Harry C. Blaney III
Last June and earlier this year I reported from London and Brussels on the issues, problems and trends of the critical issue of the unity of Europe and the fragility of also the Atlantic Community in the face of far right and Fascist forces. These corrosive forces would undermine and indeed destroy unity, democracy, and the key elements that have kept the peace, prosperity and democracy in Europe. The next great test for Europe will be the French final election between the two leaders of the first round election who will vie for the Presidential role on Sunday.
This Sunday election round will comprise first the moderate centrist (center-right) candidate who is without a traditional party Emmanuel Macron, who some polls show winning by about 20 percent. Against him is Marine Le Pen who’s party The National Front, has neo-Nazi origins and expresses deep hatred of immigrants and the EU. These two have left behind all of the candidates for the presidency of the traditional French parties after the result of the first round of voting.
Now in France however, these values are again threatened by the Neo-Fascist and racist National Front Party and by its leader and presidential candidate Marine Le Pen. She threatened to, in effect, blow up Europe by getting out of the Euro Zone and perhaps even the EU and has attacked Germany who in the past has been the key partner on European unity and accused Chancellor Merkel as “dominating” Europe.
Le Pen has a close association with Russia’s Putin who is trying to undermine the unity of Europe and separate it from American cooperation. A Russian associated bank has loaned her far-right anti-Europe party money to help her campaign of hatred for immigrants, for liberal democracy, and really decency. As a indicator of her intentions and affinity to far right “disruptive” forces she has been praised by Donald Trump who also seems to want a disunited Europe (he supported Brexit and admires the British Alt-Right racist politician Nigel Farage, and clearly has an anti-EU perspective and questioned in the past NATO.
This election is so important to the unity of the West that former President Obama has made his views known via a video in support of Macron. Here is some of the text:
“The French election is very important to the future of France and the values that we care so much about,” … “Because the success of France matters to the entire world. … (Macron) has stood up for liberal values. He put forward a vision for the important role that France plays in Europe and around the world, and he is committed to a better future for the French people. He appeals to people’s hopes and not their fears. … Because of how important this election is, I also want you to know that I am supporting Emmanuel Macron to lead you forward. En Marche! Vive la France!”
There are many possible outcomes from this election given the fractured nature of the French political landscape. There is no assurance, despite the polls, that Macron will win since many do not want to declare their public support for a far-right xenophobic party. And Le Pen has campaigned with venom against Macron.
Sadly the left candidate who came in third did not endorse Macron. If Macron wins he must at some early point reconcile with enough members of parliament and the key parties to govern with some effectiveness and authority. The outcome could either set a direction of cooperation within Europe despite Brexit or the start of the dismantlement of European stable peace, security, and unity and cooperation with the full Western democracies. And also effective dealing with the underground anti-democracy activities of Putin and his gang of hackers and “false media”of the Russian “active intelligence.”
In contrast, center right and left traditional parties and others seeking responsible and decent goals could ensured if an alliance can be worked out with Macron, that there would be a strong voice in Europe for decency and cooperation around the world. Given in the West (and elsewhere) the disruptions of the last year or so and dysfunctional response of some governments to the needs of our citizens, with the rise of racial and national division, as well as moves towards in some cases hate filled political leaders, some united response by forces dedicated to democracy, justice, and true democracy is now required on both sides of the Atlantic.
We welcome your comments! (See comments section below)
BREXIT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR WESTERN UNITY:
UNITED EUROPE AT A TIME OF HIGH RISK
Harry C. Blaney III, Dateline: London
The year 2017 will likely turn out as a watershed of European unity but filled with potential disruptions and divisions which may create a fundamental shift in European politics, economy and security. The risks are in large, part self created and could have been avoidable. But they were also due to extraordinary poor UK political management, myopia and narrow nationalism. These are perspectives that kill the fundamental idea of the EU and a cooperative sharing community – namely the key idea of one for all and all for one.
On Wednesday Britain takes formally the foolish step of evoking Article 50 of the EU Treaty for withdrawal from membership. A step it did not have to take but a step driven by the worst of motivations. It will result in many dangerous outcomes even beyond the economic one, or concern over immigration, that has been so much talked about among many actors in this debate on leaving the EU.
The argument is that now Britain can be free to seek more business on a global scale and all will profit from the EU exit! The phrase used here in London by the right-wing Tory “leavers” is “Global Britain.” This slogan has about as much meaning or truth as Trump’s “Make American Great Again.”
The racist and far right nationalists like the UK Independent Party and not least dishonestly by Tory Prime Minister Teresa May along with her flaky new Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who helped lead the campaign for leaving. They all touted a great new prosperity and national freedom after they leave the EU.
Of course this was a nonsense. If one were to do a fundamental analysis Britain already was making “maximum” efforts to extend its business reach, and to think of markets out side the EU. That to think it could do better in net world trade with less market access than it has in the EU, was a myth perpetrated by the right-wing racist Tories and the UKIP. The judgement here was that outside the EU, Britain would have a better chance to make global profits than it is trying to do inside the EU. In fact, it would have to negotiate individually with each and every nation and without the advantage of the massive economic power of the EU market and already advantageous agreements they have with these nations.
On Tuesday, as part of a tour around the country to try to defend the exit, Prime Minister Theresa May said, in words without content: “historic opportunity to get out into the world,” as if Britain never tried to reach the rest of the world. Each day her statements have less and less content.
With the signature now on the Article 50 document by Mrs. May, the clock will start ticking towards leaving but there is no clue on what any “deal” on leaving will really look like. The only outcome will not be what Britain wants and there are to be no free lunch.
Newspapers here are reporting from EU members that their prime goal is to preserve European unity and not to give any incentive for others to leave and gain advantages equal to membership without any cost or commitment to common unity. EU leaders, German and French politicians have made it clear that a “free” access is not on offer. But also say that they do not seek a confrontation or will try to “punish” Britain. But the EU position, as much as we know, is not in the ballpark of what Mrs. May has so far set forth as her aim. Thus we may see very hard negotiations over the next two years with little hope Britain will come out totally whole given what has been promised by the “leave” campaign or Tory government.
The truth is that EU holds the cards not the UK in the coming negotiations. But this has not been explained to the British voters.
The more fundamental issue is the impact of this Brexit on the already fragility of Western European unity and security. We are seeing the growing growth of far right and Fascist parties with key elections in France and Germany and possibly other nations. Add to this the threat of Scotland holding a referendum on leaving again and their stance on staying in the EU. The Scottish assembly has just voted to have a referendum on independence but this must have the approval of PM Theresa May, which will not be given. But this act will only contribute to the sense of resentment by many Scots and reinforce their desire to remain in the EU.
Add the breakdown of the North Ireland Government coalition of “shared government.” that has just taken place which has been exacerbated by the Brexit with deep difficult implications for the North-South border and cooperation for both sides and for social peace.
The total cost of the Brexit is for Great Britain, for Europe and not least for America’s interest in a Europe that is “whole, free at peace and secure in unity” is enormous. It is under severe threat by the idiocy and myopia and frankly immorality of leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. On the side of disunity and “deconstruction” is Trump, Mrs. May, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, and not least Putin. These together represent a threat to a peaceful and decent world community and for a sense of common interests and goals.
More from Europe on the implications of this act shortly, and especially a look at the perspective of the 27 nations that will be left in the EU. Also an examination of the Putin-Trump cooperation issue and its implications.
We welcome your comments!
THE STUPIDITY OF THE TRUMP MUSLIM REFUGEE AND VISIT BAN
Harry C. Blaney III
There are few acts by a uninformed and clearly not balanced Donald Trump which have an immediate horrendous impact both at home and abroad. The ban on seven Muslim majority nations is just such an act and it has already enlisted major reactions by people around the world. It is simply a disgrace for America and it is dangerous to our security.
What this executive order on immigration and refugees does is bans Syrian refugees from entering our country, suspends the entire refugee program for 120 days, cuts in half effectively the number of refugees we can admit. It halts all travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The reaction at home includes demonstrations around the nations especially at universities and colleges and by churches and civil liberty groups. Harvard and Yale presidents and other academic leaders have denounced this act Many experts believe is counter to our constitution, our laws, and treaty obligations. Already a judge has in effect said so…but without so far Trump complying.
In reaction is an open letter to Trump top national security officials by over 100 National Security Leaders on the Refugee Executive Order. The signers include Madeleine Albright, Janet Napolitano, and Susan Rice, and many others including high level former officials and military from Republican and Democratic administrations. The headline statement was:
“As former cabinet Secretaries, senior government officials, diplomats, military service members and intelligence community professionals who have served in the Bush and Obama administrations, we, the undersigned, have worked for many years to make America strong and our homeland secure. Therefore, we are writing to you to express our deep concern with President Trump’s recent Executive Order directed at the immigration system, refugees and visitors to this country. This Order not only jeopardizes tens of thousands of lives, it has caused a crisis right here in America and will do long-term damage to our national security.”
In Washington even some Republicans are concerned, and the Democrats are considering opposition to this on a number of fronts. Chaos prevails at our airports and airlines and in governments around the world. It was denounced by leaders in Germany and France and on the floor of the House of Commons.
It is clear to me that this action was without much doubt the deliberate act of designed chaos and cruelty by Donald Trump likely aided and abated by Stephen Bannon the Alt-Right racist, bigoted Trump campaign leader and past editor of the white power media outlet Breitbart News and now counselor to the President with equal status to the White House Chief-of-Staff and now a member of the highly sensitive and powerful National Security Council and the committee of Principles (Cabinet and agency heads) which he will attend as a full member – in effect perhaps a spy on other member views, or voice for the far racist right at home and abroad and enforcer of Trump’s crazy far right policies and lies.
This act is a test of what we may see going forward in foreign and national security policy. Already Trump has upset and weakened our ties to our key allies that are aghast at his recent statement, tweets and actions which undermine NATO, EU and the UN. In particular, they have undermined our allies and embolden Russia’s Vladimir Putin to hope he can destroy Western unity and strength and prosperity and weaken its defense. All this hardly lifting a finger but letting Trump do his dirty work. Already trump has helped Putin by supporting disunity in Europe by his encouragement of Brexit and putting down NATO, and favoring of far right fascist groups in Europe.
We need to ask quickly why and at what cost to peace and security for us and our allies?
We welcome your comments, see section below!
This is a guest post from an old Yale graduate school colleague now a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Illinois, Urbana, and author of Rethinking Human Rights for the New Millennium (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2003) and a distinguished expert on French politics. He sent a copy of his insightful open letter addressed to his friends in France which I thought was worth sharing with our readers as it reflects wider concerns for all on both sides of the Atlantic. Harry Blaney .
Photo Credit via BBC
An Open Letter to My Friends in France
By A. Belden Fields
Last May, when we were sitting at my dinner table in Urbana, Illinois, my Parisian friend, Dr. Marie-Blandine Basalo, asked me if I thought that Trump had a chance of winning the election. I responded that I thought that Marine Le Pen stood a better chance of winning there than Trump had here. She gave me a look of horror. And I have said to others among you that I thought that Trump had a zero chance of winning.
I offer my apologies both because I was so wrong about Trump’s chances, and because Trump’s victory here has given the National Front and other ultranationalist and racist parties in Europe a boost–if not in their chances of winning, at least in their morale. “If the US does it, hey why not here!”
How could this have happened in the U.S.?
The reasons are complex, some peculiar to the U.S. and some that are common to both the U.S. and Europe. The most significant that applies as well to Europe as here is the economic situation. There is very high unemployment, especially among younger people and the marginalized. In France, overall unemployment is higher than in the U.S.. That being said, the true unemployment rate in the U.S. is much higher than the official figures. In both the U.S. and France, there is a tendency among many to blame immigrants and minorities for it. They are also often seen as sapping the country in terms of social services that particularly strain local units of government. External entities are also held responsible. In the U.S. it is trade pacts like NAFTA that encourage employers to chase after low wage industrial workers abroad (even though there are plenty of low wage service workers in the U.S.). In Europe, it is the European Union which is seen as an unaccountable, undemocratic arrangement that forces austerity policies upon the individual countries to the detriment of the general population, and to the advantage of the upper, capitalist classes.
All of these factors produce high emotions of fear and anger, of ultranationalism and the attribution of otherness to minorities and immigrants, and to despair with the status quo and the hope that Far Right parties, usually with charismatic leaders, can save them from the calamity that they feel they are living.
Another interesting dimension to this is religion. In Poland and in the Slavic countries of Eastern Europe, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches respectively are playing a major role in supporting right-wing politics. In France, a conservative Catholic bloc has been manifesting itself in the conservative Republican Party and can be seen in the programs of former President Nicolas Sarkosy and in the present Republican presidential candidacy of Francois Fillon. Gay marriage, abortion, and even secularism in public institutions, especially the schools, which has been a mainstay of French Republicanism, have newly become major issues in the mainstream of French politics.
This resembles, on a smaller scale, Trump’s appeal to the white evangelical voters in the American South and Mid-West. The big issue for them is who will be appointed to the Supreme Court and be voting on civil rights issues for women, minorities, and the LGBT population. The European Right, in both Western and Eastern Europe, has taken up the battle over cultural and social issues (the culture wars) that the American Right has engaged in for along time and that Trump has been playing so effectively.
But there are other variables that accounted for Trunp’s victory that are not so easily comparable to what is happening in Europe recently. The first is the Electoral College. If Trump and Clinton had been French, Clinton would have won because she had a sizeable lead in the popular vote, over two million more votes than Trump.
Aside from this, there was the difference between the two candidates themselves. Clinton was clearly the more politically experienced and qualified. She discussed policy issues in a serious way. And she would have been the first woman president, following the first African American president. That was both a plus and a minus. A plus for those who valued diversity in political life, a negative to those who despised “identity politics.”
Even some on the Left felt that she should have devoted more time to addressing the serious economic plight of many Americans than in stressing the breaking of the glass ceiling imposed by males. While this is not necessarily an either/or, many Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary felt that Clinton did not come across as sincerely attentive to the economic plight of so many people where industry had disappeared. Fairly or not, the association that was made between her and her husband’s support of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), and her hesitation in coming out against Obama’s Trans Pacific trade agreement, made her unpopular both on the Left and on the populist Right. Her vote for the Iraq War and other more hawkish positions also alienated progressives on the Left and noninterventionists on the Right. Her use of a personal server for public business when she was Secretary of State came back to haunt her. And her closeness to Wall Street when she was the Senator from New York, and refusal to release the content of speeches she gave to investment bankers for large fees, did not help her on either wing of the political spectrum.
Trump, on the other hand has had no political experience which could be held against him. His business dealings were marred by frequent bankruptcies, by refusal to pay for services provided by contractors, by a constant stream of threats and lawsuits against people and institutions. He broke tradition by being the first presidential candidate to refuse to release his tax returns. Instead of seriously discussing policy issues, he offered a series of ad libs to please his crowd. He vilified all of his opponents in both the primary and the general elections. He referred to Clinton as “crooked Hillary” who should be criminally prosecuted. He refused to say that he would accept the result of the election. He degraded women, Mexicans and Moslems. He even ridiculed the physical gestures of a paralyzed reporter who asked a question at a press conference. He has bragged about molesting women and been accused by a number of women of doing so. He has encouraged violence against protestors at his rallies. He has defended the use of torture.
Since the election, he has appointed to be his attorney General Senator Sessions, who has spoken favorably of the Ku Klux Klan and opposed civil rights legislation. His special adviser with an office in the White House, will be Stephen Bannon, the former head of Breitbart, a Far Right “news” outlet that has diffused racist and anti-Semitic material, and which intends to establish an office in Paris. His national security advisor is going to be former Lt. General Michael Flynn, who, along with his Trump-employed son, has spread fake stories on social media contending that Hillary Clinton was involved in criminal activity, including with child sex rings.
In Europe, you have had your Le Pens, and your Berlesconi whose sexual vulgarity equals Trumps. The former were established party leaders. Trump has captured a party. What he has behind him are largely the economically hard hit who are willing to forgive his sins in the hope that he will be their salvation, and white supremacists who see him as their vindication and leader. Trump is an actor who has created politics as a one-man spectacle, combining Mussolini’s oratorical style and facial gestures with a skilled use of Twitter, which the cable news media has retransmitted instantaneously to the public.
Indeed, the closer historical analogy to the spectacular Trump are the Nazis who used the technology of radio to mobilize the masses in their living rooms, vilified and crushed political opponents, dehumanized ethnic and religious groups, and repeated lie after lie with the assurance that their followers would believe them and that establishment politicians and business leaders would be afraid to confront them. It is precisely this complex of factors that foreshadowed the first totalitarian state in Western Europe in the late 1930s, which began with an electoral victory and which too few took seriously enough until it was too late.
I say to you, please do not be taken in the way we Americans have been.
Ici la lutte continue.
We welcome your comments, click here to add to the discussion.
By Harry C. Blaney III & John Gall
The American people have spoken as has Donald trump and Hillary Clinton and already our newspapers and social media are having their say. But like it or not America is but about 4% of the world’s population and we depend on our allies and partners. We are not an island standing alone. The path ahead remains uncertain to say the least. Darkness lurks at every wrong turn and bad or reckless decision.
One judgement can be that rationality and kindness has lost and hate and stupidity is on the rise. We are all in disbelief and shock. It is a time however for better thinking, courage, and the forces of good to work together as they never did before.
It is not just America, but as I said, Europe is also on the edge of the forces of darkness with the rise of the far right groups. Britain and Europe and our allies in Asia will also need to keep their heads. Leaders abroad are mulling what all this means as you will see from the quotes below. The structure of the post-WWII security order is now in shambles and the question is whether the elections here will make it even more in disarray.
It is a testing time and we are seeing only now a bit of the implications and these quotes will give us just an initial look at how the world now sees what can only be descried as untested and dangerous waters.
- UK Prime Minister Theresa May – “I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on being elected the next president of the United States, following a hard-fought campaign. Britain and the United States have an enduring and special relationship based on the values of freedom, democracy and enterprise. We are, and will remain, strong and close partners on trade, security and defence. I look forward to working with President-elect Donald Trump, building on these ties to ensure the security and prosperity of our nations in the years ahead.” (BBC)
- French President Francois Hollande – The election of Donald Trump as US president “opens a period of uncertainty…We must be aware of the concerns provoked by the disorders of the world in all the peoples, including the American people. We must find answers that are capable of overcoming fears.” (EuroObserver)
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel – “Whoever the American people elect as their president in free and fair elections, that has a significance far beyond the USA. Germany and America are bound by their values: democracy, freedom, the respect for the law and the dignity of human beings, independent of their origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political position. On the basis of these values I offer the future president of the United States, Donald Trump, close cooperation.” (DW)
- Russian President Vladimir Putin – “We realize and understand that this will not be an easy road given the level to which our relations have degraded,” Putin said in congratulating Trump on his electoral victory. A moment later, he added, “We know this will not be easy…It is not Russia’s fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point,” (Time)
- UK Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn – An economic system that “isn’t working for most people” had been rejected. (BBC)
- Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon – urged Mr Trump to “reach out” to those feeling “marginalised” by his campaign. (BBC)
- Former UKIP Leader Nigel Farage – drew parallels with the Brexit campaign and said he would “hand over the mantle” to the Republican. (BBC)
- Crispin Blunt, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Britain’s House of Commons – “We are plunged into uncertainty and the unknown.” (NYTimes)
- Gérard Araud, French ambassador to the United States – “After Brexit and this election, everything is now possible. A world is collapsing before our eyes.” (NYTimes)
- Henrik Müller, journalism professor at the Technical University of Dortmund – “It would be the end of an era. The postwar era in which Americans’ atomic weapons and its military presence in Europe shielded first the west and later the central European states would be over. Europe would have to take care of its own security.” (NYTimes)
- Vladimir Frolov, a Russian columnist and international affairs analyst – “Trump’s presidency will make the U.S. sink into a full-blown crisis, including an economic one. The U.S. will be occupied with its own issues and will not bother Putin with questions. As a consequence, Moscow will have a window of opportunity in geopolitical terms. For instance, it can claim control over the former Soviet Union and a part of the Middle East. What is there not to like?” (NYTimes)
- Kunihiko Miyake, former Japanese diplomat – “The question is whether you will continue to be involved in international affairs as a dependable ally to your friends and allies. If you stop doing that, then all the European, Middle Eastern and Asian allies to the United States will reconsider how they secure themselves.” (NYTimes)
- Izumi Kobayashi, vice chairwoman of Keizai Doyukai, a Japanese business group – “He has been focusing on the negative side of the global markets and globalization. But at the same time it is really difficult to go back to the old business world. So how will he explain to the people that benefit and also the fact that there is no option to go back to the old model of business?” (NYTimes)
- Shen Dingli, professor of international relations at Fudan University in Shanghai – “If he indeed withdraws the troops from Japan, the Japanese may develop their own nuclear weapons. South Korea may also go nuclear if Trump cancels the missile deployment and leaves the country alone facing the North’s threats. How is that good for China?” (NYTimes)
- Agustín Barrios Gómez, former congressman in Mexico and president of the Mexico Image Foundation – “All bets are off,” (NYTimes)
- Rossana Fuentes-Berain, director of the Mexico Media Lab, a founder of the Latin American edition of Foreign Affairs – “I see a clear and present danger. Every moment will be a challenge. Every move or declaration will be something that will not make us comfortable in the neighborhood — and that is to everyone’s detriment.”(NYTimes)
- Yohanan Plesner, former member of the Israeli Parliament, president of the Israel Democracy Institute – “Decisions cannot be postponed. The situation in Syria is very chaotic. The unrest in the region is continuing. America has to decide whether it wants to play an active role in shaping the developments of the region.”(NYTimes)
We welcome you comments; just click here for the comments section!
Remember if you want to know what Trump or Hillary Clinton said during the campaign click here for a key reference section to their thoughts and positions.
By Harry C. Blaney III
We have focused rightly on the positions and statements of the key presidential candidates and American opinion as reflected by our media and our citizens, including experts in foreign and national security issues. But voices abroad do matter in an ever more connected world.
Here are some of the voices we have found which reflect on what leaders and others abroad think of our election debates, candidates, and the implication for their own lives and security.
SELECTED QUOTES ABROAD
Donald Trump is “no longer fit to be a business ambassador for Scotland”, his views on Muslims “do not represent the mainstream views of people across America.” – First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon – Independent.co.UK
“I want Donald Trump to come to London so I can introduce myself to him as a mainstream Muslim, very, very comfortable with Western liberal values, but also introduce him to hundreds of thousands, dare I say millions of Muslims in this country, who love being British, love being Western,” – London Mayor Sadiq Khan
“I thought that was an extraordinary thing for a candidate for the office of president of the United States to say. Basically because America as I understand it is a country built on the ideal of welcoming people irrespective of their race, religion, color or creed or whatever. And I think that’s a fine thing about America…very, very disappointed” about Trump’s proposed Muslim Ban – Boris Johnson – CNBC
Trump’s claims that pockets of London are so radicalized that the police do not enter them are “nonsense” – British PM Theresa May – BBC
Donald Trump’s Muslim ban “divisive, stupid and wrong” – Former British PM David Cameron – BBC
“I cannot possibly tell you how you should vote in this election. But you know I get it, I get it. I’m hearing you. But I will say this, if I was an American citizen I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me. In fact, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if she paid me.” – UKIP Former Leader Nigel Farage, stumping for Trump in late August – Huffington Post
“Whether Donald Trump, Marine le Pen or Geert Wilders – all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development,” – German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel
“I value her long political experience, her commitment for women’s rights, family issues and health care.”I value her strategic thinking and that she is a strong supporter of the transatlantic partnership. Whenever I had the chance to work together with Hillary Clinton, it was a great pleasure.” – German Chancellor Angela Merkel – Reuters
Donald Trump “makes you want to retch” and his election could shift world politics to the right. He makes “hurtful, humiliating comments” and politicians “should be respected when they are respectable” – French President Francois Hollande – The Guardian
“I think it is obvious for me and for a lot of us to prefer Hillary Clinton as commander-in-chief, because with her, there is a woman able to know every dossier, able to have a history and a future with all the partners.” – Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi – CNBC
“I would have no difficulty in meeting Donald Trump” “Certainly. I would be very happy to. [explain why Trump’s comments are “racist and dangerous”]” – Irish Prime Minister End Kenny – Reuters
“There might be one more thing that we don’t agree with Mr. Prime Minister, and this issue is Donald Trump. I am sure that there is only one thing that we can learn from him: that a man should never dye his hair.”– Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern – Euronews
“A lot of what Donald Trump says makes for a more unstable world…
I hope this is part of local election campaigning and not what he will do if he is in office. He has said on a lot of topics different things, so we will see which Donald Trump he becomes.”– Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg – Politico
“Sweden should always make an effort to have good relations with countries around the world regardless of who is in power. But it is clear to see when you watch the [party] conventions that one is based on fear and division. Hate, I would almost say, or at least antipathy. The other one is based more on faith in the future.””I want Hillary Clinton to become president. There’s no doubt about it.” – Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven – TheLocal
“Now your presidency is coming to an end, and I have something to admit. I’m very fond of the Donald, too. I support him as a president. He’s pretty smart, shows great leadership skills, a true visionary. And I’m, of course, talking about Donald Tusk, who is president of the European Council.”– Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen – The Hill
“If I were an American citizen, I would vote for Donald Trump.” – President Milos Zeman – Bloomberg
“I’m not a member of Donald Trump’s campaign, I’d never have thought that it would occur to me the idea that he would be the best choice for Europe and for Hungary.” – Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban – Bloomberg
Donald Trump as a “colorful” person. Both candidates “engage in provocations”, but are also “smart, very smart people who understand which strings to pull.” – Russian President Vladimir Putin – Telegraph
The All-Russian Center for Public Opinion found 34 percent of respondents found relations would improve between the US and Russia if Trump were elected, compared to 6 percent for Clinton. The same survey found that 53 percent of polled Russians would think relations would deteriorate between the two countries if Clinton was elected, compared to 12 percent with a Trump presidency. – Washington Times
“If a man who shows off by not having a clue ends up in the White House, a critical point will have been reached. Then you will have an obviously irresponsible man sitting in a position that requires the utmost sense of responsibility. Trump is not just a problem for the EU, but for the whole world.” – European Parliament President Martin Schulz – Express
“I don’t think we have a right to lecture…I will not interfere in the US election campaign, but what I can do is say what matters for NATO. Solidarity among allies is a key value for NATO. This is good for European security and good for US security. We defend one another.” – NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, in response to Trump’s comments about conditional commitment to NATO allies’ defense – CNN
Experts find that China finds Hillary “is predictable, they generally know how she approaches China: There are aspects they don’t like about her, but they generally know what to expect,”
while with Trump “Donald Trump is a puzzlement… They don’t like his proclamations about what he would do in terms of tariffs on Chinese goods, and that he’d go after China on economic and trade issues. But having said that, I don’t think there are many who think he can follow through on what he’s talking about, or even if he knows what he’s talking about.” – CNBC
North Korea praised Trump’s suggestion of pulling US troops from South Korea in a commentary from the official newspaper of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party, claiming the South Korea “attitude is best shown by the way they got scared by Trump’s comments and groveled”
Although South Korea’s elected officials have not commented on Trump’s suggestions, media commentary has opposed these ideas. Kyunghyang Shinmun wrote an editorial in May stating:
“It is scary just to imagine Trump, who often doesn’t remember what he has said, getting elected president and manipulating Korean Peninsula issues by drastically shifting his positions.” – The New York Times
In response to Trump’s suggestion about South Korea and Japan acquiring nuclear weapons of their own: “Whoever becomes president of the United States, the Japan-US alliance, based on a bilateral security agreement, will remain the core of Japan’s diplomacy” – Yoshihide Suga, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary – Stuff
“Regardless of the eventual winner, from one administration to the next, there are changes, and there are shifts, but we will engage … in a positive, thoughtful collaborative way that understands the importance of the North American trilateral relationship,” – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – Reuters
“I invited you to come and apologize to all Mexicans. Stop lying! Mexico is not yours to play with, show some respect.”
“He has failed all along. His absolute inconsistency in his positions, this very lousy way of trying to gain votes in speaking one day badly and aggressively against African Americans and then the next day asking them for support, telling the Hispanic community you’re criminals, you’re rapists, I’m going to throw you out of this country, and now he’s trying to get through a message that he’s not that bad, that he wants to do that because he loves that community because he thinks there are great people there. He thinks that everybody is stupid, especially the U.S. voters and the Hispanics and African Americans. Who is going to believe him with these dramatic and profound changes in opinion and public policies? “ – Vicente Fox – Time
“What is a fact is that in the face of candidate Trump’s postures and positions, which clearly represent a threat to the future of Mexico, it was necessary to talk. It was necessary to make him feel and know why Mexico does not accept his positions.”
Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, defending Trump’s visit to Mexico – NY Daily News
“No doubt [that Donald Trump would make a strong leader]” – Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi – CNN
Many may ask whether the views of leaders abroad or the global media and foreign citizens even matter. My answer is yes, they do if Trump or anyone like him were to ever become president. Entire decades of good will, acceptance of our leadership on key issues like climate change and support we have obtained by our many act of humanitarian assistance, of security given to many nations and not least our allies, will largely disappear. We will be standing alone, just 4% of the world’s population, with a globe wondering what happened to our democracy and inducing insecurity and fear for global order, economic growth for all, and mutual security.
We welcome your comments which can be posted here.
Visit our regularly up-dated Race to the White House section covering quotes, foreign affairs statements and policies of the presidential campaign candidates and parties.