Trump: Campaign Promise vs. National Interest

Published in El Universal
(Mexico) on 24 October 2019
by Walter Astié-Burgos (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Tom Walker. Edited by Arielle Eirienne.
Some think that the winner of a presidential election can decide, on his or her own, the policies of the government he or she will lead. I do not support the idea that a victory is a blank check, because during the campaign, citizens’ demands arise that limit future government action. Even more important, objective national interest should govern action. However, campaign promises and national interest are not always compatible, and the one may undermine the other. An example of this is Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. Even if this action fits right in with his "America First" isolationism and nativism, it damages the geostrategic interests of the country, which his followers don’t understand, and he doesn’t either. The Democratic reaction was negative, but so was the Republican reaction.

The most recent U.S. military presence in Syria originated in its involvement in Afghanistan (since 1978) and Iraq (since 1990). Its earlier origins go back to the end of World War II, to the partition of Palestine (1947), to the alliances with Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and, of course, to oil. This was not fortuitous or accidental; it was the result of geopolitical rivalries and hegemonic ambitions considered to be in the national interest. The brutal conflict in Syria has played out in the context of that complex equation. What stands out here are the Arab Spring, the uprising against dictator Bashar al-Assad and the creation of the disastrous Islamic State by jihadist terrorists. Over a period of eight years, there was a bloody war of all against all, with more than 1,000 rebel groups involved. More than half a million people died, and 12 million were displaced. Assad was backed by Iran; the terrorist group, Hezbolla; and Russia, while his opponents were backed by the U.S., U.K., France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, and Turkey, as well as by the Kurds. The Kurds are a stateless nation of 30 million who, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, were scattered in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Turkey has opposed the establishment of a country of their own for the Kurds (Kurdistan), and has been fighting the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party.

The Kurds, united in the “Democratic Union Party,” have received money, arms and training from Washington; they have become the most effective ally in the fight against the now almost extinct Islamic State. Despite the fact that the conflict is not completely over, Trump rushed to keep his promise to bring home U.S. forces in Syria (2,000 troops). That announcement and a telephone conversation with Turkish President Erdogan left the door open for the Turkish army to attack the Kurds along the border with Iraq. When those few U.S. soldiers were withdrawn from this zone, where they had established an important symbolic equilibrium, Turkey invaded Iraq, the Kurds were weakened, the U.S. was displaced, Russia consolidated its presence in the area and the resurgence of the IS terrorists was facilitated.

The campaign promise, which was made a priori without in-depth knowledge of the issues, was incompatible with the geopolitical interests of the U.S. and with international security. Although the troop withdrawal was intended mainly to influence the election, it caused discomfort among congressional Republicans, who accused Trump of betraying the Kurds, destabilizing the region, giving a greater role to Russia and undermining the prestige of the U.S. In his obsession to be reelected and avoid impeachment, the unpredictable Trump is prepared to do anything, but his disloyal and opportunistic behavior is now looking counterproductive.


Trump: Promesa electoral versus interés nacional

Algunos opinan que, quien gana las elecciones, puede decidir, a su libre albedrío, la política del gobierno que encabezará. No comparto la idea de que ese triunfo sea un cheque en blanco, puesto que en las campañas se plantean las demandas ciudadanas que acotan la futura actuación gubernamental. Más importante aún, los intereses nacionales objetivos son los que deben determinar esa actuación. Sin embargo, las promesas electorales y los intereses nacionales no siempre son compatibles, y lo uno sabotea lo otro. Ejemplo de ello es la decisión de Trump de retirar sus tropas de Siria. Si bien ello encaja en el aislamiento y nativismo de su "America First", perjudica intereses geoestratégicos del país, que ni sus seguidores ni el mismo comprenden. La reacción de los demócratas fue adversa, pero también la de los republicanos.

La presencia militar de EU en Siria tiene su explicación más cercana, en su involucramiento en Afganistán (desde 1978) y en Irak (desde 1990). La más lejana se remonta al fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, la partición de Palestina (1947), las alianzas con Israel, Arabia Saudita e Irán y, por supuesto, al petróleo. Lo anterior no fue fortuito o casual, pues obedeció a rivalidades geopolíticas y a ambicionas hegemónicas consideradas de interés nacional. El brutal conflicto sirio se inscribe en esa compleja ecuación, en la que destacan la "Primavera Árabe”, la insurrección contra el dictador Bashar al-Ásad, y la creación del funesto Estado Islámico (ISIS) por terroristas yihadistas. Durante 8 años se registró una sangrienta guerra de todos contra todos, a cargo de más de 1,000 grupos rebeldes. Murieron más de medio millón, y 12 millones fueron desplazados. Asad fue respaldado por Irán, el grupo terrorista Hezbolá y Rusia, en tanto que sus opositores por EU, Gran Bretaña, Francia, Arabia Saudita, Qatar, Jordania, Bahréin, Turquía, etc., así como por los kurdos. Estos últimos son una comunidad de 30 millones sin territorio que, cuando se extinguió el Imperio Otomano al finalizar la Primera Guerra Mundial, quedaron diseminados en Turquía, Siria, Irak e Irán. Turquía se ha opuesto a que establezcan su propio país (Kurdistán), al grado de combatir al independentista "Partido de los Trabajadores del Kurdistán" (PKK).

Los kurdos aglutinados en el "Partido de la Unión Democrática" (PYD), recibieron dinero, armas y entrenamiento de Washington, convirtiéndose en su más eficaz aliado contra el Estado Islámico, ya casi extinto. A pesar de que el conflicto no ha terminado del todo, Trump se apresuró a cumplir la promesa de retirar las tropas de Siria (2,000 efectivos). Ese anuncio y una conversación telefónica con el presidente Erdogan de Turquía, despejaron el camino para que el ejército turco atacara a los kurdos ubicados en la frontera con Irak. Al retirarse los pocos soldados estadounidenses de esa zona, donde desempeñaban un valioso equilibrio simbólico, Turquía invadió Irak, se debilitó a los kurdos, EU fue desplazado, Rusia afianzó su presencia en la zona, y se propicia el resurgimiento de los terroristas del ISIS.

La promesa de campaña hecha a priori sin conocer bien la problemática, fue incompatible con los intereses geopolíticos de la superpotencia y con la seguridad internacional. Aunque el principal objetivo de dicho retiro es electorero, desató el malestar de los congresistas republicanos que lo acusan de traicionar a los kurdos, desestabilizar la región, darle mayor protagonismo a Rusia, y desprestigiar al país. En su obsesión por relegirse y evitar un juicio político, el imprevisible Trump está dispuesto a hacer cualquier cosa, pero su desleal y oportunista proceder está resultando contraproducente.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Israel: From the Cities of America to John Bolton: Trump’s Vendetta Campaign against Opponents Reaches New Heights

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Luxembourg: Thanks, Daddy: Trump Is Imposing Putin’s Will on Europe

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade