Trumped! Ogden on The Results
OPED
In a year which has seen beloved celebrity deaths and increasing division between the peoples of Europe, many are describing 2016 as the worst year ever. I daresay those who lived through 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 might disagree with them, but Donald Trump's election to the Presidency of the United States might well prove disastrous enough to make this year one of the worst in living memory.
Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton is deservedly unpopular, she would at least have kept the ship of state on course and stable, rather than trying to turn the ship into a floating hotel and casino that grants entry to people of the right background and creed, and then illuminated the whole thing with neon lights. Had Clinton won the presidency, the tangible changes would likely have been limited; Clinton's four years in the White House would probably have lacked the style and charisma of Barack Obama, but there would have been few surprises in terms of policy. That she is a proven liar matters little and less, since politics is devoid of honesty anyway.
The Americans (and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the civilized world) treated Barack Obama as a messiah whose talk of change would lead the world into a new golden age, with the old rivalries and wars of previous years firmly in the past. That nothing much changed at all was a big disappointment, but nor was it seen as a total disaster; if things hadn't changed, they hadn't gotten any worse either. Obama was revealed to be a fine orator whose few major achievements will be looked on more kindly due to his own charisma and, more importantly, that of his successor.
For the first time, the result of a democratic process will not result in minor policy changes that people disagree with on principle but which have little tangible bearing on their lives. Democrat, Republican, Labor, Conservative...even if one's chosen candidate fails, generally the victor can be borne with, since they will be experienced politicians with realistic aspirations. Donald Trump is neither an experienced politician (nor, indeed, a politician at all) and his plans are unrealistic at best and discriminatory at worst.
A petulant, spoiled businessman is to run the most powerful country on Earth. Even a day after the announcement, much has already been written about the personal and professional failings of Donald Trump, and there is little to be optimistic about for both Americans and America's allies.
That belief that NATO is obsolete and has failed to adapt in the post-Cold War era might have some merit behind it, but as the Russian Federation becomes increasingly aggressive, the Alliance must bolster its capabilities rather than dissolve, something which Trump described as being 'okay'.
Indeed, Trump's admiration of Putin and sympathy towards Russia's actions in Syria have caused significant alarm. The President-elect simply does not view Moscow as a threat; the enemy he intends to fight is extremist Islam, by 'bombing the s*** out of ISIS' and preventing Muslims from entering the United States.
A comprehensive examination of Trump's policies would fill several books, but something which has not been mentioned much is the effect his presidency might have on Eastern Europe.
Despite Russia's aggressive policies, the Kremlin has made sure that its provocations do not step beyond the point of no return. Even if NATO as seen as being weak compared with Moscow's ruthlessness and disregard for international norms, the Alliance's unified military might have dissuaded Putin from pushing matters too far. A more sympathetic government in Washington with little regard for Europe (Trump was an outspoken supporter of Brexit) might embolden Russia, especially if common ground can be found between the Kremlin and the White House on fighting Islamic extremism.
Should Trump reduce the USA's involvement in NATO – or withdraw entirely – the Baltic States might suddenly be at risk. Ukraine and Georgia would likely see far less assistance and attention from America; President Trump might well believe that despite Ukraine producing many Miss World contenders, Kiev and Tbilisi's sovereignty is a worthy price to pay for Russian cooperation in the Middle East. A man who consistently describes political and economic processes as 'deals' clearly does not grasp the intricate nature of global geopolitics. Negotiating the purchase or construction of a hotel does not equate to holding the arena between the Kurds, the Syrian rebel factions, and Bashar al-Assad.
More could be written on this – and probably will, should the world last long enough – but for now, all there is to do is bid goodbye to Pax Americana, and hope for an early impeachment.
Tim Ogden