The Tribune

By PETER YOUNG

It has been interesting this week to study the recent UK media reaction to the continuing precipitate series of actions taken by the newly-installed US President Donald Trump in a variety of domestic areas as well as foreign affairs.

It seems that increasing numbers of people are concerned that by upturning aspects of foreign policy, notably in relation to Gaza and Ukraine, he has caused much disruption. They worry that apparently this has been done without sufficient study or consideration of the situation on the ground and of the long-term consequences and likely repercussions.

To make matters worse, his vice president has been unnecessarily and unwisely provocative in a number of ways; for example, publicly lecturing Europeans at the recent Munich Security Conference about their lack of free speech while separately referring sneeringly to countries in Europe not having had to fight wars for many years. In some eyes, too, he was the one who intervened and set off the infamous row recently with President Zelensky in the Oval Office.

After the many inadequacies and failings of the Biden administration, it seems that, although people generally welcome Trump’s urgency in shaking things up, they wonder whether, in various cases, the White House has thought things through properly and whether his objectives can be achieved, particularly in the foreign affairs field.

Since the end of the Second World War in 1945, European nations have been accustomed to the security provided by the US under the protection of NATO, which was established as long ago as 1949, and to Britain’s claimed special relationship with America. For observers across the pond, only now is the reality of Trump’s “America First” policy beginning to sink in as he urges them to take greater responsibility for their own defence.

In addition to its nuclear deterrent, the US retains military bases in Europe and elsewhere with substantial numbers of American troops stationed and deployed in various countries. Meanwhile, the comfortable knowledge of protection in defence matters has enabled such countries – not least Britain – to concentrate on different and varied issues like multiculturalism, immigration and climate change, with an emphasis on human and social rights, a bloated benefits system and excessive bureaucracy. But the fallout from the Ukraine war, in particular, has now provided – in relation to defence - what has been an injection of reality that Europe has to react to, and it has become clear that from now on it will have to stand more on its own feet as a continent.

Some historians, looking at the longer perspective, point to the traditional isolationism of the US at the time of the First World War (1914 to 1918). That was caused largely by the huge number of immigrants from Europe who were enjoying the fruits of their new country’s economic and industrial growth and did not want to get pulled back to the quarrels of their former countries in Europe.

The US eventually entered this war in 1917. Later, in the 1930s, isolationism was driven by the Great Depression and the horrors of trench warfare during the First World War. Then, the US was only forced in to the second war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at the end of 1941.

In 1945, the Allies were victorious in Europe and, later the same year, in the Far East against Japan which, with Germany, was rebuilt before being successfully reintegrated in to the global economy.

Following the war, successful action was taken to create a new rules-based world order based on political liberalism, notwithstanding the constraints of the Cold War. Its purpose was to establish a framework for the conduct of world affairs involving interchanges among nations on a global scale.

This is, of course, a huge subject that demands closer study. But suffice it to say today that many commentators consider that Western statesmen – especially the leader of the free world – should now be doing everything in their power not to disturb a world order that has been working more or less successfully. Far from retreating on the other side of the Atlantic, the giant and powerful nation of the US should be devoting greater resources in an effort to make the world a safer place for capitalism and democracy.

The argument is often made that it cannot realistically be in the US’s own interest for the existing Western world to collapse in face of a rogue brutal dictator who harbours false visions of grandeur in trying to expand a new Russian empire. If Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, there is a real danger he will be emboldened to try to redraw the map elsewhere in his region. Europe needs to be heavily involved in trying to restore peace in Ukraine. But, despite recent announcements about increased European defence spending - including by Britain - it is clear that Ukraine needs the might of the US, both in military support and in negotiating with Putin, in order to end the war.

Many believe that, whatever Trump preaches, in today’s integrated world unilateralism is largely unrealistic. Calling isolation “splendid” is also something of a misnomer. It is said that he is bullying Zelensky and giving hope to Putin. Instead of suspending military assistance to Ukraine and cutting off intelligence sharing, he should be increasing both in order to bring pressure on Putin.

Meanwhile, the evidence is that Europe is already building up its defence base in a race to rearm, with, for example, UK manufacturers preparing to meet what they expect to be unprecedented demand.

But, be all that as it may, voices are now being heard in the US and UK criticizing the supposed “attention deficit” inherent in US politics and the lack of what is being called a “forward-looking engagement strategy”. More commentators are saying that it should be important to do what is right, both morally and in the best interests of the West, rather than always looking primarily at the costs involved which seems to be the yardstick invariably used by the Trump administration in making judgements.

NO CITIZEN LEFT BEHIND

By chance, last week I tuned in to an interview on the BBC with an American by the name of Roger Carstens who has just stepped down from a five-year stint as an appointee of both Presidents Trump and Biden. From 2000, he was the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs at the Department of State in Washington.

This position was created under President Obama after a policy review in 2015. At that time, the President admitted that his administration had too often failed the families of American hostages held overseas by terrorist groups like Islamic State. He announced that for the first time under the new agency his government would be authorized to communicate and negotiate with hostage=takers that might include terrorist groups. Furthermore, from then on the government would also communicate more fully and in a more efficient and coordinated way with the families of hostages as well as third parties who were helping those families.

However, the long-standing policy of the government not paying ransoms to terrorist groups would not be changed. Obama was reported to have argued against offering money in exchange for hostages for fear that that would only enrich the hostage-takers and incentivize others to kidnap Americans for payment of ransoms and thus endanger them.

All this came after the families of Americans taken hostage overseas had got together and criticised the government for poor handling of their cases – for example, insufficient provision of information, contradictory guidance and lack of cooperation by various different agencies whose activities seemed to be uncoordinated.

The policy review also led to the establishment of a Hostage Recovery Enterprise at the Department of State. Its mission was to secure the freedom of US national hostages and “wrongful detainees held abroad”, support their families, and end hostage-taking and wrongful detention.

Following a career in the US Army Special Forces, Roger Carstens, as a retired Colonel, was the first incumbent of this new office. In his wide ranging BBC interview, he explained that his basic task was to find ways of releasing prisoners and getting them home to the US – and to achieve this it was essential to be able to deal directly with hostage takers.

He explained that It was not sensible to generalise about how this might be done because each case was different and was subject to individual judgement of the situation at the time. But clearly, in light of the sensitivities, it had to be done carefully and responsibly. In particular, it was important to avoid providing any incentive to adversaries to imprison Americans, on trumped up charges, in order to extract concessions that might include the release of their own high-value people in the hands of America or its allies.

Roger Carstens said that he had handled about seventy cases during the course of his time in the job and had successfully brought back to the US more than fifty individuals. But retrieving hostages in this way was a complicated task and such operations were invariably a team effort. A notably important element of the task was to ‘partner’ with families by keeping in regular touch with them and briefing them as fully as possible while at the same time providing assurances that the US government would find a way to bring their loved ones home.

He added that it was a stressful job which involved balancing moral imperatives with moral hazards, and it required a commitment to long hours and working around the clock if circumstances demanded.

I found this to be a most interesting BBC interview. Carstens came across as a person of great empathy and integrity and viewers will surely hope that his successor will possess the same level of such qualities.

AN ISSUE LEFT WELL ALONE

With the clocks changing last weekend for the daylight-saving time that gives more sunlight in the summer months, it is interesting to see in the US press reports that President Trump is trying to extricate himself from what is being called a DST drama.

It seems that it has recently become something of a drama because last December Trump said that, if elected, he would end DST and make standard time permanent. Reportedly, he explained that DST is “inconvenient and very costly for our nation”.

There are, of course cogent arguments for and against DST. But, apparently, far from agreeing with the president, most of his Republican lawmaker colleagues want to make it permanent.

The most recent news is that Trump is calling it a 50/50 issue. If this means that he will not now push for change, perhaps people should rejoice that this is at least one subject that he will leave alone – but for how long?