Tag Archives: diplomacy

Mr. President, relationships matter … really, they do

If the president of the United States had any knowledge of diplomacy and geopolitical relationships before he took the oath of office then perhaps he might have established a different record early on in his administration.

Donald Trump had no knowledge of any of it when he became president. He has spent his entire adult life in pursuit of personal enrichment, personal success. He achieved both in huge quantities and as I’ve long believed, one doesn’t accomplish all that he has done by being a nice guy.

That means, to me at least, that he is not wired to work through diplomatic channels.

We are witnessing the consequence of that background in real time as the president bulls his way across the world stage.

His latest stunt was to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord. He has enraged virtually the entire world. Why? Well, the entire world — minus Nicaragua and Syria — have signed on to the accord. And until this week, so had the United States of America.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone, I suppose. He pledged to “put America first.” His electoral base loves him for that. Trump loved the base back with his decision.

It’s part of a pattern of Trump’s behavior as president. He has scolded allies on three continents. Germany sells “too many cars” to Americans; Mexico is going to “pay for the wall” across our southern border; he spoke about imposing a tariff on Canadian timber imported into the United States; he hung up on a phone call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The president of the United States does not understand, appreciate or comprehend the value of international diplomacy. He appears to govern the greatest nation on Earth as if it’s the biggest business on the planet.

This, I also submit, is going to exact a steep price on America’s standing as the world’s most indispensable nation.

 

Taking aim at … political correctness

Pc

Political correctness has become Public Enemy No. 1 . . . if you’re a Republican Party presidential candidate.

Those GOP debates have featured full frontal attacks from the candidates on that nefarious character called political correctness.

It gives them license, I suppose, to say whatever they want regardless of its offensiveness, ignorance or stupidity.

I want to take up for political correctness as it’s been defined by those who blame it for every national ailment under the sun.

I know. You’re surprised beyond belief.

Political correctness is not the bogeyman that candidates have identified as the enemy. Yes, there are times when PC language can go too far, when people who use it do so because they are afraid of committing the slightest offense.

But the anti-PC rhetoric we’re hearing on the campaign trail is aimed at candidates who insist that there should be nuance when talking about international diplomacy. They level their verbal fire at candidates — and current officeholders — who decline to use certain language to describe the enemies with whom we are at war. They seek to attach the PC label simply to those who choose to disagree with them, with their gratuitously harsh language.

So, the enemy now becomes political correctness.

The audiences who hear the candidates lambaste those who prefer to speak more precisely cheer them on. They like what they consider to be “bold” rhetoric; others of us watching and listening from the political peanut gallery would describe it more as “reckless.”

From where I sit, reckless rhetoric can — and quite often does — lead to consequences that produce lots of collateral damage in places where it’s hard to repair.

So, when I hear presidential candidates lampoon political correctness from their opponents, I am going to presume for the rest of this election cycle that those who support them accept the bluster that pours out of the candidates’ mouths.

However, will they accept the potential consequences that it produces?

 

Iran deal is ‘approved’ by Senate … sort of

obama and kerry

It’s quite clear that President Obama cannot call his “victory” in securing the Iran nuclear deal a “mandate.”

It is, instead, a technical victory. Senate Democrats gathered up enough votes to head off a Republican-sponsored resolution opposing the deal. Thus, the president won’t have to veto the resolution.

GOP senator say they’ll keep bringing the deal up for a vote. Good luck with that.

Deal gets approved

I’m glad the deal is headed for “ratification,” if you want to call it that.

I’ll fall back to this notion in defense of the deal.

Israel is Iran’s target were it to build a nuclear weapon. The deal prevents Iran from obtaining a nuke. The United States has pledged repeatedly since the founding of Israel in 1948 to stand behind our nation’s most dependable Middle East ally. The pledges have come from presidents of both parties.

Whatever intention Iran has to wipe Israel off the planet would be met with severe force by any president who comes along in the future, regardless of political party.

It is better to talk our enemies out of doing something foolish than it is to bomb them into oblivion.

And, yes, you trigger-happy foes of this deal: Diplomacy always has its place.