US double standards: isolationist and interventionist


One of the main messages that we have heard from Donald Trump is “make America great again”, it seems that he achieved his goal and now we are repeatedly hearing: “we are making history”. Is it true –despite the laugh from the majority of the people present at UN last 25th Sept.-

Trump marks a new era of unprecedented resolutions and a determinate will for becoming “America First” although, without being inserted in the “global machinery” of international agreements, institutions and Global Goals. However, when a leader doesn’t care of their image and go ahead with revolutionary plans that go against (and sweep away) all done, it’s clear that each demand against him will be harder. Now, his plan must be completed under the risk of being considered irresponsible with the consequence loss of confidence and trust from their very extremist voters.

Mr. Trump moves through to antagonist strategies: isolationism and interventionism. This is totally incompatible for a harmonic goal of becoming resilient against multiple crises, under the main threat of all times: the destruction of the planet by the impact of climate change. In addition, both contradictory strategies make of America a Nation without vision, sense of joint action and awareness of the need to implement innovative global policies.

If it is true that the global community –including migration crisis, international agreements and freedom of religion and culture- represent a threat for America to become “safe again”, its also true that US military presence in Middle East its a burden for Americans and the global security. Indeed, a coherent message based on “America First” doesn’t allow a so contradictory position in which isolationist policies coexists pacifically with an aggressive intervention focus based on air strikes, threats for invasion, strategic military bases, intervention in regional affairs as in Palestine-Israel conflict (moving US Embassy to Jerusalem) or removing foreign aid (Palestine). In fact it has been part of the establishment of American politics for decades. All of the above exposure once more that Trump´s leadership is not able to change current status quo but to reinforce it by new argumentations, image and, in the end, a renovated political marketing that attracts new voters.

The world can –and must- move forward with an isolated US, although not with an interventionist US that boycotts international agreements and institutions, having as a direct and devastating consequence: global community instability.

The prove that the world can stand without US is given by its determinate position on trade. The European Union is willing for dialogue but not under this level of pressure and supremacy. US threat on tariffs for European steel, aluminum or cars, comes also with Europe´s sanctions against American products like motorcycles, pleasure boats, corn and orange juice.

We pretend to live in a free world in which each Nation through democratic procedures may become isolationist, however without undermining other countries by playing a double standards game of isolationist- interventionist.

Boycotting the international community is not the same as adopting an isolationist position. Disagree with current model of globalization doesn’t mean to make an active role of blocking peace processes or attempt to threat initiatives that tend to unite and boost resilient policies by a global and coordinated joint action.

America is not “safe again” because of: more airstrikes in Middle East, undermining Iran nuclear deal -and trade relations in the region –  applying sanctions to nearby countries that buy products from Iran, threats for invasion in Middle East or/and withdrawal from organizations as UNESCO – to go into effect by the end of this year-.

The strategically and opportunist focus of the new Administration represents nothing innovative but a consolidation of decades of a results-driven strategy on becoming “America First” currently within a reshaped image in which there is no commitment to international agreements, no respect to global institutions or just peace goals -not even for climate change action-

This is simply: more of the same.

“Divide to reign” is the new normal for US towards a “reset” of the world, building agreements with no much impact for achieving Global Goals or simulating to hold successful bilateral commitments -as with Russia-. This kind of instable international relations delivers chaos and sense of unsafely also for Americans. Taking into account that US on an unprecedented step, is considered “a no reliable partner” within the majority of citizens from the international community. In this aspect I truly agree that their policies are “making history”.

The consequence is clear: the world stand for new positions in which US its not part of it, exploring alternatives to change current axis of power. The advance of BRICS and China in particularly, approaching needs to Latin-American people or exercising Diplomacy at global level, are clear examples of American loss on global leadership. The contradictory road isolationist-interventionist means walking towards a truly isolationism in which, even bilateral agreements will not be an easy task and may be boycotted by countries that refocused their interests away from America.

Double standards lead to a no profitable isolationism for American people.


One thought on “US double standards: isolationist and interventionist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s