There’s an article in the New York Times entitled “Potential Conflicts Around the Globe for Trump, the Businessman President”.
This article talks about the various business entanglements that are rife in Trump's nascent administration as he wheels and deals during the time he should be spending on transitioning and getting security briefings. The New York Times makes the point that:
[Gov’t officials] worry, too, that in some countries those connections could compromise American efforts to criticize the corrupt intermingling of state power with vast business enterprises controlled by the political elite.
Exactly and further they say:
The globe is dotted with such potential conflicts.
How right they are, except that the word ‘conflict’ has many meanings. There are many countries which Trump is operating in that have ongoing conflicts and political turmoil that generate a concern that the projects that Donald Trump are building could not just represent him, but represent the US, furthermore, Donald Trump’s gold brand of America.
In countries like Turkey who have an Islamic population of around 98% with Donald Trump seeming to persecute Muslims in his home country, could bring about a resentment with a possible target that would be provided to extremists.
The Philippines is no different. They have various groups such as the New People’s Army and the Abu Sayyaf Group to name a few. Seeing the United States throw out the Geneva convention on torture while registering and vilifying Muslims at home would end up being a ready-made recruitment tool for new terrorists.
And then what?
Well I’ll tell you what: We’ll have a conflict of interest creating conflicts within his interests abroad creating actual conflict within those countries which could throw them into conflict.
Whew. The NYT already outlines how his policy could be stymied. Even if he acts mildly in the end towards Muslims domestically to appease and protect his properties will that enrage his supporters? You betcha! If he keeps his promises, these extremists around the Globe will no longer have to obsess about tall buildings in America like the World Trade Center to attack, Trump will have installed his own gleaming ones right in their own back yard.
Not so long ago, with George W. Bush’s administration, the US learned a hard lesson about mixing their motives in war. Do we go to war to free the Iraqi’s and have a singular honorable purpose? OR –do we say “While we’re over here...let’s get our shopping list done” and go ahead and
- Free those Iraqi’s (like why not)
- Secure Oil Interests
- Fulfill ‘no-bid’ contracts and secure private security contracts.
Well, number 3 on that list was why the Bush administration Military ended up in a pitched battle in Fallujah in April of 2004 for the killing of 4 US contractors. They not only had to prosecute a ‘liberation’ but protect business interests and respond to attacks on those interests. All these different goals opened up opportunities for the enemies of our efforts in Iraq to gain a foothold in the confusion they presented.
And this is all ironic. Remember when we (as Democrats) have a hard time selling our ideas because they come with complex plans and have nuance? “We’re fighting for our freedom” They’d cry! Very simple and concise right? Now the shoe is on the other foot: “We’re fighting to protect a hotel put up by the President because it was already attacked by an extremist group so instead of going to fight a war for our freedom we are sending our sons and daughters into danger to secure a hotel because Trump is registering and demeaning people at home, the same kind he is trying to sell hotel services to abroad”
Wow. That does NOT scan well.
As Trump tries to run the country and his business enterprises at the same time, he will not be able to do either effectively. Because, as you might think, no American wants to die protecting his hotels. But then, maybe no-one will want to risk even staying there as time goes by due to the risks. His focus will be so scattered that it creates another conflict inside of his ability to lead. But then maybe that’s why the Emoluments clause is in the constitution in the first place. Americans are about to actually find out why ethics matter, even if they are not always law, the hard way.
