Trump An Outcome Of The Bush World Disorder
Saeed Naqvi
It would be almost spiteful to
walk upto the US ambassador: “Congratulations, you have Donald Trump as
President.” Which way would he look? Secretary of State, John Kerry, has
already said it. He is profoundly embarrassed when foreign statesmen confront
him: “What is happening in your country?”
Should he become President in
November, Trump will have George W. Bush to thank. He is a product of the
chaotic world order left behind by Bush and which Barack Obama failed to contain.
Détente in the 70s was going
badly for the West – Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Italian
communist leader Enrico Berlingure on the cover of Time Magazine, Afghan
communist parties in Kabul and so on. It was advantage Soviet Union all the
way.
Came the Ronald
Reagan-Margaret Thatcher counter punch which rattled the Soviet Union. George
Bush senior and Thatcher stamped the post soviet order by launching Operation
Desert Storm in Iraq but, sensibly, stopped short of dislodging Saddam Hussain.
It fell to the lot of George
W. Bush to build a new global architecture. He surrounded himself with bad company
– Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, even Condoleezza Rice. Deluded
by notions of full spectrum global dominance, they botched up the sole
superpower moment.
Unbridled chaos was let loose
in the guise of the global war on terror. Geraldo Rivera of Fox News actually whipped
out a gun on live TV. He would “shoot Osama bin Laden” if he saw him.
Deputy Secretary of State,
Richard Armitage, threatened Pakistan with dire consequences should General
Pervez Musharraf not join the war against exactly the Afghan Jihadis that
Pakistan, Saudis and the US had helped train to expel the Soviets. To this day
Pakistan and possibly the world is paying the price for that turnaround.
There was no limit to American
power. In awe and in admiration, the world fell in line. Two party systems were
reinforced, clasping corporate hands. Corporates, linked to international
finance, made for a tidy model. The global media and a Murdochized press was to
underpin this arrangement.
The economic downturn of 2009
and the declining credibility of the global media began to erode this world
order. The latter needs some explanation.
In wartime, the first casualty
generally is the truth. Since media is part of all war efforts, it becomes a
credible source of propaganda. But during the Bush and Obama years, the US and
the West in general have been involved in so many wars, big and small, that the
media was kept mobilized for continuous propaganda. The media’s credibility has
therefore plummeted.
During the Libyan operation Saudis
had to make peace with the Qataris to have the benefit of al Jazeera’s residual
credibility. No one was believing Christiane Amanpour, Lyse Doucet and Thomas
Friedman and their support staff.
With crony capitalism gnawing
at the vitals, two party systems were in gradual disrepair. The suffocated
voter was breaking out in new directions.
In an Elia Kazan movie, a
small car on a highway is dwarfed by giant trailers on either side. In a manner
of speaking the tyres of these trailers are being punctured one by one.
Greece, Spain, Portugal,
Ireland, Canada, Iceland, Indonesia have all discarded traditional parties and
veered to the left. Likewise, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, indeed the European
Parliament have shifted right. Francois Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, sworn
enemies, had to desperately come together to ward off the challenge from the
Far Right: Marine Le Pen. Meanwhile, Emmanuel Macron’s new political movement
has seized the French imagination.
Tony Blair flailed his arms in
vain against Jeremy Corbyn, a Labour leader more with the heart of a Michael
Foot. And now David Cameron is on sixes and sevens over the BREXIT referendum.
Britain’s exit from the European Union will almost certainly bring Europe
closer to Russia, much to American discomfort.
Most recently, a promoter of
vigilante groups, who promises to toss criminals into the sea, Rodrigo Duterte
nicknamed “Digong” is the President-elect of the Philippines. He must get along
well with Trump: they speak the same language – sink them in the sea or build a
wall to keep Mexicans out or don’t allow Muslims to enter the US or no harm
being seen with the KKK and so on.
The tamasha in the US gets
even more intriguing if you consider the establishment darling, Hillary
Clinton’s electability. A New York Times report talks of the “soaring levels of
unpopularity” of Trump and Clinton. “Nearly two-thirds of voters, for example,
say that Mr. Trump is not honest and trustworthy. Just as many say the same of
Mrs. Clinton.”
There is no evidence of Senator
Bernie Sanders attracting such invective. And yet the Democratic Party
establishment finds itself bound by rules not to nominate him – the popular
surge is for Sanders, though. Because he
is a “socialist” which outside the US means Left of Centre.
So, people are trying to break
out of established party structures. They are neither for Tweeledum nor
Tweedledee, just as in India and Pakistan where they have experimented with
Arvind Kejriwal’s AAP in Delhi and Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf across the border.
When people were switching
loyalties in the 70s, Soviet Union was the beneficiary. Today, new faces that
emerge represent disgust with that which is. There is a splintering of the
world order. And in its place – what will be, will be.
“Rau mein hai rakhsh e umr,
kahan dekhiye thamey;
nay haath bag par hai,
na paa hei rakaab mein.”
(The horse is on full gallop,
no one knows where it will stop.
The rider’s hands are not on
the reins, nor his feet in the stirrups.)
Ghalib
# # # #
No comments:
Post a Comment