Polarizing rhetoric greets America on its epochal anniversary

Democratic and progressive opinion in the US and the world over would likely have been further jolted by the divisive rhetoric blared forth by US President Donald Trump on no less an occasion than the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence from Britain. The world has been placed on notice that what it would be having in the main is aggravated polarization on multiple fronts during what’s left of the Trump tenure. If the world was expecting positive moves by the Trump administration to bridge divisions, heal rifts and usher in a more harmonious international political order, this is very unlikely to be. Instead, in all probability we would be left with a far more ‘dangerous place to live in’. Some of the more thought-provoking recent ‘takes’ from President Trump are : ‘A generation after we fought and won the cold war against the menace of communism, there is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success.’ ‘We will send them (immigrants) quickly away, and we will continue to build our country bigger and better than ever before.’ ‘We are going to give our country its identity back.’ ‘You can be loyal to Karl Marx or you can be loyal to America. You can be a communist or you can be a patriot. You cannot be both.’ Accordingly, what the world would have in increasing measure going forward are stepped-up attempts to consolidate a white supremacist administration in the US accompanied by a suppression of ethnic, religious and cultural minorities at home along with renewed attempts to spread and consolidate US hegemonism world wide. The latter project would mainly translate into US military interventions abroad of the Venezuelan type and a persistence if not a resurgence of identity based conflicts globally. Violent reactions internationally to what are seen as attempts by the US to bring recalcitrant sections in particularly the South under white supremacist control will provide the basis for the steadfast presence and spiking of identity politics globally. Moreover, the path has been paved for stepped-up ethnic, religious and cultural disharmony within the US. A united state is far from possible, given this backdrop. Put simply, it would be a question of steeper political polarization at home and abroad. The persistent, widespread support for the hard line Islamic regime in Iran locally and globally should serve as an eye-opener for the political decision-makers of the US. Huge crowds at the funerals of Iran’s political leaders could very well be state-orchestrated but they are a pointer to the fact that political Islam is far from on the decline. To the extent to which this is so, the phenomenon could be a hurdle in the path of a stridently expansionist US. Looking back, it was the consolidation of the Islamic regime in Iran in the late seventies of the last century that, besides proving a major challenge to the unfettered global power expansion of the US and its Western allies, provided the motive force as it were for the proliferation of Islam-based identity politics in particularly the South. This continues to be so. Going forward, the US would need to figure out how best it could manage the persistent presence of Islamic fundamentalism world wide, and for that matter other forms of identity politics, without drastically losing its global power and influence. The recent successful challenge by Iran to the US’ efforts to exercise its diktat in West Asia should prove an ‘eye-opener’. In these confrontations both sides were bloodied but Iran proved that it could successfully take on the US militarily. The inference for the US ought to be that projecting its military might in the Middle East in a no-holds-barred fashion would not prove easy. Arising from the foregoing a foremost policy challenge for the US would be to curb Iranian military power while avoiding another major military confrontation with the Islamic state that would cost the US and the world dearly in particularly economic and material terms. The US would have no choice but to persist with the often flagging West Asian peace effort and to render it fully workable. Ukraine presents the US with another formidable challenge. As is known, Ukraine is proving no easy ‘push-over’ for Russia, but it is badly in need of more sophisticated Western arms, particularly effective air defense systems, to fully neutralize the Russian invasion. What would the US choose to do; go to Ukraine’s assistance fully or opt not to ruffle and antagonize the Putin regime, with which it is on some cordial terms? A negotiated solution is best in Ukraine and the Trump administration would do well not to lose sight of this ideal but Russia too should see the need for a diplomatic solution if it is to salvage itself from its military stalemate in Ukraine. The US needs to try being a peace mediator in the latter theatre but if the Russian political leadership fails to opt for peace the US would have no choice but to join the rest of NATO and Europe in continuing to arm Ukraine. The US would need to take the latter course if the ‘world’s mightiest democracy’ is to remain committed to its founding ideals. If President Trump fails to meet this challenge he would prove that he is nothing more than an ‘empty rhetorician’. However, it should not come as a surprise to the world if Trump chooses not to strongly back the rest of the West on Ukraine. Domestic and foreign policy are closely intertwined. Since the Trump administration is committed to building a white supremacist state at home, democratic development worldwide has been of the least importance to it. The Trump administration’s strong affinities to white jingoism would increasingly compel it to opt for a policy of international isolationism. As a result Ukraine could prove unimportant for the US going forward. Consequently, US-Western Europe friction in particular is only likely to intensify in the days ahead. Coupled with the contentious issues growing out of the persistence of identity politics, the Trump administration’s far-sightedness in managing foreign policy issues would be tested to the fullest. Whether the world would have comparative peace or continued blood-letting would depend crucially on such judiciousness.