President Trump a Diplomat?

AC Christopherson

American Foreign Policy

January 24, 2017

Op Ed Week 4

President Trump a Diplomat?

It was announced this week that the second group of Manus refugees are leaving Australia and making there way to the United States. I for one was pleasantly surprised to read this headline after the commotion which took place last year when the President first became aware that the United States was in a deal with Australia to take in refugees. The President has many roles to fulfill but the one that seems the hardest for President Trump to embrace and gain approval from the public is chief diplomat. So far President Trump has yet to comment in any media form on the second round of refugees and has continued to honor his word from last year. I believe that since this is not the Trump we are used to seeing on the international stage that this is the most chiefly diplomatic form that the United States has witnessed from him.

I remember a year ago when there was the infamous “worst phone call ever” between the President and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Following the call, President Trump naturally took to twitter to vent about what was in his opinion a “dumb deal”. The reason Turnbull wanted to talk to the President was because of his concern over the immigration ban that Trump had imposed. Turnbull also made it clear that President Trump would indeed uphold the agreement.

In November of 2016, the Obama administration agreed to a one-off deal to resettle refugees being held on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, is overseeing the deal. As a result of this deal, Prime Minister Turnbull agreed to resettle refugees from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Australia strongly refuses to accept refugees who arrive by boat unofficially and especially from Indonesia due to a deterrent policy, Operation Sovereign Borders. This policy is aimed at restoring the integrity of its borders and is also in place to hinder human trafficking by sea. Those who try to get in have their boats intercepted and then are detained at either of the camps in PNG while their refugee claims are processed. I find Australia’s and the Obama administration’s deal to be a smart one for both sides due to its timing. The deal is something the Obama administration would traditionally take unlike the Trump Administration. When the deal was made Obama was on his way out of office and knew that fulfilling this deal would fall onto the next president. Australia turned to a reliable ally right before a change in administrations occurred. This was smart to get the deal done but was a little risky because the next president was unknown.

The refugees are known as the Australian asylum seekers. There were a total of 1,254 refugees in Manus and Nauru when the deal was made. The refugees on Manus Island are all men from Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar. The refugees from Nauru are men, women, and children from Iran, Sri Lanka, and then some are stateless. This US deal is only intending to give asylum to the refugees from Manus and Nauru, and does not address the various other refugees that may be forgotten.

Last September the United States welcomed the first 54 refugees who migrated. On tuesday it was reported that about 40 men left Manus Island and heading to the United States. In the next month or so 18 refugees are supposed to fly out. So far the refugees have been resettled across the United States in Georgia, Oregon, Colorado, Texas, and Arizona. The refugees have also been assisted with housing, healthcare both physical and mental, English lessons, job placement, and admission of children into school systems.

As chief diplomat the President is supposed to be the main planner and decision maker of foreign policy along with being the nation’s lead spokesperson to the rest of the world. More times than not Trump has been a hot headed spokesperson with foreign policy plans that are rather puzzling. How President Trump reacted initially to this deal after his phone call with Turnbull is typical. What is not typical is for Trump to continue with an Obama Administration deal that I feel he could’ve easily backed out of. Accepting refugees is the complete opposite of Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric especially given the executive order travel ban. By fulfilling the deal, not speaking ill of the refugees since they’ve been here, and providing the refugees with what is necessary to not only live in America but have a life with adequate resources to live and prosper, shows a very diplomatic side to of Trump. This shows he is capable of what the role of chief diplomat truly entails and hopefully this won’t be last we see of this version of President Trump fulfilling the roles which he is required in a more traditional and respected manner.

America first?

America First?

            In the course of a year, the current administration has managed to make a considerable amount of controversial political decisions—especially regarding international economic policy. The administration’s withdrawal from established accords is transforming the nature of America’s foreign policy. The blatant rejection of international economic agreements is rooted in the nationalistic slogan, “America First”, which renounces any political action that could possibly benefit another country. These unconventional actions contradict the trajectory of our increasingly globalized society and threaten the nation’s position in the international community.

            The propagation of nationalistic rhetoric and isolationist strategies is not unprecedented. In fact, a recent historical use of “America First”, is found in the name of an anti-Semitic isolationist committee that objected America’s entry into World War II[1].

I am not equating the Trump administration to a renowned bigoted organization, however, there seems to be disturbing cultural superiority and exceptionalism parallels.

According to President Donald Trump, our nation is involved in too many international economic agreements that he considers to be “bad deals.” The president believes that American people are suffering, because many industries outsource their employment overseas to countries that can readily supply cheaper labor. Moreover, Trump emphasizes that globalization is detrimental to American businesses, as many companies must compete with lower prices of foreign products. Furthermore, the administration’s criticism of international economic interdependence has extended to pertinent trade agreements.

In 2017, the repeated disapproval of international agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement has raised concerns not only among the nations involved, but also in the international community. President Trump has alluded to withdrawing from NAFTA, because he believes its policies are not in the best interest of the American people, economy or businesses. Additionally, Trump’s protectionist grievances have expanded to other foreign policy matters, such as military defense spending in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the procedural contributions to the United Nations.

In recent days, it’s the Trans-Pacific Partnership that has become the next target of Trump’s “America First” propaganda. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an agreement amongst eleven countries to strengthen ties, slash tariffs, promote trade, and foster economic growth. The creation of such an international trade agreement was significant, because the economies of those eleven countries comprise a large segment of the global economy. The trade agreement initially included the United States, however, President Trump decided that its policies would not economically favor our nation. The future of the TPP is uncertain considering the economic importance of America’s participation. Furthermore, the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership jeopardizes America’s leadership in global trade and permits other economic hegemonies to assume control.  

Unfortunately, there are many uncertain consequences for the isolationist policies of withdrawing from various international trade agreements and promoting a nationalistic agenda. I predict that there will be economic and foreign policy ramifications that will leave an enduring effect on the United States.

            As a result of withdrawing from international economic agreements, our nation is allowing for a shift in global power from the United States to China, and thus guaranteeing a disregard for America’s economic interests. Additionally, the international community could retaliate against our isolationist policies by boycotting American products and goods. Finally, these protectionist actions will most certainly have an effect our economy, jobs, businesses, etc.

            In addition to economic ramifications, there will be many foreign policy related consequences of withdrawing from international agreements. First, the reprisal against globalization completely contradicts the imminent reality of a more interconnected world. The isolationist policies will also cause many of our allies to lose confidence and respect for our leadership in the international community. Furthermore, our nationalistic agenda will discourage potential trade agreements with other countries and will end up being more detrimental to our international alliances. Finally, the unpredictable nature of our current administration and their inconsistent stance on international policy is only further damaging to America’s reputation.  

            In conclusion, the current administration needs to seriously consider the economic and foreign policy implications of adopting such an extreme isolationist strategy. Moreover, there should be a greater emphasis on the cooperation with our allies and the realization that foreign policy is not a zero-sum game. The nationalistic policy of “America First” is not conducive to economic improvement and most certainly is not conducive in negotiating any kind of multilateral policy.

Sarah Obrist

---

[1] “A Short History of ‘America First’” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-america-first/514037/

Is the Wall Really Worth It?

Is The Wall Really Worth It?
    As we have seen this past week, Congress has been focused on immigration issues such as DACA and the funding the border wall, and couldn’t come up with a collective agreement-leading for the government to shut down for three days. The Republicans were going to agree to improve DACA if Democrats agreed to allow funding for the border wall, and the Democrats did not want to allow the spending of $1.8 billion to build the wall over 60 miles in Texas and 14 miles across California. Yes, there is a necessity to protect our borders, but the wall won’t stop dealers, human traffickers, or immigrants from coming in.
        Are you aware how many miles of fencing covers the U.S-Mexico border? It’s roughly 650 miles, which includes 352 of primary fencing, 36 secondary and 299 is vehicle barrier fencing. There’s not as much protection as our president would like. Thus, over 1,300 miles of the border are open for crossing, and Trump wants to eventually target most of it. That’s plenty of miles where “bad hombres” can cross and aren’t making America great. But will this wall stop the “bad hombres” from entering?
            No señores and señoritas, it won’t stop anyone. Let me remind you that El Chapo not only escaped prison through a tunnel, but he trafficked drugs through tunnels that ran from Tijuana, Mexico to San Diego, California. Imagine how many other tunnels haven’t been discovered and will go undetected because the complete funding won’t go through.
            Compared to previous years, fewer people attempted to cross the border last year. Some conservatives are definitely applauding Trump’s “bad hombre” comments and hoping for their great wall. The numbers have been decreasing over the past 10 or so years, so the journey to the U.S. isn’t the way it used to be. But going back to it, let me tell you that the wall won’t stop all the bad guys.
              Advanced technologies are making these traffickers stronger. Drug dealers are relying on technology and submarines to get through larger shipments. Drones allow them to find out the best times to run through with their merchandise and back, while submarines allow tons of various drugs into our country. Also, we have seen that these traffickers are using trucks to pass drugs and people across the border, and many have succeeded. Last year, we saw that a man drove dozens of immigrants in a truck and left them abandoned in a Walmart parking lot in Texas. Imagine just how many others have gone through undetected.
          Our government should consider investing more towards border control. First of all, let’s invest our money in modern technology. Just as the traffickers do, we can invest millions of dollars in drones. Drones are becoming more advanced and could easily help our border patrol cover more land. Modern-day drones have the ability of facial recognition, which can help with capturing people with previous criminal records.
        Another important technology is the use of Integrated Fixed towers. Currently, only Arizona uses the towers which help to detect and track anything suspicious. It provides a Common Operating Picture, which gives data and location of the detected activities. Since Texas shares more border with Mexico, they could make use of this technology to cover larger areas of their land.
          Next, we need to hire more border control and U.S. Customs agents. Our government should consider investing money on about 15,000 to 20,000 new workers to patrol and protect our borders. Also, our government should invest more in training these individuals and on their canine program. These agents should receive training on how to properly use the drones, which will be easier for the newbies. We do not need to find more innocent immigrants dead in the back of a truck; we need to ensure that no one is risking their lives and check every single truck. Drug dealers have gotten sneaky and mix in drugs in food containers, so the dogs would definitely help in these situations.
            Let’s be honest, spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall won’t be effective enough. The border will need yearly maintenance, which would be billions a year. People will find other ways to smuggle drugs or people in through trucks and submarines. It’s impossible from stopping every drug dealer and human trafficker coming in but the best we can do is invest in border control.

Joseline Jimenez

Thomas Semanic

1-24-18

Dr. Muck

U.S & Turkey

On January 24th, 2018 President Trump called the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warning him about growing tensions between the United States and Turkey. The United states is funding the Kurdish militias which Turkey hates and has asked us to end support for that militia. This is a switch in rhetoric from the White House after President Trump stated he would side more with Turkey in disputes with Kurdish forces. Nevertheless, President Trump attempted to ease tensions and reiterate that ISIS is the real enemy here. Turkey argues the Kurds is not different from the Islamic state and have been fighting against them for years. In Syria, there was a Turkish warplane launched a shell that fell right near a city where United States troops are training and helping Kurdish forces. The United States is worried there can be direct conflict with Turkey and be forced to use military force. The Kurdish forces are also worried they will be abandoned by the United States if Turkey were to make a larger attack due to the inconsistent messages from the White House.

I think the United States needs to continue to support the Kurdish forces because of their role in fighting the Islamic state and stand against the authoritarian Turkish regime. However, that does not mean President Trump should raise tensions with Turkey. We do not need any more problems than we already have. As long as Turkey stays away from our military base were good and I think they will. I think it is unlikely that Turkey would engage in direct military conflict with the United States, that would not be smart of them. We know were more powerful and if something were to happen we could respond respectively but, let’s not escalate things further. Things are complicated in the Middle East because even Turkey wants the Islamic state gone but, they dislike the rebellious nature of the Kurdish militia. It does make sense why tensions have arose again with these two nations because the fight against the Islamic state is apparently coming to an end. That is great news however, I think we need to make sure that the fight is won and secure and until then we need to rely on Kurdish forces to aid us in that fight. Forget Turkey and their wishes, just be respectful and keep things as calm as possible. No way should we allow the authoritarian regime to suppress a rebellion. Especially, due to the fact this article states that there are prolonged American citizen detentions in Turkey. Consequences I can think of would involve Russia who are good friends with the Turkish government. Worst case scenario I see is if the Turkish were to attack the United states in some way, shape or form that may mean they are confident they have the support from the Russians if things got out of hand. That is one issue with Russia we do not need to add after the million other issues we have with them. Again despite the soft rhetoric on russia from the White House and the good relationship they’d hope to have with Russia, that relationship is also deteriorating. I believe that is unlikely to happen therefore, we need to continue to support Kurdish forces in order to combat the Islamic State while trying to keep tensions down as much as possible unless Turkey were to make an attack on our military base in Syria.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/world/middleeast/trump-turkey-strikes-syria.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

Our Imperative

Alyssa Hirsch
PSC 222
01/24/18

Our Imperative 

       Once again the Turkish forces have bestowed their reign of terror upon the Kurdish minorities in the district of Afrin in the Aleppo Governorate in northern Syria. Why even give thought to an issue happening all the way across the Atlantic Ocean? Because that closed minded rhetoric ended more than a decade ago on September 11, 2001. That tragedy served as an opportunity for the United States to build itself up as a global superpower once again and prove to the world that it will not be stopped by aggressors. As citizens in a globalized world, it is crucial that we in the United States keep ourselves safe, but our allies safe as well.
       So what exactly is happening? Why are the Turkish doing this to a misunderstood group of minorities? It all came to fruition at the end of the first World War in the 1920s. The Western allies, being considerate of the little guy, were ready to begin planning for an official Kurdish state for the diverse group of people hailing from places in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Armenia. This plan was known as the Treaty of Sevres. The state of Turkey, however, was strongly opposed to the idea of giving up parts of their land in the fear of loss of territorial integrity. They struck back in the form of the Treaty of Lausanne, which left the Kurds without a state and an ever prevalent minority status. Fast forward to the twenty first century and the battle between the Turkish and the Kurds is still being waged, only this time the United States stands unwavering behind the Kurdish due to their fight against the Islamic State (IS).
    To sit back and solely read about this issue is not enough. Land is land and land is for people. Period. Americans are just as guilty of exiling people deemed not "fit" enough to occupy the territory, just as the Turks are doing now. It was in the 1830s that president Andrew Jackson sent out thousands of Native Americans across the Mississippi River for the purpose of allowing the white man to grow cotton so he could make a profit. The vision of manifest destiny that was supposed to provide this undeniable logic that America was destined for the settlers under British tyranny is, quite frankly, an illusion. The sweet irony is that the settlers had just escaped an abusive monarchy, only to terrorize and dictate the lives of the Native Americans. Thankfully, as a longstanding global superpower, the United States has had many opportunities to regain their footing regarding their moral standing. After the incident on September 11, the United States knew that terrorism was and is still today a very real threat that abides in this world. While it could be seen as frustrating from an outside point of view that it basically took a deadly act of terrorism for the United States to appreciate the threat that people in the Middle East struggle with on a daily basis, I think that there is something to be said for personal experience. Human nature is at its most passionate when advocating for a cause that is near and dear to them. Give people a reason to do something and they will do it. That being said, the ability for the citizenry to "rally around the flag" under the head of George W. Bush was crucial in getting support to send troops to Afghanistan.
      While not fully endorsing Kurdish statehood, the United States has formed an alliance with the Kurds for the reason that they reject the actions of the Islamic State. For this reason, I believe it is absolutely necessary for us to send aid to these people who have expressed a similar aim in eradicating an enemy. Whether that comes in the form of building a US Embassy closer to Kurdish territory or sending in more troops, it is imperative that a country based in ideals of freedom for everyone, regardless of who they are, show support for a group that, not only is adamant in destroying terrorism, but also is fighting against the state of Turkey who, as luck would have it, is allies with Russia. And we all know the deal with Russia. 

The Trump Administration's Solar Energy Tariff

The Trump Administration’s Solar Energy Tariff

This week President Trump announced the United States would impose steep tariffs on foreign solar products in an attempt to decrease competition for domestic goods of the same industry. This move, Trump claims, will help the American economy, however, many experts are speculating that it will damage the American solar industry and economy in the long term. I agree that this will hurt not only the solar industry in the United States, but is also daunting to other forms of alternative energy such as, wind power, hydropower, and even nuclear. Short term effects will see a positive effect on American companies as solar companies will more or less be forced to buy American products, increasing the overall economy, but the negative effects will be less noticeable in the stock market and will affect those individual workers in the solar industry.  

            Many solar energy companies in the United States have been expecting a tariff and have been stockpiling their materials, however, this ration will only last so long before the price of solar products increases dramatically. Solar companies are left with few options: pay the tariff, switch to expensive American products, or default from the industry. The last option is perhaps the greatest concern to someone who views this policy in a long-term sense, as this could mean a fraction of the 260,000 jobs in the U.S. solar energy industry vanishing. And job loss is not the only concern, for we could even see the loss of the industry all together if American companies are unable to perform with the steep tariff in place.

            While solar energy is not the most efficient of sustainable forms of alternative energy, it does not have the negative stigma of warfare attached to it like nuclear energy has. Solar energy’s ability to be used on cropland, deserts, and rooftops allows it to be much more versatile than wind or hydro energy, which means that it is more accessible to the average American. I believe that while the solution to the energy crisis does not lie solely in solar power, it is important for typical Americans (and citizens across the world) to become conscious of alternative energy, and what better way to start than by participating first-hand and owning solar panels. Trump’s new tariff on imported solar materials will only increase the price and steer more and more Americans away from adopting their own “sustainable” form of energy for themselves, for one of the biggest obstacles of many potential solar owners is the price tag. This has largely been combated with generous government subsidies, especially in larger uses that utilize cropland or dessert ground, but these subsidies can only cover so much of the cost and have only persuaded a portion of potential solar users into converting their land or rooftop space to solar. Even then, there is a sense of duty and responsibility to the environment associated with adopting solar energy.

            Let’s be honest with ourselves; solar energy is not the answer to the energy crisis. It takes up too much space and does not produce nearly enough energy to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for power the world has. And yes, the sun does not shine all the time. This tariff is daunting because it leads one to believe that wind or hydro power will be next, and ultimately dwindling the United States’ affiliation to “clean” energy. The world’s supply of coal and oil will run out eventually and probably sooner than we think, but the Trump administration will not be in charge then, nor will they have to bear the responsibility of that happening. All that matters now, is stimulating the American economy in the short term and credit-claiming for it in order to seek re-election. The push for alternative energy is slowing, due in large part to the federal government. It is up to the people to begin researching, investing, building, and simply educating ourselves on alternative energy before the next tariff is placed on foreign products that further decreases the accessibility of that form of energy. In my opinion, the most logical step is a push towards nuclear energy. The potential for nuclear warfare aside, the energy is much cleaner than oil and coal, in fact its only emission is water vapor. With the Trump administration’s willingness to place business over the environment, the time is now to act on a source of sustainable energy before the next one is embargoed out of existence.

Ryan Lorig