10 Contradictions of Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy

Donald Trump gave a speech today at the Center for National Interest outlining his foreign policy.   His speech lasted approximately forty-five minutes and was comprised of two main parts- 1) what he felt was wrong with the Obama administration’s foreign policy, and 2) his vision for fixing those perceived ills.  At one point he said, “Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster.  No vision, no purpose, no direction, no strategy;” the same could be said for his ideas, as they were full of contradictions and would be disastrous for the US.

Contradiction #1: In his section on overextension of resources, Trump proposed “we need to rebuild our military.”  In the next section, however, about our allies not paying their fair share, he said that “we have spent trillions of dollars over time…building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia.”  If we’ve spent that much money, and have that large of a military, does it really need to be rebuilt?

Contradiction #2: In that same second section, Trump argued “[Our allies] look at the United States as weak.”  If they truly think we’re weak, they probably wouldn’t want us defending them.

Contradiction #3: “A Trump Administration will lead a free world that is properly armed and funded.”  Since Trump cannot force countries to increase their military spending, so I don’t see how this will be accomplished.

Contradiction #4: “President Obama…abandoned our missile defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic.”  Trump just said our allies need to do more for their defense, so wouldn’t he also not want US missile defense in Eastern Europe?

Contradiction #5:  “We’re a humanitarian nation.”  Not really.  Trump chastised our NATO allies for not meeting the target of spending 2% of GDP on defense, but the US does not meet the commitment to spend .7% of GNI on Official Development Assistance.  In 2015, we spent only .17%.

Contradiction #6: Even though it’s not in the copy of the remarks, at 1:08:18 (of the video below) he says “We want to bring peace to the world.  Too much destruction out there.  Too many destructive weapons.  The power of weaponry is the single biggest problem that we have today in the world.”  How can he say this when earlier he said he wanted to “rebuild our military” and modernize and renew our nuclear weapons arsenal?

Contradiction #7: “I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia…is possible.”  If we put missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, as it appears Trump wanted, it would actually lead to more tension with Russia.

Contradiction #8: In regards to China- “We can both benefit or we can both go our separate ways.” China owns over $1 trillion in US debt; we cannot just go our own ways.

Contradiction #9: “America will continually play the role of peacemaker.”  Peacemakers don’t increase military spending and modernize their nuclear arsenals.

Contradiction #10: America no longer has a clear understanding of our foreign policy goals.”  After watching the speech and making my way through his contradictory remarks, I don’t have a clear understanding of Trump’s foreign policy (and I know I’m not alone.)  His vision (or lack thereof) and contradictory ideas are not good for the US and not good for our allies.

Here’s the video of the speech; his remarks begin around 34:30.

What are your thoughts on Trump’s foreign policy?

Thanks for reading.

Advertisements

Educating Youth to be Active Citizens

When I saw the list of topics for the German Marshall Fund’s Triennial Transatlantic Leaders Retreat, I was intrigued. Halfway down the list was a topic on which I have previously written- “Youth quake: Engaging youth worldwide in learning and service.” I immediately  began thinking about what I’ve written and what I might add to those ideas to create something as if I were there as a guest speaker on that panel.  My overall premise is that if we want to engage youth, they need to have a framework around which they can build, and they absolutely must have opportunities for political participation.

A Framework
For the past four years I have used the Millennium Development Goals, and now the Sustainable Development Goals, in my classes.  Seeing as how the SDGs constitute a “plan of action for people, planet and prosperity,” they are ideal for giving youth opportunities to be active citizens.  As a framework in class, not only do they help us learn about the work of the UN and NGOs, we also come back to them when we discuss current issues.  Giving the students a framework they can reference throughout the year makes increases their retention of the material and provides them with a base for their political participation.

Opportunities for Political Participation
While there are a number a ways citizens can participate in the political process, I want to focus on three- writing letters, presenting policy proposals, and volunteering.

When it comes to the MDGs and SDGs, I’ve given the students numerous opportunities to research a variety of those goals and then to write letters to UN officials with their opinions about addressing those problems (see my previous post about this activity here).  When we get a response from those officials, it lets the students know that their voice matters.  This year for example, we heard from Laurent Thomas of the FAO in response to the students’ letters about food security.

A second idea is to give students the opportunity to present policy ideas to their elected officials.  The U.S. can learn much from our friends across the Atlantic in these regards, especially with their children’s parliaments and the European Youth Event (see my previous post about this idea here).  If our youth feel they have a say in the process, then perhaps it will lead to increased political participation.

Finally, besides voicing their opinions on how to best cure the ills of society, students should actually have opportunities to work improving society.  This year, my students and I started VeronaAid, a student-driven charity whose “mission is to deliver aid to the impoverished citizens of Dane County and to make a difference in the lives of those affected by the Syrian refugee crisis.” We meet once a week to work on spreading our message and coming up with ideas for fundraising.  Because the students have a voice in this venture, they have an interest in seeing it succeed.  If you would like to see examples of their activities, please check out the website and our social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram).  If we tie this back to my idea of a framework, SDG 1 is “End poverty in all its forms everywhere;” the students of VeronaAid are working towards this goal with every diaper bag or backpack they fill and every presentation they give.

Questions
What do other teachers do to encourage their students to engage in political participation?  How can we coordinate our actions at my high school with those of other schools in the area and even around the world?  Are politicians ready to listen to students’ policy ideas and give them serious consideration?

Thanks for reading.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

With the rise of Donald Trump as the GOP frontrunner, I’ve been struggling with whether or not I should stay in the US should he be elected president.  Apparently others have had the same issue because after Super Tuesday, Google searches for emigrating to Canada dramatically increased. 

Should I Go?

If you’ve read any of my previous posts, it should be clear that I agree more with the European-style welfare state and subsequent policies.  So, a move to Europe (probably Germany or the UK) would be a welcome change in lifestyle for me personally.

Additionally, I’ve got think of my children.  We’ve got numerous examples of minorities being pushed, shoved, punched, and spit on at Trump’s rallies.  Why would I want my children to grow up in a society where that type of behavior is celebrated?  Do I want them to live in a country whose population voted for man who incites hatred, violence, and bigotry and who has no clear vision for the US?

Should I Stay?

Or, would it be better to stay and fight the system?  If I want to see European-style welfare state policies enacted here, I can’t promote them and work for them if I leave for overseas.  So if I stay, should I run for office?

Additionally, if Trump is elected, and we have a subsequent brain drain, who will be left to stand up for those targeted by Trump and his followers?  Would I be abandoning them by emigrating?

Your Thoughts?

What do you think?  If Trump becomes president, is leaving the US an act of cowardice, or is it the act of someone who wants a better life for his family?

Thanks for reading.

Lowlights of a Congressional Hearing on the Refugee Crisis

On November 4, the House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats held a hearing titled, “Challenge to Europe: The Growing Refugee Crisis.”  The full hearing is below (it begins roughly 59 minutes into the video).

Going into it I thought I would hear members of the committee talk about how the U.S. could cooperate with our European allies to alleviate their burden and what we would do to address the crisis.  Instead, I heard Congressmen resort to fearmongering and partisanship.

In his opening statement, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), said that if the flow of refugees went unchecked, “it will change the fundamental nature of European countries.”  He went on to add that as a result of the influx of refugees, “what we are witnessing is the destruction of Western Civilization.”  After that he focused on violence and extremism, but at no point did he discuss what the United States was doing to help, nor did he offer possible solutions to the crisis.  For Rohrabacher, the refugee crisis is not a humanitarian issue; instead, it is about preserving Western culture and stemming the flow of the barbarian hordes.

His colleague, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), began his statement by pointing out that not all of the refugees are from Syria and that some may have “other motives as well.”  The problem with this line of thinking is that a refugee, no matter where they are from, is still a refugee and deserves humanitarian assistance.  The U.S. cannot say that only refugees from certain countries deserve our help.  Additionally, the scare tactic that they could be coming with sinister intentions is unfounded and quite frankly, ridiculous.

Rep. Poe also mentioned that Hungary, which has built a border fence and used tear gas and water cannons on refugees, is only trying to protect its national sovereignty.  He went on to say “the United States, rather than trying to understand the situation in Hungary, even last week the U.S. ambassador dressed down the Hungarians, for what the State Department believed was not the right course in dealing with migrants.  That does nothing to help our relationship with Hungary, a NATO ally.”  First, does Poe really believe the State Department and other American government officials are not trying to understand the situation?  Really?  Second, it is unclear what Poe is referring to in regards to Ambassador Bell, although it is probably her speech from October 28 titled, “We Will Build a Stringer Bridge.”  In the speech, Bell address numerous areas of cooperation with Hungary but also mentions issues of concern, notably corruption, a free civil society, freedom of the press, and the refugee crisis.  Countries that are truly allies should be able to express concern about issues; keeping quiet only exacerbates the problems.

Rep. Rohrabacher also jumped on the Hungary bandwagon, stating that it has been a “tremendous friend and asset to the peace and stability of the world.”  He went on to take a jab at the White House, saying it should stop complaining over every little thing they disagree with.  I’m sorry, but those issues of concern are not “little things.”  For somebody who claims to be “a most forceful spokesman for human rights and democracy around the world,” Rohrabacher’s words seem contradictory.

Rohrabacher continues to praise Hungary and resorts to fearmongering- “Hungary was totally justified in what it is doing to try to stem the flow, and frankly if our European allies are not willing to stem the flow of large numbers of people who are not native to their territory, they will lose their territory.”  Basically, this U.S. congressman just gave his support to the xenophobic far-right throughout Europe.  That’s right, if you don’t keep non-Europeans out, you will lose your country.

The only highlight came during Rep. Albio Sires‘ (D-NJ) opening statement.  In it, he proposed the U.S. should look to the root causes of migration and “for a political solution to the war in Syria.”  Rep. Sires went on to say that the world looks to the U.S. “to lead when it comes to the refugee resettlement.”  The problem, of course, is that we are not providing that leadership.  We have fallen far short in resettling refugees from the crisis; 10,000 pales in comparison to the over 1 million in Lebanon and over 2 million in Turkey.  Fortunately, he went on to add that the U.S. “can do much more,” and that we must “provide assistance and increased coordination to our European allies to help them cope with the number of migrants and refugees.”

Besides the close-minded scare tactics and pandering to Hungary exhibited by Reps. Poe and Rohrabacher, the other concern I had about this hearing is that out of the thirteen members of this subcommittee, only five showed up (Reps. Weber and Frankel make appearances during the questioning of the two witnesses).  If the refugee crisis is truly the largest migrant crisis the world has known, as was pointed out during the hearing, then where were the other members?  Wouldn’t we want “all hands on deck” to address this serious issue and from a humanitarian response to help our European allies?  (It should be noted that one member was absent due to a heart attack.)

My fear is that absurd sentiments like those from Reps. Poe and Rohrabacher will win the day and influence policy to the point where the U.S. fails to act and give the necessary assistance so desperately needed.

Thanks for reading.

Arming Teachers: A Response to Donald Trump

In the wake of the mass shooting last week at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, Donald Trump had this to say, “Let me tell you, if you had a couple teachers with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off.”

We’ve heard this argument before, most notably after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.  As a high school teacher, and as a veteran of the U.S. military, I’ve finally had enough of this argument.  Arming teachers is not the solution.

Let’s look at this from a logistical standpoint.  Where do we store the firearms and ammunition?  In our classroom?  In a safe somewhere in the school?  It defeats the purpose of arming teachers only to have them run through the school during a shooting to get the ammunition, thereby leaving their students, and then to have to run back through the school to their classrooms.  Let me tell you, if somebody decided to begin shooting in my school, there is no way I would ever leave my students.  EVER.  For this preposterous proposal to work, both the firearm and ammunition would have to be stored in the teacher’s classroom.  “Hi kids, welcome back to school, it’s going to be a great year!  That?  Oh, that’s just my M16A2 in case of a mass shooting.  Don’t you feel safer now?”

Now that the teacher has both a firearm and the ammunition in the classroom, what’s going to stop students from overpowering the teacher and starting a mass shooting?  To make sure this does not happen, the ammunition would have to be stored in a safe somewhere else in the building, bringing us back to the point I made above.

In addition to the logistics of storage, we also have to discuss training.  We cannot just give teachers firearms and expect them to know what to do in case of emergency; now we need to have marksmanship training and qualification.  Would they have to break it down in a certain amount of time, just like in basic training?  How about cleaning the weapons?  That’s always a fun task with a bore brush and the little pads that leave the strings behind.  Would this be in lieu of professional development?  “No more pedagogy or content for us this year, instead, we’re focusing on Breathe-Relax-Aim-Squeeze.”  When would we go to the firing range- the weekend, after school?  It couldn’t be during the day because, oh that’s right, we’re busy teaching.  Of course, once school is over we have loads of free time on our hands, so this training would be a welcome respite from sitting around with nothing to do.

If arming teachers is not the solution, which it clearly is not, then what is?  More police presence in the schools?  We already have one police liaison at my school, do we need to add more?  If we do, who pays for that?  Since Mr. Trump and his ilk would like to lower taxes, that plan won’t work; therefore, we would have to eliminate teaching positions to bring in more police officers.  Why would we want more teachers, when we could have more police?

Maybe, instead of arming teachers, we should improve school infrastructure to keep students safe.  Build fences around the school at least ten feet tall with razor wire at the top.  After that, construct guard towers to make sure would-be assailants can be spotted before they get in.  Within the school itself, it would be wise to build doors that could be shut and locked (from some sort of central command structure) to limit mobility in case of a mass shooting.  Finally, we could increase police presence to get a ratio of 1 per 4-5 inmates (I mean students).

Since arming teachers and turning schools into prisons are not logical solutions, then what’s left?  Gun control?  That would be absurd.

Thanks for reading.