Tweeter-happy Trump prefers threats and ultimatum

President Trump's state of the union speech last week focused predominantly on domestic issues. He claimed credit for continued growth in jobs, reduced unemployment amongst the African-American community and higher minimum wages in some states. These were, indeed, outcome of the policy, put in place by Obama administration.

His speech barely touched the challenges the United States are confronted with outside its border. He talked about belligerence of North Korean dictator, Iran's support to terrorism in the Middle East and reactivation of the Guantanamo (GTM) prison.

Guantanamo Prison still accommodates a few dozen prisoners, held without trials, because the prosecution could not frame punishable criminal charges against the inmates. Trump favours transferring the inmates, charged with acts of terrorism, from different jails in the United States to GTM. In the midst of worldwide condemnation, President Obama decided to shut down GTM and transferred some inmates to different countries under special arrangement. The process came to a halt after the new administration took charge.

North Korea's testing of long-range ballistic missiles, one after another, unnerved the Trump administration so much that it imposed several rounds of sanctions through the United Nations. To its credit, Washington was able to secure the concurrence of Moscow and Beijing in the Security Council in levelling economic sanctions against Pyongyang. But the recent revelations that North Korea has been discreetly exporting coals to China, Russia and Malaysia and earned millions of dollars worried Washington. There are reports that North Korea has also been selling arms to Syria. All this suggests that the sanctions have not inflicted desired impact and the regime found ways to circumvent the sanctions. Trump and his advisers repeatedly announced that "strategic patience" with North Korea is over but in his address to the Congress Trump did not lay out the strategy how to restrain North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Trump emphatically declared that North Korea will never be allowed to acquire nuclear arsenals that would have the capacity to hit a target in the United States. But Mike Pompeo, CIA Director, recently warned that Pyongyang is only "a handful of months" away from acquiring the capability. Should that happen what are the courses open to Washington? It is unlikely that Moscow and Beijing would acquiesce to military assault on the nuclear sites. But if the United States goes ahead and strikes North Korean facilities, North Korea has threatened massive retaliation which would have unimaginable consequences for the US and its allies, especially South Korea and Japan. Over 320,000 Americans live in South Korea and Japan and their security will be at great risk. Both Seoul and Tokyo are wary of the catastrophic consequences of unilateral US action. Seoul's acceptance of North Korean athletes in the combined Korean team at the Olympic Games in Pyeong Chang has been born out of this anxiety. Senior officials in Washington share the concerns but the same cannot be said about Trump.

Trump has warned that he would abrogate Iran Nuclear Agreement unless the Congress and the European Union (EU) agree to undertake fundamental revisions of the agreement imposing new sanctions and reversing sunset provisions. But the EU countries, Russia and China have expressed satisfaction in the way the agreement has been implemented. They have referred to the International Atomic and Energy Agency's report confirming that Iran has been in full compliance of the agreement and therefore the deal requires no re-fixing. The Security Council, as recent as in January, reiterated its unequivocal support to the nuclear agreement and warned Washington against unilateral action.

Iran has declared it would continue to comply with the agreement with the EU, Russia and China as partners. The United States will plunge into deeper isolation in the international community if Trump carries out his threat of abrogating the Iran nuclear agreement. It will be denounced for repudiation of an agreement that halted nuclear proliferation.

By recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Trump has alienated the Arabs and the Palestinians in particular. Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas refused to meet with Vice President Pence during his recent Middle East visit. He echoed the Arab's feeling that the United States is no longer an honest peace broker in the troubled region. Trump, in retaliation, threatened to cut off aid to the Palestinians unless they negotiate peace with Israel. Half of $125 million aid to UN refugee agency for Palestinians has already been withheld. Termination of aid will aggravate the hardships of the low-income population in the occupied territories and will compound the anger of the deprived population. This will not be conducive to Israel's security. Trump designated his son-in-law Jared Kushner as the Special Envoy for the Israel-Palestinian conflict but, even after one year in office, he could not unveil a roadmap for the resolution of the conflict.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in an interview with CNN in Davos last week, reiterated that two-state solution is no longer feasible. He, however, offered a concession to the Palestinians that they could have self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza, but will not be permitted to have an army. Palestinians are sure to reject the proposal with disdain.

Trump, in his first tweet of the year, accused Pakistan of lies and deception. He said, "The United States has foolishly given Pakistan $33 billion over the past 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit." Days after, the administration suspended nearly all security aid up to $1.3 billion annually but assured that this could be restored if Pakistan took steps against Taliban and other terrorists. Pakistan dismissed the allegations and reminded Washington that it had collaborated with the US in rooting out the terrorists and lost over 5,000 soldiers in the fight.

Pakistan has been a strategic partner of the United States in the past seventy years though the relationship has been tumultuous. It appears that when the US-Pakistan relationship took a nosedive Islamabad moved towards the north. Following 1962 Sino-India war as the US began pouring economic and military aid to India, Pakistan cultivated friendly relation with Beijing. After the 1965 war with India, it accepted Moscow's mediation, signed the Tashkent agreement and moved closer to Moscow. Pakistan received huge economic and military assistance from the United States in 1980s while hosting and training the Taliban in their fight against the Soviet army. Islamabad collaborated with the US after 9/11 attack and turned against the Taliban. Islamabad's support was crucial in dislodging Taliban in 2002.

Now Pakistan will conveniently get even closer to China and Russia, promote trade and commerce, in addition to defence collaboration, and make up the lost US aid. Pakistan might retaliate by shutting down the corridor for the transportation of cargos essential to American troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan army will have no incentive to chase Taliban fighters from its territory and later will resort to "hit and run" tactic in the vast terrains of Afghanistan. In short, the American troops might get bogged down in fighting the insurgency which is now in its 17th year.

Defence Secretary James Mattes and senior Pentagon officials are abreast of the corollary of pushing Pakistan to the camp of American adversary. They would rather favour adopting a "carrot and stick" tactics with regard to Pakistan. But can they prevail upon the tweeter-happy President Trump?

The writer is a former official of the United Nations.

[email protected]