign policy: the establishment of the USA as a pole within the new multipolar world order. This would be a huge , historic development and one made possible, if it is possible, by the strong executive power inherent in the US constitution. The nightmare of the left liberals, Trump, Putin and Xi bestriding the world would, nonetheless, lay the foundations for peace on earth.
East vs. West: the contrast between the “dueling summits” this weekend was something for the history books.
All hell broke loose at the G6+1, otherwise known as G7, in La Malbaie, Canada, while all focused on divine Eurasian integration at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in China’s Qingdao in Shandong, the home province of Confucius.
Some statesmen by their sheer force of personality and unorthodox ways of politicking arouse disdain among onlookers. US President Donald is perhaps the most famous figure of that kind in world politics today.