Has America failed to see wood for the trees?

It’s been almost three days and the hysteria of Trump-Putin summit meet refuses to die. In line with his characteristic presidential style of delivering flip-flops and awkward diplomatic gaffes, President Trump delivered yet another blooper by undermining his own intelligence agencies. America is perturbed by the fact that Russia meddled in 2016 Presidential elections and by Trump’s admission that both countries are responsible for deteriorating bilateral ties.

 America’s two leading media outlets triggered a panic reaction with catchy descriptions of the engagement, as “Trump, Treasonous Traitor” and “Trump is now repaying Putin for helping him the presidency” respectively, others soon followed the suit. The outrage of democrats and the Republic congress men has been unprecedented. Mc Cain described Trump’s approach as “one of the most disgraceful by an American president in memory”. Paul Ryan, a firm supporter of Trump, carefully evaded media on Trump’s performance at NATO saying, “we shouldn’t be criticizing out president while he is overseas”. Lashed out at Trump, “There is no question that Russia interfered in our election and continues attempts to undermine democracy here and around the World. The President must appreciate that Russia is not our ally”. These strong words from the Republicans catalysed a maelstrom, with media channels running the story for hours with a parade of critics making vitriolic comments about Trump’s handshake and subsequent engagement with Putin. Even the America think-tanks and intelligence agencies unequivocally reprimanded Trump for his conduct. To satiate the angst of hyperventilating media and political establishment which has turned into judge, jury and executioner, White House and Trump went into damage control mode. But the hysteria borne out the deep dislike towards Trump showed no signs of resumption. By outrightly terming Trump as being obsequious and a puppet of Putin, the media has hit itself in the foot.

Trump’s stance on Russia

In his past one and half years of tenure as President, Trump took a firm stand on Russia than his counterparts. He approved sale of huge cache of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, bombed Syria for using chemical weapons, expelled Russian diplomats in response to contentious spy poisoning case, ordered closure of consulate at Seattle, reaffirmed opposition to Euro-Russian Nord 2 oil pipeline passing through Germany and openly castigated Germany as “captive to” and “totally controlled” by Russia. Trump administration even passed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) imposing sanctions on Iran, North Korean and Russia. Notwithstanding the economic sanctions imposed on Russia post Crimean annexation in 2014, America has brought about this new act crippling the defence, energy and business ties of Russia with its allies. These stifling secondary sanctions are an attempt to muzzle and coerce Russia into changing its behaviour. This plethora of actions suffice to say that Trump hadn’t made any special concessions to Russia.  But Trump’s soft stance stems from his interest to seek universal legitimacy of being elected fairly and a deep instinct to create a history by engaging with hard core, authoritarian leaders like Putin and Kim where previous American administration has failed.

In fact, India’s $ 4.5 billion agreement for purchase of S-400 Triumf air defense missile system from Russia in the final stages of negotiation is caught in this power rivalry. New Delhi is desperately seeking US congress cooperation under “national security waiver”.  To this end, India is greatly favouring US rapprochement with Russia.

America’s Electoral Interventions

Media’s unending vitriolic outbursts exemplifies America’s refusal to bury cold war animosities. While America is enraged by the yet to be confirmed reports of Russian intervention in 2016 elections, for years, both countries have been interfering other countries elections. As per data base maintained by scientist at Carnegie Mellon, America interfered in foreign elections more frequently than Russia. It precisely lists that American intervened as many as 80 times citing the example of Serbia elections in 2000 where America assisted opposition to defeat Slobodan Milosevic. The exhaustive compilation doesn’t include American aided coups- Iranian coup, 1953 and 1954 Guatemalan coup. While the number of Russian interventions in the same timeline (1945-2000) was 36 followed by China.

Every time, America seems to get away on the pretext of saving democracy. But how can America justify its support to Boris Yeltsin, an authoritarian in 1996 elections and the malafide intent of Western advisors, Larry Summers and IMF, who prompted Yeltsin to convert Russia into a market economy which left the economy crashing. The sudden shock therapy as it was called, led to privatisation of state firms and genesis of new tribe of Oligarchs. These corrupt, politically connected Oligarchs plundered Russian economy which borrowed $20 billion after 1990 and fled to western countries. Russia plunged into an economic crisis after losing one-third of its economy in 1998.

To its credit, America has introduced the concept of “Demonstration Elections”. A term first used to refer elections conducted by US regime in Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Vietnam. Strategists argued that it was America’s way of taking control of third world countries. But America defended all its attempts to indirectly control a foreign country as a means of promoting “democracy” and “freedom”. Intriguingly, American media, saviour of liberal values, human rights violation and democracy ever broaches about American intervention in foreign neither. Equally they weren’t ever incensed by Bush’s invasion of Iraq, termination of Muammar Gaddafi’s rule, Regan’s uninterrupted weapons supply to guerrilla groups in Central America.

Majority now allude that perhaps, Russia has compromising material about Trump and hence he has been so forgiving of Russia. For all its apprehensions of Russian spying, American media failed to ignore the real danger lurking in the corner. Even after Australia and New Zealand raised alarm over Beijing’s insidious operations to influence political opinion, Washington hasn’t woken to this danger.

China shaping American Society

Chinese penetration into domestic politics of not an epiphany anymore. The recent spate of political scandals in Australia promoted Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull to institute a commission. The report spilled beans of prolonged Chinese attempts to influence politicians, media, and academia. Interestingly, a similar grand plan has been underway since World War-II in United States as well. Former CIA analyst has deliberated that Chinese agents are at work in US “to turn Americans against their own government’s interests and their society’s interests”. While wider debate about such a network is hardly discussed in America but clearly, the self-proclaimed “Peaceful reunification” associations with an objective of unification of China with main land China are spread across 70 different cities in the US is an offshoot of United Front. United Front has been working under wraps since World War-II to “buy-off, co-opt or coerce influential community leaders”. This organisation is in hand-in-glove with Chinese intelligence services and works at the behest of Chinese Communist Party (CCP). With time it has acquired the clout to sway public opinion and to popularise Beijing’s policies among non-Chinese people. It is enhancing Chinese foreign policy agenda. This department is fomenting discord and encouraging racial divisions, undermining democracy. As on paper, all these organisations maintain that they have no connections with Chinese government, but the lie was busted when a Chinese agent imprisoned for stealing trade secrets was found to be a member of United Front. Chinese has been carefully building an army of secret agents who for decades are clandestinely shaping American society against its own government and nudging them favourably towards Chinese policies.

Cold War Assurances of Western Powers

Before labelling Russia as the aggressor, it would serve well for American democrats specially to rewind the pledges made to Soviet Union after the fall of Berlin war. Declassified documents from the Cold war era, “Who promised what to whom on NATO expansion?” unveils the real story. Days before the end of Cold war, leaders of US, UK, France and Germany allaying fears of Mikhail Gorbachev assured that Germany unification process will not lead to, “impairment of Soviet security interests” accordingly NATO expansion of NATO boundaries “towards east, moving it closer to the Soviet borders” is ruled out. Even promised to leave out the eastern portion of Germany out of NATO military structure even after unification. Thrice US secretary of state James Baker, pledged, “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction”. Subsequently US and Soviet Union called for dissolution of military blocs, Soviet’s gradual integration with Europe and agreed that there are neither winners nor losers. In 1991, NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner said, “we should not allow the isolation of the USSR from the European community” and indicated that 13 of 16 NATO council members are against expansion. But before Gorbachev could convince the hardliners in Soviet of the West’s propositions, leaders in Soviet plotted for eventually fall of Soviet Union. By December 1991, Soviet Union collapsed and soon lost its strategic clout significantly. Despite these assurances currently former allies of Soviet Union -Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro are in NATO fold. Now America is making aggressive bids to bring Ukraine, Georgia, the closet neighbours of Russia into NATO’s fold. Consequently, the betrayal of the Western powers provides legitimacy to Russia’s grievances.

But another subsequent article, titled “What Gorbachev did not hear?” defending America’s aggression of roping in former Soviet allies it argued that Warsaw pact dissolved in 1991, Soviet Union collapsed, and subsequently central European countries showed interest to expressed desire to join NATO.

America’s Antipathy towards Russia

America’s antipathy towards Soviet is largely ideological. US establishment has been paranoid of Soviet establishing “socialist workers paradise”. With these unwarranted fears, US explored the rift between the two large Communist nations, Russia and China. In 1972 President Nixon made an important economic and strategic overture to China. America pledged cooperation towards global integration of Chinese economy. Overwhelmed by Soviet phobia, America turned a blind eye to Chinese aggressive and strategic belligerence. Ironically even now America castigates Russia as a threat to the free world, while the real oppression and blatant violation of human rights is an undeniable reality in China. Russia is now a quasi-democracy, while China is administered by a single party and presided by an Emperor for a life time.

Though Russia’s nuclear arsenal are on par with America, burdened by a struggling economy Moscow can no longer compete with Washington. It doesn’t make it to the top ten economies of the World and even its defence expenditure has come down drastically. Other than defence sales and energy exports Russia long ceased to be major trading partner. China has now displaced Russia. Strategists now say, while Russia may not like to play a second fiddle, unprecedented vilification of Russia will drive Moscow into China’s embrace. The strategic heft of China-Russia collusion can pose great geopolitical challenges for America. It is hard to grasp why America still seeks to foster ties with another authoritarian communist regime, China since this ideological aversion has been the root of decades long cold war and unnerving animosities forcing nations to align with two strategic military blocs. For all its tall claims of making great strategic decisions, America has been instrumental in rise of a belligerent China which is now threatening Washington’s interests globally.

Under the watchful eye of President Obama, China has reclaimed islands in South China Sea. Now Beijing has successfully militarised them. While the American media and intellectuals are engaged in unprecedented vitriolic campaign on Trump’s conduct, China is intensifying its threats across cross-straits. At this juncture a prolonged hullabaloo of American media over Trump’s attempts to engage with Russia and a likely invitation to Putin to white house may be counterintuitive.

@ Copyrights reserved.