Trump +346: UN Funding, the American Empire and the Rise of Multipolarity

The Trump administration recently declared it would further cut US payments to the United Nations. This is particularly damaging to the international body as the US pays a significant portion of its budget. American conservatives have long argued that the UN works against American interests and thus they are particularly bitter about the fact that US tax money helps to fund the organisation.

Of course that's a somewhat inaccurate picture and understanding of what the UN is and how its relationship with the Western Establishment works. Liberals will argue (and with some reason) that the UN is a lapdog to American interests. Other Conservatives oppose it on deeper philosophical grounds. Many Evangelicals believe the UN will play an evil part in or is a precursor to some form of future prophesied world government.

In reality, the UN is largely irrelevant. It's a tool that the powers will sometimes use to give justification to their agenda. The General Assembly which changed significantly in the wake of European colonial liquidation will sometimes express Anti-Western sentiments and yet everyone knows the real power is in the Security Council. And the real power in the Security Council is found among the permanent members, the five nations wielding veto power.

China, Russia, the UK, France and the USA have the power to shut down any UN resolution that has teeth. The General Assembly can adopt whatever measures, but they're largely meaningless unless backed up with the threat of force. Unless all the aforementioned nations can agree... the issue is dead as far as the UN is concerned.

At best the US usually hopes for a resolution that generates an abstention from China and Russia. Their non-vote will allow the issue to pass.

The UN also compromises a vast bureaucracy and it provides a forum for discussion and a means of friendly and unfriendly coercion. The US is especially notorious for running around before votes twisting arms and making promises of aid and assistance. The US Establishment views the UN as but one of many tools in the arsenal of US power and though it costs some money, the larger return is worth every penny. In fact they would view it as a cost-cutter, a means of saving money.

Trump has worked diligently to tear apart not only the relationship with the UN but Washington's larger network of trade deals, treaties, agreements and various means of diplomacy. From pulling out of the TPP to his threats regarding NAFTA the US is losing its means of day-to-day governance in the world.

While euphemistically referred to as 'leadership' in academia and the press, this is in reality the bureaucracy of empire.

Here's the danger, despite Trump's declarations that he wants to focus on domestic issues he's quickly learning that it's not so easy. The US has a vast archipelago of military bases across most of the world coupled with a host of business and commercial interests. The American dominated order has been relied upon since the end of World War II as the means of providing stability and security. Trump's withdrawal will not only weaken America's hand but necessarily stir instability. Others will step in to fill the gap and it's already happening. As America's will is being challenged, Washington is compelled to either back up its threats and assert its power... or abandon the field.

Trump and many of those surrounding him do not believe in the Internationalist approach to empire. They strongly believe in American empire and dominance but not through the managerial model which seeks to 'shepherd' and 'lead'. This model is sinister enough and has led to no small amount of murder and bloodshed but it keeps the world's chaos within certain parameters.

Trump has taken GW Bush's unilateralism to a new extreme. He wants America to wield its power through simple coercion. He naively believes this will be more effective and in the end cheaper. Quit signing deals and giving aid packages and just make nations obey out of fear.

The bulk of the nations were motivated by fear under the previous arrangement but when you threw in all the perks (the bread and circuses) the people kept quiet and went along with it. Or as is more often the case, every country always has a ruling or globalist class that benefits from Western trade and is willing to collaborate. The wealth might not trickle down to the streets and shanty towns but the US has always had some local cronies to enforce the policy, and they do very well for themselves.

Trump's doctrine is destroying the basis for these relationships. Apart from weapon's sales, common military goals, remaining agreements that haven't been dismantled and sheer threat... there's little reason for anyone to look to the US... at least for the foreseeable future.

The DNC and other elements of the US Establishment are only half-heartedly opposing his tax plan and are quietly supporting his anti-immigration policies. The DNC is pro-empire and certainly pro-Wall Street. They are full members and supporters of the military-industrial complex. But they're upset because Trump stands to make America weak and in the end his policies will create a crisis.

As a result either the US will have to 'stand up' and back up threats with war... which will cost a lot more money than some aid programmes and packages...

Or, the US will have to 'stand down' and the Trump administration will mark the beginning of American decline and certainly the end of geopolitical unipolarity.

Ironically much of the money designated to 'aid' ends up in the pockets of US corporations. All too often they're the ones who step in and build the dams and bridges, drill the wells, cut the forests and open the mines. Some of the locals will benefit from temporary low-wage jobs and the regional elites get to wet their beaks... but most of the money is recycled back into the Western financial system.

World War II ended what was left of the multi-polar order of 19^th century. It created a new bipolar world centered on Moscow and Washington with most of the power and influence residing in the latter. With the fall of the USSR the world moved into unipolarity, a scenario unknown to post-Babel world history. The realities of the nuclear age and the hyperbolic American arsenal all but put an exclamation point on this new reality. America was not just the superpower but the hyper-power. The question many pro-American strategists have wrestled with is very simple... how to maintain this status quo?

There have been various ideologies and visions and they have been struggling for political mastery since the 1980's. Mind you, they're all pro-empire forces fervently dedicated to the American capitalist order. Regardless of their rhetoric and trappings, they're all essentially Right-wing militarists and nationalists. The only debate is over whether the proper orientation is toward the centre or the far right, whether to pursue unilateral dominance, or to wield power through means of delegation, nuance and diffusion. The latter is slower and costs more, but the bulk of Establishment intellectuals believe it to be a more effective and certainly a sustainable model.

In the end there's little difference other than on a practical level the more radical unilateralist view will certainly collapse quicker and lead to conflagration.

Trump's policies geared toward increasing power are generating weakness and instigating decline. They are a gift to nations like Russia and China, the latter in particular. US withdrawal has allowed Beijing to step up. The collapse of TPP has emboldened to China to aggressively pursue the OBOR (One Belt One Road) agenda. China's economic power is set to grow exponentially and as US influence wanes they will also step in and exercise diplomatic and political influence. China does not seek a unipolar world and never has. However it wishes to continue to undo the Western order of the 19^th century and it would certainly like to end US domination of East Asia. China is set to become to the pre-eminent power in East Asia though it faces serious challenges and regional rivals. It will cross those bridges when the time comes but until the US withdraws its aspirations will always be limited.

The US cannot be defeated militarily. At least not right now. In addition to its nuclear arsenal and its threatening nuclear doctrine, its conventional forces are too powerful for anyone to seriously challenge its might. Beijing knows this and its military plans are limited to defense. Any US victory will be pyrrhic. That's the focus of their military technology and strategic planning. Playing the long game they seek to avoid military conflict and win a war of attrition. They don't want the US to collapse, but fade away... and yet keep paying its debts. They are carefully advancing in every other realm and through every means they can. OBOR represents just such an opportunity. The collapse of the TPP was a cause for celebration in China and now Beijing has moved to exert influence in negotiating various issues with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Will it bear fruit? Probably not, but the Chinese attempt at brokering and leadership signals a decline in US regional influence.

This is where the Establishment would criticise Trump. His policies destroy the many options the US can utilise and in the end leaves Washington but one tool to exert power in Afghanistan and the larger region... the war machine.

This approach has pushed the Korean Crisis to the limit.

There are elements within the United States that support this bellicose approach for ideological reasons. Many of them will also personally benefit from such a policy as the sale of arms and the need for wartime logistical support are for them... a gold mine.

Outside Asia, the United States has weakened its relationship with the EU. This has been accomplished by the dictates and style of Trump but also by the removal of the UK from participation in the EU project. While Britain has not formally withdrawn, its influence is at an end. The US has lost its key agent and means of influence within the European sphere. There's still NATO but it too has its limits and Trump has weakened NATO driving France and Germany to think in different terms about their security and Europe's place on the world stage. While Paris has in recent years turned to a more collaborative relationship with Washington there are signs that France is emboldened and is in the process of embarking on a new policy of neo-imperialism. They are unwilling to abandon their spheres of cultural influence, particularly in West and Central Africa. Out of necessity they shared these spheres with Washington throughout the Cold War and after and yet American withdrawal opens the door for China and other nations to step in. France is unwilling to let this happen and thus they too are stepping up so to speak.

What this means for the people of the region is not entirely clear but every indication points to military escalation or at the very least militarisation and proxy wars.

Recently Egypt's military dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi surprised many by cutting a deal with Moscow who in addition to helping Egypt work on nuclear power will now utilise Egyptian airbases.

This proved stunning as el-Sisi's rise was in general celebrated by Washington and Tel-Aviv. Why the turn to Moscow?

The story hasn't been fully told but there are indications as to why el-Sisi thinks he needs to broaden his horizons. ISIS is on the march in Egypt and Sinai in particular. Egyptian society has been unstable since the 2013 overthrow of Morsi and the suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood. El-Sisi knows his standing is somewhat precarious and he needs a powerful backer. Obama's support was real but not robust. Trump had a very warm meeting with the Egyptian dictator and made much of it and yet his moves indicate that Cairo cannot trust that Washington will back them up.

Additionally the Trump move vis-à-vis Jerusalem indicates that Washington's Middle Eastern policy is set to change. Trump is in the process of further destabilising the region signalling either a new phase of aggression, tremendous stupidity or perhaps something of both.

El-Sisi suddenly feels vulnerable as the various Islamist forces will be both inflamed and emboldened by these moves.

But there's more.

The US appears to playing games when it comes to their ISIS policy. While they talk annihilation, it's clear to many that something else is happening. ISIS fighters continue to mysteriously escape besieged cities like Mosul and Raqqa. Either US military commanders are incompetent or something else is happening.

Both the US and Israel were content to let ISIS run amok in Syria as long as they were fighting Assad. It was only when ISIS began to spread internationally and to take territory in Iraq that they became a real problem. Now that they're reduced to a smaller fighting force that's largely limited to Syria (and the war against Assad) there are accusations, made by the Russians and others that America is giving aid to ISIS. The US is building up its own military resources in Syria having carved out (or conquered) various niches, now effectively fiefs of the US military. In the southeast ISIS is being given haven, reconstituted and reintroduced into the battle. This was part of the original ISIS story and it seems to be entering a new chapter. Additionally, it's not just dissidents and Left-wingers who have noticed that many ISIS operations in Europe are suspicious and more often than not seem to be connected to Western intelligence services.

The War on Terror is a lie and everyone seems to know it except the gullible and heavily propagandised American public. The media continues to provide cover, not only for what's happening with ISIS and the larger Middle East but for the many war crimes the US is participating in. They made so much noise about the Russians in Aleppo but have largely ignored Raqqa and Mosul. The latter city has been all but annihilated and there have been a rash of massacres in the wake of its reconquest.

El-Sisi knows the War on Terror is a farce and he fears Washington's game, especially with someone as deranged as Trump at the helm. The Middle East is already on fire but it could quickly combust and there are indications the US (and its new Saudi allies) are ready and willing to light the fuse.

El-Sisi knows that Israel's actions under Likud and Trump's policies are inflaming the situation and that a new phase for ISIS is just around the corner if not already here. Fine, he's a dictator and he's willing to use his power to crush the dissidents among the populace... but if the US doesn't back him up, where does that leave him?

Will he end up in the ICC? Will he be hung like Saddam Hussein? Killed by a mob like Gaddafi?

He's not waiting to find out. Putin is the only power-player on the stage right now that seems to be serious about fighting ISIS. Truly he is applying what for George Bush was a rhetorical point. He's fighting them outside his border so that he doesn't have to fight them within Russia itself. Syria is the battleground for the moment but as the present phase of the conflict winds down, there's a new chapter on the horizon. El-Sisi wants to make sure the new gameboard doesn't end up being Egypt.

As expected these stories are not making it into the media. They don't fit the narrative and yet it's striking that the American Establishment continues to try and hamstring Trump through the Russia investigation, an ongoing story that continues to implode. Even Anti-Putin Russian dissidents like Masha Gessen have criticised the American media campaign. Western media outlets from CNN to the BBC are losing all credibility in the eyes of the world. They are making fools of themselves but it works because people are disengaged, have short attention spans and are lazy, refusing to follow up stories, dozens of which have been retracted.

In the process of trying to toss out Trump the Western Establishment and the DNC are also attempting to set the stage for a harsh social crackdown as a means to ensure control of future elections and re-shape society in the wake of the Internet. Populism is dangerous but it can also be steered or in other cases fragmented. The McCarthyite campaign against sexual harassment and the focus on identity politics furthers this goal and keeps the poor and working classes from uniting in opposition.

Trump is a fool and a dangerous one at that. Profit and prestige are his bread and butter and he's more than willing to smash and destroy in order to make a buck and further the influence of his family. And yet, many of the things the public finds outrageous are in keeping with the substance of Establishment values. His style is harmful, even disastrous and they would like him gone. It is in the realm of geopolitics that he stands to do the most harm. If Trump is able to finish his term the US government will face an international crisis. They will be forced to expend a massive amount of money (and probably blood) to regain previous status and prestige or Washington will stand down allowing France, Germany, Russia, China and others to rise and carve out their respective spheres.

I do not lament the fall of the American Empire, the nation of blood and lies. But those that would replace it are little better. And the dismantling of the North American Rome may turn ugly. For me, the greatest tragedy is not the crumbling of American power but what all of this is doing to the Church and its testimony both to the West and to the larger world. That to my mind is the real tragedy when I look at Trump and the era of American decline.