Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
Never in the history of the United States has the incumbent president, in less than ten months in office, unleashed so much of chaos and instability as President Trump. Since the day of inauguration, Trump has demonstrated a degree of impatience, intolerance and arrogance unprecedented in the White House. Whatever achievements were made by the previous administration became anathema to him and his priority was to repeal, reverse and abrogate those. He was able to assemble a team of ultra-rightists, white supremacists and inward looking people who are unable to look beyond the Atlantic and the Pacific. They want to make America great again implying job creation, wealth accumulation and prosperity for the people. They are opposed to foreign trade, investment and collective security for the people overseas - to them America is only for the Americans. The deconstruction programme began at home with the abrogation of the heath care Act.
AFFORDABLE HEATH CARE ACT (ACA): As pledged during the election campaign, Trump attempted to repeal and replace the ACA, popularly known as the Obama Care. He abrogated the ACA but the Republicans in the Congress had not done the home work to produce an alternative health care plan-in the absence of which a vacuum has taken place. Some 20 million people, who for the first time were able to receive healthcare under the ACA began to put pressure on their representatives to restore their health coverage. Trump accused the Republican leaderships in the Congress for their failure to "formulate alternative plan" and blamed the Democrats for obstructing "alternative plan" in the Congress.
After considerable blame games and accusations, a bipartisan health plan, was prepared on October 18. Trump welcomed it but in the evening called for amendments as demanded by the conservative Republicans. The alternative health plan has not seen the light of the day even after nine months.
PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT: Following painstaking negotiations lasting for months, the Paris Climate Agreement was signed by the representatives of 196 countries including the United States on December 12, 2015. The agreement called for adopting green energy sources, cutting down on emissions and restricting the rise of global temperatures. The deal acknowledged that the threat of climate change is "urgent and potentially irreversible" and can only be addressed through the widest possible cooperation by all countries. It was agreed to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius and in order to help the developing countries switch from fossil fuels to green sources of energy and cope with the effects of climate change, the developed countries agreed to provide $100 billion a year. President Obama steered the negotiations leading to the agreement.
Trump, however, dismissed the irrefutable evidences provided by scientists and claimed that the global warming has been an effect of nature and the Paris Agreement was irrelevant. He declared on May 13, 2017 that the United States would pull out of the Climate Agreement. Sixty per cent Americans disapproved exiting from the climate deal.
TPP AND NAFTA: Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, the largest trade association of 12 countries in the Far East and South Asia, representing 40 per cent of world economy was created in February 2016. A group of Senators led by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren vehemently opposed the trade agreement on the ground that it would not promote job creation at home. This may be true but they lost sight of the fact that free trade envisages level playing field enabling the member countries to collectively benefit either through job creation or infrastructure development or allowing the consumers to access the products at a comparatively cheaper price than produced at home. By participating in this trade association, the Obama administration conveyed a message that the United States remained engaged in the Pacific region and that the people in the region would not be left to be under the sway of Chinese economic domination. Trump on January 23, 2017 declared that the United States would withdraw from the TPP. John McCain, a senior Senator denounced the decision and said; "It will send a troubling signal of American disengagement in the Asia Pacific region at a time we can least afford it."
Trump is now striving to incorporate fundamental changes in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but Canada and Mexico are opposed to the overhauling of the tariff structure. Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau insisted that maintaining NAFTA would produce better outcomes for the citizens of all three countries. Trump claimed that "NAFTA had been a terrible deal for our country". The United States is having huge trade deficits under NAFTA and if this cannot be reversed, he threatened to terminate the deal. Canada's Foreign Minister told CNN that her country remains the single largest trading partner of the United States to the volume of $256 billion and the US has been in surplus of $60 billion in the balance of payment. Nevertheless, Canada supports modernising, not undermining NAFTA. After third rounds of discussions, NAFTA risks the same fate as that of TPP. The head of US Chamber of Commerce said, "abandoning the agreement would pose an existential threat to the continent's national and economic security".
UNESCO: Last week the Trump administration announced it would withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) protesting the agency's alleged bias against Israel. This is not the first time that the United States withdrew from UNESCO. In 1980s the Regan administration withdrew citing anti-American policy pursued by the organisation. A few years later, the United States rejoined but in 2011, President Obama suspended membership payments to UNESCO after it voted to accept Palestine as a full member. Between 2009 and 2014, UNESCO adopted 46 resolutions condemning Israel's building of settlements in the Palestinian territories, destruction of schools, colleges and hospitals in Palestine. This summer UNESCO passed a resolution denying Jewish connection to Jerusalem and declaring the Temple Mount as a holy site of Muslim worship.
It is worth pointing out that since 1967, the United Nations passed series of resolutions asking Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, declaring construction of settlements in the West Bank illegal, building the wall on Palestinian land unlawful and denouncing excessive force against the Palestinians protesting occupation. Israel has never complied with these resolutions. Being disenchanted, the Palestinians turned to the United Nations, and in 2012, the General Assembly accorded membership to Palestine by 138 votes in favour. In December 2016, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the settlements in the occupied territory and demanded those to be dismantled. Even the Israel Supreme Court had declared "building the wall" segregating Palestinians from their agricultural land as unlawful.
UNESCO was created to "contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration in its identified fields with the goal of furthering universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms." Viewed against this declaration, UNESCO's actions have been in conformity with its mission statement and incongruity with the declared objectives of the international community. If Washington wants to disengage from an agency that disapproves Israel's unlawful activities, it might consider dissociating with other multilateral organisations including the United Nations.
UNESCO has an annual budget of $ 500 million. It has been doing commendable work in the war-torn and impoverished regions in the world. The international community and the UNESCO in particular, should not allow themselves to be coerced by the United States. The affluent Arabs and the Gulf States should come forward and make up the deficits of UNESCO budget caused by the withdrawal of the United States.
Trump's dwindling interests in Europe, abhorrence towards multinational political, military and trading entities and refusal to accept refugees from the conflict zones, among others, underscore his unique but obsolete doctrine that the United States can live in peace in isolation. Ironically, it was Trump, who in exasperation, looked up to China and the UN when Kim Jung Un threatened to hit the US with long range ballistic missiles.
The writer is a former official of the United Nations.