The Tribune

EVERY once in a while, a story appears in a major US publication that discusses American foreign policy under Donald Trump.  Does the US president even have a coherent foreign policy?  He seems to regard international relations with the same casual disdain he accords to the truth about himself or his political opponents.

The President’s trip in April to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Italy and Belgium, in retrospect, affirmed that his approach to the rest of the world will closely resemble his approach to domestic American politics. He feels no international inhibitions about responding to other leaders or the overseas press in his characteristic brusque and bombastic fashion. He throws around threats casually.  

Even before Trump’s decidedly undiplomatic performance this spring at a NATO heads of government meeting in Brussels, rumours and reports were flying that some European leaders had basically decided to largely ignore the US president and move ahead almost as though he did not occupy the oval office.  They would try to manage around him rather than obsess about his latest fulminations.

European leaders may be looking around for alternatives to a the post-war relationship with the United States that has survived numerous trans-Atlantic storms and disputes, but may not have yet faced the existential crisis that Trump’s careless behaviour presents.

US behaviour under the Trump administration is bound to affect thinking throughout Europe, as will Britain’s decision to withdraw from the European Union. Perhaps a reimagining and revival of the old Franco-German partnership will lead to a more flexible and nimble Europe. It seems possible that progress and reform in the EU could ultimately be a result of US intemperance and British standoffishness.  Progress might be slow, but it is possible to foresee.

Several reports recently describe Canadian efforts to essentially circumvent Trump and his national security team by speaking directly with governors, mayors  and other high-ranking American politicians and officials. Ontario’s Premier, for example, has sought out direct meetings with senior government leaders in New York and other states about cross-border trade and other commercial activity.

Trump pronouncements about NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiated under the Clinton administration nearly 25 years ago, are bound to alarm Canada most of all.  The Canadian economy is inextricably tied to that of the United States.  It is therefore no surprise that the Canadians, from Prime Minister Trudeau on down, would work hard to head off an abnegation of NAFTA and attempt to set up potential alternatives should Trump actually follow through on his threats against the regional trade pact. 

Elsewhere, how can China see Trump as anything but an opportunity? The US president campaigned on a promise to scrap the Obama administration’s hallmark trans-pacific trade partnership which was seen by some as an economic pact aimed at curbing the inexorably rising commercial ascendancy of China in Asia and elsewhere. As American trends increasingly isolationist, one can wonder if China has not recalibrated and accelerated its ambitions for political as well as economic influence.

Closer to home, in the western hemisphere, Trump continues to campaign for a reinforced and expanded border wall on the Mexican border and has initiated a rollback of much of his predecessor’s bold programme to transform American relations with Cuba. There is little evidence that Trump is paying much attention to the rest of the region, despite the persistence of many national and regional questions that should concern the US.

The Middle East has baffled American policymakers for decades. It is difficult to imagine that the president’s son-in-law will succeed where so many others have failed. From all appearances, Trump has delegated the conduct of the multifaceted American military activity in the region to uniformed military leaders in the Department of Defense and to his secretary of defense and national security adviser, themselves much-decorated military officers.  What this really means for the near future is not yet clear.

And then there is Russia.  President Putin clearly seeks as much global parity with the US as he can fabricate. Counter-intuitively, Trump persists in favouring this most persistent adversary, now reportedly with an effort to dilute strengthened congressional sanctions against Russian transgressions.  And meanwhile, the Mueller investigation into the Trump-Russia relationship inexorably proceed.

Fred Mitchell and his indignation

Now back to our one-and-only Fred Mitchell, who is desperately trying to downplay the FNM’s May 10 clean sweep of the PLP government from the political scene.  He has urged his party’s supporters not to “get caught up in silly sentimentality and believe the FNM’s propaganda about ourselves” as he belches out nonsense of his own creation.

He fails to see that people like himself are the spanners in the wheels preventing good government. Apparently, according to Mr Mitchell, he has pointed an accusing finger at lawyer Fred Smith, QC, Lyford Cay billionaire Louis Bacon, Baha Mar original developer Sarkis Izmirlian, and Tribune Publisher Eileen Carron as the “rich and powerful monied interest that the PLP are up against”. Mr Mitchell’s nightmares have obviously taken over his fertile imagination.

When Mr Mitchell first made his statement last month, Mr Smith was quick to clarify his position.

Yes, he said, he as a private citizen did make a donation to his party, the FNM. However, “Save the Bays,” an organisation to protect the environment of the Bahamas to which both he and Mr Bacon belong, made no donation to any political party. Mr Bacon’s supposed donation then hangs around as a figment of Mr Mitchell’s imagination. Mr Sarkis Izmirlian probably doesn’t even know about Mr Mitchell’s accusation, and so has said nothing. However, Mrs Carron, not willing to be listed among the rich and famous, wants it to be known that the policy of The Tribune is to make no donation to any political party. Neither do they contribute to the campaign of any individual candidate. The Tribune’s columns remain open to all candidates, regardless of party affiliation.

Also neither will she or The Tribune ever be listed among the millionaires  — their strict adherence to their principles, regardless of the price that has to be paid, prevents this. Their only strength is the Pen, which will always be wielded for what they consider to be in the best interest of the Bahamian people — all of the people, regardless of party.