The right answers to Trump 6 – Money

 

Money

There is another exciting theme in Trump's agenda. It was stated in a very drastic message, almost threateningly, during the election campaign, but since then it has hardly been mentioned. It is the dollar-based international financial system. It could be said that it started with the Bretton Woods agreement, everything else, the UN etc. came after. Only, alongside the G7, there is the BRICS, which is growing up there, which wants to overturn the whole old world order, in many ways. Geopolitically, militarily, politically, and not least financially.

The dethronement of the dollar, that's the watchword here. And that's Trump's motto: don't touch the dollar!

Because then you will regret it, in some hard way. Somehow in this threat, he said something like he was going to impose a 60 percent tariff on those who oppose the privileged role of the dollar. The dollar has a privileged role, it is the only and the obligatory international financial clearing currency. Every transaction in the world must take place in such a way that if country X buys something from country Y, then country X converts its own currency into dollars, buys country Y's currency for that dollar and settles the transaction. So no financial, economic, commercial transaction in the world can take place without the dollar being involved, without the dollar being rotated.

You can imagine what this means for the US Mint and for the survival of the US budget (the US government is the world's biggest debtor).

Well, since the dollar has such a special role, things can be sorted out somehow. In such a difficult to see way, it's better not to question it.

There is a solution. It's a fair compromise solution, because who needs the Chinese yuan to be the international clearing currency? Presumably (as the Changing World Movement has suggested in the past), the international clearing currency should be created, and it should be – not a new, invented, dreamed-up currency, but gold itself. Gold itself should fulfil this role. But this is an incredibly complicated question that should be left to the experts, not to Trump, the experts, but Trump has serious power, he cannot be excluded from the game.

Well, so that's a brief summary of the challenges that Trump's return to power has generated in the first place. We can look forward to the sequel.

   

And this is just the beginning...

Yes, this is just the beginning. It's not that the above issues were the most important part of Trump's election campaign and the first days of his presidency. Several other issues play at least as important a role in Trump's plans, such as migration or gender. But the six themes raised here all exemplify how Trump is trying to play chess with the world with moves that, with a wise response, could turn the game around, not so much for one opponent or the other, but for the world.

 

* * *

The right answers to Trump 5 – Sanctions policy, customs policy

 

Sanctions policy, customs policy

Trump's epoch-making wisdom that tariffs are a better weapon than sanctions. He is not a fan of sanctions policy, but he is a big fan of tariffs. He says, with a softened tone, that the three most beautiful words in the world are love, religion and customs. The latter is the right that I (the state) may levy customs duties, and thereby cut off foreigners, and favour and fatten up my subjects. An ancient right, by the way, but Trump is keen to emulate a famous predecessor, President McKinsey. (One suspects that Trump didn't get to the end of McKinsey's biography, because then his idol will honestly admit what a mistake this cult of customs was).

So what to do? Sanction the bad guys? Or do we tax them? Maybe this, maybe that. Or do we do the whole world trade thing differently? Surprisingly and regrettably, the International Trade Organisation is now almost absent from the agenda, despite decades of hard negotiations on new principles, decades of GATT rounds, when the foundations were laid for a new world trade policy, with the 'most-favoured-nation' principle at its heart. That it is only right that all states, for all, should have the most-favoured-nation principle.

Equality, transparency, predictability, partnership, stability and so on and so on. – these should govern international relations, not discriminatory sanctions not approved by the UN Security Council. These are in fact acts of war. And let us leave it for now that the latest sanctions have been announced against Russia, which is at war, but it was with such sanctions that Saddam's Iraq was tried and succeeded in being reduced to a rag. Iran too. Not to mention Cuba. Cuba has been squeezed by sanctions for seventy years. Who will pay for that? For the torture, poverty and deprivation of people? Who will pay for this? So sanctions are a crime against humanity. We must put world trade, world integration on a new footing and exclude these Cold War elements.

Of course, we should not dem

 

* * *

The right answers to Trump 4 – War and peace

 

War and peace

The first, and clearly the most important, is the question of peace. It's fine and commendable that Trump has said he wants to end all existing wars and not start any new ones. In this connection, he rightly boasts that in his previous term he was perhaps the first US President not to launch an armed war against anyone. That is fine. That in itself would be very nice, but he also expects his NATO partners to increase their defence spending from 2% to 5%. That is an unbelievable amount. No doubt, if that were to happen, a lot of that huge amount of money would go to America for American weapons. And of course, it will come, it will stay, they will raise the salaries of the troops, they will build, they will develop, they will research, they will exercise without question.

As Chekhov says: If there's a rifle hanging on the wall in the first act, it must go off in the last act. The world is also a theatre. And if there are too many guns, they must go off, for the sake of dramaturgy. So the road to peace does not necessarily lead through armaments.

Trump's philosophy is relatively simple: don't go to war, do business! I prefer "don't make war, make love", but he prefers "make a deal". But peacebuilding requires peacebuilders who know what peace means, who know what war means, who know what people, societies and politics mean. It is an extremely complex, contradictory world, you have to understand it and you have to want good things, you have to want noble things, with a human, philosophical mind. This is a task that cannot be left to Trump with a calm heart. It would require a worldwide, or at least a sufficiently broad international coalition.

But: thank you, Mr. Trump, for standing up for peace in this way. We will hold you to account for your peacekeeping.

* * *

The right answers to Trump 3 – Panama

 

 

Panama

Trump wants the Panama Canal back. It is a relatively new original idea, compared to Canada and Greenland, and the wildest and most imperialist idea. Should France and Britain follow and reclaim the Suez Canal, which Nasser nationalised in 1956? Of course, the security of strategic sea routes is in everyone's fundamental interest and right. In this respect, the Panama Canal is one of the most important, compared only with the importance of the Suez Canal. But beyond that, there are also a good number of very important and critical places, routes, straits in the Arabian Gulf, in the Red Sea. Their security in all respects (military, economic and logistical security) is of fundamental interest to all. But there can be no solution to the problem of America asking for the return of the gift that Jimmy Carter generously gave Panama in 1977. For Panama's solidarity is as valuable and deserves the same recognition and respect as America's, or anyone else's, solidarity.

Whether the Chinese have too big a role in the management and control of the Panama Canal is a complex issue. Indeed, China is now Panama's second largest partner after the United States. But the Canal is important to China not only because of Sino-Panamanian relations, but also because China is one of the largest carriers of goods by sea, it sheds its goods all over the world, and the security of the sea routes is of the utmost importance to them. But that does not mean they have the right to get their hands on the Panama Canal. But that is not the case, from what we know. They are very actively involved in the maintenance and development of the canal, but for them, maritime shipping in general, and port construction in particular are strategic sectors. They are very active in this area, and you can't begrudge them that. China had a very generous plan to build a second canal in Nicaragua. This took shape and started in the early '10s, and then it turned out to be too big, too difficult, too expensive and quietly almost died out, but you never know... Technology is improving, it could well be that in a few years it would not be so difficult and so expensive to build this temporary canal in Nicaragua. But that is another question. The previous question here is what to do about the safety of the priority shipping routes.

         It's quite obvious that the solution is not for America to ensure their security, perhaps by occupying them or by placing them under its jurisdiction. The solution that is offered, I think, is quite obvious and logical, to organise an international force under the auspices of the United Nations to look after the security of the important sea routes, all over the globe. This would be a new, very important, very significant and very strategic direction and function in the hands of the international organisation. We should think very seriously about organising the implementation of this. This cannot be the solution that NATO has practically used and is using against the Houthis in the Red Sea. It cannot be a unilateral, particularistic force; it should be a legitimate, international force in which everyone could and should participate, under a common, unified command.

This is a very serious initiative, again, and again I have to say, for the third time, thank you, Mr. Trump, for dropping the ball, now the world has to strike.

 

* * *

The right answers to Trump 2 – Canada

 

 

Canada

The United States and Canada are two former British colonies with very similar fates. The United States came into being first, through a fierce and prolonged War of Independence (1775-1783). Even then, many revolutionaries, including Benjamin Franklin, hoped that the British colonies in the north would revolt and that a new independent state would be created across the northern continent. This did not happen. The Canadian colonies, although there were later minor and major movements, remained loyal to the British crown until the 'end'.

So they did indeed go their separate ways, and these separate ways still run side by side today. But the idea of togetherness has persisted throughout, particularly in American thought, in American political life. It has also been embraced by several very strong ideological currents, such as the Destiny manifesto.

Well, there are many ways to approach the question of whether it is realistic, legitimate, beneficial for Canada to join the United States. But why not? They are indeed two brother nations, however vague the concept may be. Not to mention the fact that both societies share a common Indian base, again akin to a kinship, and a strong multi-ethnic stratum.

With a bit of topical political malice, one could say that Americans and Canadians are as much real brothers as Russians and Ukrainians. And how interesting that Canada and Ukraine have something in common in name. The word Ukrainian means "end-region". And Canada comes from the word “Kanata”, which means village, "upper end".

There is no doubt that in recent decades a distinct Canadian identity has begun to emerge, and it is legitimate to speak of Canadian nationalism. It may come as a surprise, but in the 19th century (1812-1815) a full-scale war (6,765 dead and wounded) broke out between the USA and Canada (then a British colony). Since then, both countries have called the US-Canada border the 'frontier of peace', which was for a long time freely crossable and mostly still is, much to Trump's chagrin. Not to mention that a free trade agreement (NAFTA) between the two countries (of which Mexico is part) has been in force since 1992.

Regardless of the history, the reality is that a US-Canada merger would be historic. Many people, for various reasons, are afraid and reluctant. Some because they believe it would strengthen Trump and the Trump-ruled USA. One fears the liberal bastion that Canada has become under Trudeau's government.

Would it be good for the US and Canada to unite? This question should of course be answered by the Americans and Canadians first, but no one should be forbidden to have an opinion on this. And there is not only private opinion, there is public opinion that speaks in the name of the world and is formed also in the name of the world.

For such world public opinion would presumably be clearly positive, as it would work in the direction of integration. It has to be admitted, that - whether it is true or not - this issue will be on the agenda and will come up sooner or later. There are several reasons to believe that it will start very soon, in a meaningful way. But however much there is agreement and serious the intentions, it is certain that this will be a very long process. There are legal systems, administrative systems, a thousand things to be reconciled. So there is a lot of work to be done by both sides. Some processes can perhaps be completed in a couple of years, but overall, for two such large countries, it may take decades.

But this does not change the point. So, presumably, a serious integration will start and take place here anyway. I think that is the most important thing, and it is a very encouraging, positive development for the world. It is an old recognition that the vast majority of people are very frightened and terrified by the idea of world government. But common sense tells us that humanity, which is one race, one family, one unit – we are all in the same boat in the cosmos – needs a common, democratic, effective, good world government for its very existence.

World governance. Knowing and acknowledging the current situation, this will probably take many decades, if not centuries, but the smallest step in this direction is of enormous importance, and the unification of the United States and Canada could be a very positive example. One would hope that this would not remain an isolated, isolated example, but would inspire many others to follow. It would not be a bad thing at all to 'fashion' merger wherever possible.

Among them there may be some that are not so good, so democratic, so clever, but that is history. We must leave room for it. I think there are plenty of integration possibilities. But we have to admit that integration is not a simple thing. In Europe we have been struggling for fifty years with the integration, and we are nowhere. It is certainly a difficult, controversial process, so it would be worthwhile to do integration where it is easy. Even within Europe. We should not wait for these 30 or so, now counting the new members we are expecting, the Western Balkans and others, to become 30-35-40 members. We should not wait for this multitude to agree on a great integration. It is more realistic to have individual small integrations within the current framework. One of the most daring examples is the legitimate, historically based unification of Germany and Austria. It is not wise to reject this just on basis of bad memories connected to the l938 Anschluss. Germany and Austria are really two brother countries. Although the Austrians have a distinct Austrian identity, they speak the same language and have almost the same state model and provincial structure. Otherwise, Austrians can retain their Austrian identity, just as the Bavarians have retained their Bavarian identity. And why not, Luxembourg could also join the unitary federal republic.

It's not important to give everyone a prescription, but it's quite clear that there are opportunities for integration everywhere, on every continent. In Asia and Indochina, so Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia. These are also three brother countries, which have been very closely united over many periods, and are still cooperating very closely in many respects, economically, culturally, politically, militarily. It is also possible in the Middle East, in the Arab world, in Africa in various ways, probably a gradual unification starting from South Africa, with the Southern African confederation occupying the whole of South Africa, south of the equator. It could also integrate the Central American countries separately under the US, in the same way the Spanish-speaking South American countries could be integrated. Thus, gradually, slowly and of course with easy, relatively easy integrations, a new world order and a new world balance could emerge. So let me say that now the merger of Canada and the Americas could give a big boost to this process. So that we can say a big thank you to Trump for taking this first step. Good luck to him.

 

 * * *

The right answers to Trump 1 – Greenland

  

The right answers to Trump

 

Trump's indeed triumphant return to power is more than a stone falling into a swamp. It's a landslide. In a world that is in many aspects a house of cards, but in many aspects a four-billion-year-old rock-hard reality.

Let's take a closer look at the main topics that emerge from this comeback. Some are highly exposed, almost tabloid-like, and some are fundamental.

 

Greenland

The idea of "acquiring" Greenland was floated by Trump towards the end of his first term, causing quite a stir. In the following four years this 'crazy' plan got almost completely forgotten, but Trump does not seem to have forgotten it. In fact, it had already become a priority in his election campaign (among many other things). There is no doubt that the acquisition of Greenland would be a great deal, and its strategic importance should not be underestimated. The world – especially Europe – is shocked. But this consternation is, to put it mildly, duplicitous. And that is the point of this story, not Trump's pushy neo-imperialist policies.

Starting a closer examination, we may ask: what is actually Greenland today? Greenland is the largest island in the world (26% larger than the largest state in the US, Alaska, which was bought from the Russians) and 50 times (!) larger than Denmark! Yet this vast area is home to barely 56,000 indigenous people, hardly any of them Danish or Viking. But then on what basis – so to speak – does Denmark 'claim' it? "We won't give it away", "it's not for sale", says the Danish Prime Minister.

Well, no one should expect mathematical proof for the claim that Greenland is a colony, but historically, politically and socially that is the case. However, since there is no mathematical proof or court order to that effect, one could argue endlessly about Greenland's status, but I think any debate is superfluous and disingenuous. Greenland is one of the last great colonies, and it would be entirely legitimate to end this colonial status. Of course, it is right to understand and respect the will of the people of the territory concerned, but let us admit that this will has always been and remains effectively manipulable. All right, Greenland must be freed from colonial status, but does that mean that America can immediately annex it?

No, it does not mean that. But – let’s face it – now this would not be classic and reprehensible colonialism, and this the point.

Released, decolonised, Greenland could be an independent state, which as such can decide to whom it belongs. Belonging to America is quite obvious. It is close, Trump could even build a Kerch Bridge to it. But also in many other ways it is a well-integrated part of North America. So Trump's plan is reasonable, and the world should accept it, provided the process is peaceful and democratic.

But since the Greenland issue has opened up the subject of colonialism, let's review the situation in the world in this regard. If we look around a little, we see that the colonial past is still with us in many places. There are a good number of French, Spanish, Dutch, English, American (!) and who knows what other colonies around the world. France is particularly famous in this respect, and is extremely proud of its 'overseas' possessions ('départements'). There are many legal twists here, but beware: all EU citizens are somewhat complicit in this colonialism.

Decolonisation in the 1960s and 1970s of the last century did most of the work, but we are a long way from completing the ignominy. The fight must go on. At the same time, it would be very appropriate to establish an international museum, research and documentation centre to preserve the memories of the colonial past. It would be right and proper for the former colonies to receive a substantial aid programme worth hundreds of billions of dollars to compensate them for the socio-economic backwardness caused by their colonial past. It would be very appropriate for Europe, which seeks to set an example to the world in everything it does, and in particular the ex-colonial community, to make the most enthusiastic contribution to burying the shameful past.

In the meantime, let us not forget that there are also colonies in Europe. The best known (and most 'forgotten') case is Gibraltar. It is a Spanish (i.e. EU!) territory, but a British colony acquired and guarded by military force. This situation deprives all EU citizens of the freedom to enter its territory.

Finally, let’s say it: the Trump plan to acquire Greenland has some neo-imperialist overtones, but it cannot be accused of being colonial. Not so the US as a whole. It has too much 'overseas' possessions, even if generally in a legally settled form.

* * *