Tag: Donald Trump

‘Trump Has Proved Himself To Be An Untrustworthy Partner’

By Lokmarg

Joy Ghosh, an entrepreneur and founder of a tech-based initiative, says the US President has lived up to his image of kicking up chaos across the world market. His views:

By doubling duties on Indian goods and threatening about $50 billion worth of exports, Trump is only trying to arm-twist India to manipulate the amount of crude oil India is exporting from Russia. The move is clearly a part of Washington’s so-called penalties on India for buying cheap crude oil and military equipment from Moscow and, in essence, helping Russia sustain its war against Ukraine. Besides India, Brazil is the only nation which is facing such unjustified sanctions, for similar reasons.

The new tariffs on India are going to impact mostly the labour intensive and high-value export sectors such as textile & apparels, gems & jewellery, shrimps, carpets & handicrafts, agri-food, metals & chemicals and machinery. Indeed, it has sent visible shock waves on the markets and our stock index.

Thus while 66% of India’s exports to the US ($60.2 billion) will now face the 50% tariff, about 3.8% of exports ($3.4 billion), primarily auto components will also face a 25% tariff and the remaining 30.2% of exports ($27.6 billion) will continue to enter the US market duty-free.

The levy is not only “prohibitive”, driving many Indian goods out of the US market but it has already stopped the US customers to place new orders. With these tariffs coming in effect, the exports could well start coming down by 20 to 30 per cent from next month as exporters see limited scope for diversifying or moving to other markets or selling in the domestic market.

ALSO READ: Can Donald Trump Stonewall BRICS?

Whatever America is doing today has been a part of its age old diplomatic tradition of arbitrary and transactional dealings. The problem is that President Donald Trump is seen taking two steps forward, three steps back and a few steps to the right and left, spreading chaos and confusion in most parts of the world.

In India’s case, these tariffs will not only wipe out our competitiveness in the largest export market but it will also threaten billions in exports and thousands of jobs. We, as Indian businessmen, are not left with many versatile options to handle this at present – as they are only concentrated on negotiating or diversifying export markets, offering more concessions, etc. It is also rightly said that in an era of using economic power as a weapon, survival is not limited to avoiding confrontation but to finding newer opportunities to counter the threats.

The crux of the entire situation is that if heads of states start acting arbitrarily in international relations, then whether enemies are scared or not, friends definitely start moving away. The way Trump is behaving with countries like India, Brazil and South Africa, Brazil and South Africa are looking at America as a suspect. It is also possible in the coming days that BRICS may strengthen the coordination between the member countries further, decreasing the dependency on dollar in future trades.

While Trump says this is punishment for India’s purchase of discounted oil from Russia, which he argues helps fund Russian president Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine, India is the only major economy to be hit with such “secondary tariffs,” even though China is the largest overall buyer of Moscow’s crude. At the same time, Trump’s tariffs have opened the door for closer India-China ties and other BRICS countries to take major steps to rejuvenate their economies with stronger inter-circle trade bonds.

As told to Rajat Rai

Can Donald Trump Stonewall BRICS?

By Asad Mirza

US President Donald Trump on July 18 mocked the BRICS bloc as a “little group” that is “fading out fast” and reiterated his warning of a 10 percent tariff on countries aligning with it, accusing them of supporting “anti-American policies”.

Trump further took credit for undermining the bloc’s attempts to challenge the global dominance of the US dollar, vowing that he would never let that happen.

Donald Trump, taking firm stance toward global economic competitors, said, “When I heard about this group of six countries in BRICS, I hit them very hard, and if they ever really form in a meaningful way, it will end very quickly.” Though he didn’t name the nations, Trump added, “We can never let anyone play games with the US.” He also stressed the importance of maintaining the US Dollar’s global reserve status. “We are not going to let the Dollar slide… If we lost the status of the Dollar as the world’s reserve currency, it would be like losing a World War,” Trump said.

Trump had targeted Brazil with new trade penalties, announcing a 50 percent tariff on imports beginning in August over what he described as “unfair” trade practices. This follows his earlier July 6 declaration of a 10 percent tariff on any nation aligning with the BRICS group.

BRICS Over the Years

The BRICS group, originally formed in 2009, is a coalition of emerging economies comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (which joined in 2010). In 2024-25, the bloc expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, bringing the total number of member countries to 11.

BRICS was established with the goal of promoting peace, development, and a more balanced global order by strengthening economic cooperation among developing nations. Over the years, it has positioned itself as a counterweight to Western-led institutions like the G7 and the IMF, advocating for a multipolar world and reforms in global governance systems. The bloc also promotes the use of local currencies in trade.

But what defines BRICS today is a subtler, more strategic ambition: to insulate themselves from Washington’s gravitational pull while cooperating to build a joint hi-tech industrial base. There are things that the BRICS get right. Financial global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund are in need of reform; the rich world has failed to honour climate finance promises. The group’s understandable response in the face of inaction is to create its own development bank to promote a form of green industrialisation.

Yet, its size hides its contradictions. The grouping’s call for more inclusive global institutions sounds welcome, but there is a preponderance of autocracies within its own ranks. BRICS is right that international law should be upheld in Middle Eastern conflicts. But it climbs down from its moral pedestal by condemning Ukraine’s strikes on Russian infrastructure – while staying silent on Moscow’s relentless attacks on civilians.

Rio Summit and a new global currency

The BRICS summit in Brazil last week revealed a loose alliance of emerging powers becoming more complex – and perhaps more consequential. But the most important issue on how to replace the dollar globally, was pushed under the carpet, perhaps due to the direct threats by Trump. Though the de-dollarisation rhetoric serves more as a signal of intent than an imminent threat to dollar hegemony.

A Guardian editorial on the latest BRICS summit opined that the, “BRICS nations can still close ranks. Their most technical yet revealing move is to start building financial “plumbing” to bypass western systems. The group is not ditching the dollar – but its members know what exclusion feels like: India had credit denied after the 2008 crash; Iranian banks have been sanctioned since 2012. The bloc’s success will depend not just on ambition, but on the capacity to coordinate across national interests.” This seems rather an uphill task, as individual interests might overcome the greater collective benefit.

Sarang Shidore, Director, Global South Program, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Washington DC, US in a letter to the Financial Times opined that, “The rise of BRICS provides an important multilateral corrective in a world dominated by the US for the past three decades but now transitioning away from both unipolarity and multilateralism. Such a corrective will inevitably come with its own flaws and blind spots. But a stable transition requires it.”

Dr Diego Maiorano, a Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore (NUS), commenting on the new BRICS currency opined that in fact, the drive by BRICS+ to de-dollarise international trade remains at an embryonic stage. Most cross-border transactions among the BRICS members are still settled in US dollars, and attempts to build alternatives (such as the BRICS Cross-Border Payment System) are nascent and far from supplanting established mechanisms like the SWIFT, even though they are useful tools for countries (such as Russia and Iran) hit by sanctions.

Christopher Phillips, Professor of International Relations at Queen Mary University of London, in his article in the Arab News opined that Russia and China were among the most supportive of a new BRICS currency to challenge the dollar in Kazan. But on the eve of the Rio de Janeiro summit, Trump’s threats contributed to reluctance among other BRICS members, especially India, which fears Chinese dominance of the new currency, to advance the proposal. No major headway was made on the issue and the final joint statement even contained references to the global importance of the dollar — perhaps an effort by some to appease Trump.

Overall, the future of BRICS might be shaped less by external threats and more by its ability to reconcile internal contradictions and articulate a coherent vision for global governance. For now, the coalition is more a reflection of the shifting geopolitics of the Global South than a monolithic challenger to the West. The embryonic nature of its de-dollarisation efforts and the moderating influence of India and Brazil suggest that the group’s challenge is more latent than explicit. Nevertheless, as Western institutions continue to grapple with questions of legitimacy and representativeness, the mere existence of BRICS, with all its contradictions, signals a world in flux – and an invitation to rethink the foundations of international order.

(Asad Mirza is a New Delhi-based senior commentator on national, international, defence and strategic affairs, environmental issues, an interfaith practitioner, and a media consultant.)

International Relations Aka Trump

By Jasdev Singh Rai

Every few years a political leader emerges on the world stage who makes a mockery of international norms, tears the text books and pushes the pundits into a maze of guessing games. Donald Trump, the President of United States is such a man. Whereas International Relations (IR) pundits used to write ‘well researched’ predictions on the next move in the world order and their consequences based on IR theories, now punditry seems to be revolving around Trump’s personality. Yet each move of Trump appears to take them by surprise. Like him or not, Trump has done some good things and actions that upset people who prefer a predictable world and of course some bad things that have others wondering what next.

The Israel-Iran conflict is the latest that kept the media guessing and that has confused the ‘experts’. Is he for Israel or is he rabidly against Iran? Is he actually going to stop Iran developing nuclear capacity and hand victory to Netanyahu or is he just toying about. Does he actually mean what he says?

He has also made NATO look comical. All the self-assuming leaders from Europe and Canada clacking around him, agreeing to almost everything he says and resetting their foreign policies to fine tune with Trump’s whims, seems a theatre of confused sycophants at best. It’s a bit like the court of King Vlad Dracula, where a wrong statement could lead to impaling. In today’s world, Trump punishes by upping the tariffs.

What to say next, what to do next, appears to be on the minds of leaders constantly when shaking hands with Trump. The head of NATO even called Trump ‘Daddy’ and won plaudits for it from all around and the press for ‘getting it right’’. Britain’s Starmer looked bewildered but became the envy of the Trump fawning gang because USA had informed him they were going to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites an hour before doing so. This was like a group of giggling jealous teen girls envious of the one who was waved at by the most desire boy in the school!

This is what IR theory has come to in the era of Trump. Is it bad or good? Fact is that most social sciences are constructions rather than real science. The Europeans pretentiously call them science. There is little science in them, in that they can nether be replicated nor really be proven. Once a ‘paradigm’ is constructed, those who study it start applying it and building on its foundation further with some adjustments. This creates a paradigm under which everyone is then obliged to operate.

In international relations, most personnel in Foreign Departments or External Affairs Departments, are trained in established theories of IR and political science. They play the game as the rules have ordained. But then comes along Trump as a spoiler.

Trump has made IR a game that is mostly personality based. Countries around the world are engaging psychologists and mind readers to second guess what Trump might do before meeting him or engaging with US. Engaging with US is a necessity in international relations and emerging world order, whatever that is.

Let us see what happened at Israel-Iran. Israel’s Netanyahu and right wing decided that Iran is the threat they need to eliminate in order to force Iran’s proxy groups such as Hezbollah and Houthis to back off. This wing also wants to crush any hope of ‘independence’ in Gaza and bring the region under its own (Israel) territory. Iran’s nuclear programme is the weapon it fears most to this strategy. So, Israel wants to stop that altogether and ideally change the regime in Iran to its liking.

Iran on the other hand has a different agenda. As a Shia country, it wants to increase its influence in the Islamic world that is largely Sunni. Instead of a direct confrontation with Sunni countries, Iran has used Isael as a constant distraction to justify its foreign policy and nuclear ambition. Having nuclear weapons will give it tremendous clout in the Islamic world. Moreover, having the ‘enemy’ so far away also gives it a diversion to enforce order within the country.

In all this comes Trump. Unlike previous presidents, Trump does not appear to believe in the grinding and ‘boring’ ideas of IR theories where actions are taken within some rules over time through diplomacy. Presidents just chose the one track of IR they prefer. Trump doesn’t care about following unwritten established rules of the game. As far as he is concerned, it’s about winning and moving on.

Trump is considered not to be a fan of Netanyahu. He just wants the issue resolved and then get on with family business with the oil rich states in Middle East. He seems to deal with issues on the simple art of business that he calls deal making.

So, he believes in every form of deception, surprise and inducement to get the prize. He doesn’t care what he says today and then say something opposite tomorrow. If people think they can decipher policy from his statements, they live in a past world of predictability in politics and IR.

With Iran-Israel, Trump appears to want the problem diffused, not to annoy his pals in Saudi Arabia and UAE, keep the American Jewish lobby happy, not become involved in another long ‘foreign war as he had promised his base and come out as hero who averted WW3. This is a tough one, balancing so many conflicting concerns.

He directed the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities but not engage in a war of attrition. Trump immediately claimed mission accomplished as boasted on his own social media that Iran’s nuclear programme had been completely destroyed. A previous American President (Bush) also boasted of mission accomplished in Afghanistan only to regret later. It is unlikely Trump will regret as he doesn’t care whether mission is accomplished or not, as long as his courtiers sing after him, ‘mission accomplished’. Tomorrow is another day.

Trump is portraying himself as the tough man who used America’s most powerful bunker busting arsenal to thwart the Ayatollahs’ cunning plan of keeping the nuclear centrifuges so deep in the ground that no hostile force can get to them. Iran’s scientists and military must have calculated how deep a bunker busting bomb can go and thus dig deeper than its reach. It seems the calculations were not so correct. The bombs went deep enough.

Netanyahu is happy and able to show off to his colleagues that he can get the most powerful man in the world to do his bidding. The American Jewish lobby is placated. Iran, who was expecting a longer war, is relieved. Trumps Middle East friends are also satisfied that they don’t have to bankroll another Islam verses west conflict. Trump’s base reluctantly endorsed it as masterstroke for ‘thumping’ the enemy but not losing any American lives or wasting more money.

However, there are two pesky trouble makers in all this. There is the investigative press that has prided itself to bringing ‘facts’ to the world. And there is the evangelic jingoism of western Europeans who still want their beloved ‘world order’ and hegemony inflated and provided by American money and power. Most of them have still to come to terms with Trump dumping the Ukraine cause.

Fact is that the nuclear programme is not completely destroyed. The Europeans are dismayed that there isn’t another ‘war’. They like wars. Wars give some of their leaders a ‘hard man’ stature when they are directly or indirectly involved in wars. Trump does not like wars. By going to NATO summit, forcing them to cough up the money and making them swarm, he has gagged that group. They all said in chorus, ‘great work’ in the bombing and almost all are saying, ‘mission accomplished’ in public even if their intelligence services are reporting otherwise in secret.

The press however is another thing. Iran isn’t going to invite them to come and see. They are dependent on reports by the American intel. So, Trump told his intelligence head and his intel agencies to shut up and repeat after me, ‘mission accomplished’. Dutifully they have fallen in line knowing that in Trump era, heads roll for upsetting the boss and not for telling fibs. Elon Musk found that out the hard way.

Netanyahu has learnt to keep his mouth shut as well. His intel tells him that it is not mission accomplished completely. But he knows he won’t get more help and Trump doesn’t really want a protracted war. Best to bask in his new fame that he (Netanyahu) has got Trump around his finger, although not.

And that is the Trump IR world. Its all about personality now. Him, Netanyahu, the Ayatollah, Putin and others are emerging new architects of IR. Modi has been in this field of personalised IR for some time but still has to go along with advice from his seasoned technocrat, Jaishankar, the foreign minister. The Europeans are having to employ psychoanalysts to navigate the new International Relations dynamics. It also seems the end or at least suspension of punditry and the predictable world order they like to be able to pontificate in.

To the question, what will Trump do in any situation? There is no answer. The sour grapes pundits say he listens to the last man who whispers in his ear. The journalists say its all about his ego. The cynics say it is about the Nobel prize. Trump it seems is a genius who proves them all wrong. The news every morning is head scratching now.

Trump, Tariffs And Free Trade

By Kunal Bose

People heading a government, especially if the country happens to be the United States of America or China or India, are expected to be the master of statecraft. That not only is good for its own people, but the global community also stands to benefit in many ways from such conduct. Unfortunately, the sledge hammer blows that Donald Trump, on his ascending the office of the President is administering on many fronts, including tariffs, immigration and universities of the stature of Harvard and Columbia on specious grounds and harassment of those protesting against the sufferings of Palestinians going to the extent of deportation are unnerving for the rest of the world. But in his first term as President and also during his last election campaign, Trump did drop many hints of the many unconventional moves he would be making. This article discusses the likely fallout of his pursuit of reciprocal tariffs, amounting to protection, militating against the basic principles of capitalism.

Leading economist and professor emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru University Prabhat Patnaik has likened the weaponization of tariffs by the US President Donald Trump to beggar-thy-neighbour policy for naked aggrandisement of his country’s business and commerce. Rarely used by major countries, the policy is tantamount to building protectionist walls mainly through unreasonably high tariffs (remember India is still to live down the image of a ‘tariff king’ despite the process of lowering of import duties began following pathbreaking 1991 reforms), import quotas and subsidisation of exports. Giving protection to domestic industry overtly and covertly as China is widely accused of doing militates against the principles of free trade. It also is an antithesis of what all the World Trade Organisation (WTO) stands for and the spirit of trade negotiations among countries for improved access to each other’s market.

The US has for long been the citadel of capitalism. It will be recalled that the US was among the key drivers that built WTO in 1995 as successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The twin objectives were to make global trade liberalisation a continuous process and create a robust institutional framework for resolution of trade disputes. Whatever good work WTO may have done in the last 30 years and that definitely includes anti-dumping agreement, which bars member countries to introduce anti-dumping measures arbitrarily is now being undermined by President Trump’s tariff threat and demonisation of the institution by the political right in the US. The anti-WTO tone, it will be recalled was set in Trump’s first term in presidential office. Launching a campaign against the trade organisation, Trump then described the agreement that established WTO as the “single worst trade deal ever made.” He thought WTO proved to be a “disaster for America” since millions of jobs in the US were lost because of that institution. Idee fixe is what Trump is all about. Otherwise, why should he remain so obsessed with tariff-based trade policy even while economists in his country and outside have railed against it. The irony is, the long-time champion of open markets America under President Trump is raising the spectre of protectionism.

Trump perhaps does not subscribe to the theory of comparative advantage first propounded by economist David Ricardo. Simply put, it says let each country stay focussed on products it can make at relatively lower cost and more efficiently than others. That will create condition for countries engaged in trading with each other to become more prosperous. But it was only after the second World War that governments, including the US thought of institutionalising a liberal international trading system with fixed rules. So, we had GATT and then WTO.

The problem with Trump is that he is the President of the world’s largest economy whose imports of goods exceed that of any other country. The rest of the world is left angry and disappointed by President Trump’s rejection of WTO principles of non-discrimination and reciprocity and all his blustering talk of reciprocal tariffs at different levels for different countries. Reciprocal tariffs though have been kept in suspension till July 9, allowing the interlude for nations to be engaged in trade negotiations with the US for tariffs to be settled at acceptable levels. In the meantime, the UK and China have been able to sign tariff deals with the US. However, there are some sticking points holding up a deal with the European Union (EU). Our commerce minister Piyus Goyal remains optimistic about India-US trade deal before reciprocal tariffs set in on July 9.

A US President has the advantage of being counselled on the economy, national security, foreign policy and everything else by the best brains. But the problem arises, when the chief executive of the federal government not only comes to the office with preconceived ideas and remains adamant to see those implemented. Reciprocal tariffs, high barriers to imports all speak of protecting domestic industries, whose competitiveness vis a vis their counterparts in other countries has been blunted for a variety of reasons.

Mainly because of relatively high labour cost, failure to keep in step with technology breakthroughs whose application in the meantime by offshore competitors has resulted in their improved productivity and lowering of cost and promoter apathy to make fresh investment, capacity of industries in the US rust belt, principally steel and aluminium has shrunk over the years.

Naturally, as the US started making less and less steel and aluminium, the two industries grew in stature in China and now they are nursing surplus capacity. The Asian giant producing a lot more of the two metals than can be used domestically is accused of dumping, that is, selling at a discount of production cost and also having the benefit of hidden government subsidy, the products in a number of countries. India is a victim of Chinese aggressive exports like the EU.

At the same time, Chinese steel and aluminium exports to the US last year were not of a volume to cause any genuine concern. In any case, Trump attempt to resurrect American manufacturing per se and metal industries in particular by hiking tariffs is seen as a flawed attempt by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. First, the ones thinking of relocating factories in the US will not find it at all easy to overcome logistical challenges and supply chain hindrances. Debunking the Trump vision of a 1950s style economic revival, Stiglitz says whatever be the new investment in industrial enterprises, job creation will be ‘negligible,’ thanks to dominance of robots in manufacturing.

Yet another Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton has come down hard on Trump administration for its plan to raise funds by way of raising tariffs and cutting government spending to be able to benefit the rich through a $4 trillion tax cut. Describing this kind of policy approach as ‘disgusting,’ Hinton says it amounts to giving the rich tax breaks by penalising the ordinary consumers who will be required to pay more for imported as well as domestically made products. President Trump’s attempt to sell the idea of highly enhanced tariff on the premise that countries such as China and India and also the EU enjoy considerable trade surpluses with the US falls flat since he evades mentioning the moolah that comes to America from the export of services.

Take the case of India which had a trade surplus of $44.4 billion with the US in 2024-25. But when account is taken of American services, including education, software and digital, financial activities and arms trade, the US rakes in a surplus of up to $40 billion in its total trade with India. Similarly, if services are taken into account, then the US-EU trade is balanced. Even while a number of countries are now engaged in trade negotiations with the US, the world is resigned to the fact that Washington will finally have a protection level much higher than in recent memory. Besides hurting American consumers, high tariff threat is creating uncertainty for the global economy as also putting a hold on many investment and development projects.

So, What Is Her Crime?

By Amit Sengupta

Is America under Donald Trump rapidly turning into a Police State dictatorship? Well, all the signs are out there, like an ill, apocalyptic omen, which was waiting to happen.

So what was the crime of Ozturk, 30, a talented Tufts University student? She wrote an opinion piece for the students’ magazine, co-authored with three other students, arguing that that the university should “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide” and “divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel”. This has been the demand of thousands of students, peacefully protesting in America and Europe, since the beginning of the Genocide in Gaza.

So? What is her crime?

Indeed, it has been made out to be crime under the ‘new democracy’ hatched by Trump and his white supremacist, racist, Far-Right team, along with his billionaire buddy, who has a proven fascist past in South Africa, while his recent Nazi salute, celebrating the Trump victory, is the latest testimony.

Rümeysa was detained with no evidence or explanation, by masked men and women, allegedly cops without uniforms, badges or identity cards, in a Boston-area suburb, in front of her shocked neighbourhood, while the footage of this sinister act went viral. A Fulbright PhD scholar, with a legitimate visa, she is being threatened to be packed off to Turkey. Indeed, even her initial whereabouts were not known, not even to her lawyers and relatives.

If this is not like an underworld gang operation with no accountability, what is?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has predictably accused her of supporting Hamas, with no evidence. So, just like being ‘red-under-the-bed’ was the phobia manufactured in the Cold War against dissidents and intellectuals, Hamas is the key word in the Trump-era. Even while top US officials negotiate with Hamas leaders in the comfort zone of Qatar, as Isreal continues to bomb camps, schools and hospitals in Gaza – despite the ceasefire.

There are no charges against Öztürk, her lawyers say. “This is a first step in getting Rümeysa released and back home to Boston so she can continue her studies. But we never should have gotten here in the first place: Rümeysa’s experience is shocking, cruel, and unconstitutional,” Mahsa Khanbabai, one of her attorneys, said. “Criticizing US foreign policy and human rights violations is neither illegal nor grounds for detention… The government must immediately release Rümeysa to continue her studies and rejoin her community.”

With the threat of deportation, in shackles and chains, looming large on campus activists, especially those who are not white, Indian scholar Ranjani Srinivisan, 37, doing her PhD in Columbia University, had a harrowing time — for no rhyme or reason! She had to flee for her life to Canada because her student visa was revoked unceremoniously for being a “terrorist sympathiser”. This was totally out-of-the-blue. She was not even political, it seems!

Talking to the New York Times, a former Fulbright scholar, she said the atmosphere was “dangerous’. “I’m fearful that even the most low-level political speech or just doing what we all do — like shout into the abyss that is social media — can turn into this dystopian nightmare where somebody is calling you a terrorist sympathizer and making you, literally, fear for your life and your safety,” she said.

The case of Mahmoud Khalil is well-known. Again, apparently unknown men entered his home, handcuffed him, and pushed him in a vehicle. His wife pleaded, where are you taking him, why, he has done no crime — but no one was listening. His crime? He was a student activist in Columbia University campaigning against the genocide in Gaza, and seeking an immediate ceasefire. So, he too, becomes a Hamas terrorist.

Said the powerful group, Jewish for Peace, who have orgainised massive protest marches under the banner, ‘March for Palestine’: “Ozturk’s abduction is another signal of the urgency of this moment: we must show the power and strength of our movement to defend student activists, to show the world that we aren’t afraid, and to continue to stand on the right side of history, in opposition to the US and Israeli-funded genocide. We will mobilize in HUGE NUMBERS on April 5 for a national march in Washington. This is not ‘just another demonstration’. This is a decisive moment in our movement for Palestine and in defense of civil liberties.” 

Meanwhile, in a horrifying seven-second clip from Germany, a frail young girl was brutally picked up by an armed cop, and thrown on the ground, even as other women, old and young, came to defend her; they too were not spared, while all these men were big, burly male cops, openly attacking women.

Germany, one believes, claims to be a Western Democracy. So why is the government there so obsessively in love with the Israeli war machine — is it the guilt of the Holocaust, enacted like a nightmare now, unleashed on women protesters seeking justice in Palestine?

Meanwhile, words are being eliminated, banned, removed from public places in the US. So much like the Big Brother project in George Orwell’s 1984. If you remove language, can the mind think? Indeed, if you remove certain words, or burn books, as by the Nazis, does the bitter realism of the present and the past, cease to exist?

As this columnist wrote in the last column here (Donald’ Trumpet Plays Songs of Death), “Counterpunch says that the New York Times ran an article about words that are discouraged at Federal Agencies under the new Trumpist administration. A total of 172 words appeared printed in red: Native American. Women. Black. Immigrants. Disability. Gender. Advocacy. Mental health. And, of course, any phrases or expressions having to do with diversity, equity, and inclusion: diverse backgrounds, diverse communities, diverse groups, diversified, diversify, diversifying, enhancing diversity, increasing diversity, inclusiveness, inclusive leadership… These words are all to be purged from websites, grant proposals, class curricula, without delay.”

Trump has signed another executive order now targeting the prestigious Smithsonian Institution, and the 20 museums and research centres which it runs. As many as 35 million people come to these knowledge centers annually in Washington DC, Virginia and New York City. The order seeks to “eliminate improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology” — including, yes, from the National Zoo in Washington.

Typically, like the Orwellian ‘Reverse Double-Speak’, the order is called: ‘Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History’. It also alleges, hilariously indeed, that the American Women’s History Museum, plans to “recognize men as women”. Pray, how, and why, for God’s sake?

Earlier, another prestigious institution, John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington DC, was censored. Trump declared himself as its chairman. Actors and filmmakers condemned this absurd move. Now you can see how the Moral and Culture Police operates in what they claim to be an advanced capitalist democracy. Inspired by the Moral Police of Iran, is it?

Meanwhile, Columbia University’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, has quit. Trump has targeted it by cancelling $400 million in federal funding; it has been claimed that the university did not do enough to combat ‘anti-semitism’ etc, while peaceful protests and mass encampments in the open rocked the campus, against the killings in Gaza.

Perhaps, taking a cue, Indian film censors have refused to allow the release of a much-acclaimed film, Santosh.  Written and directed by British-Indian filmmaker Sandhya Suri, the film is set in north India and probes the murder of a young Dalit girl. It is also an apparent commentary on the police system.

The film has been praised across international platforms, including at Cannes. It was the UK’s official entry for the Oscars’ international feature category, was nominated for a Bafta for best debut feature, and has found fantastic film reviews in the mainline British Press. Shahana Goswami, playing the lead, has won the best actress award at the Asian film awards show.

Surely, the ‘acche din’ which so gloriously began in the ill-fated land of India in the summer of 2014, seems to be now spreading in the West. So who can now dare to say that India is not the Vishwaguru?

Donald’s Trumpet Plays Songs of Death

By Amit Sengupta

War is Peace.
– 1984, George Orwell

Trump’s trumpet, always cacophonic, unpleasant and jarring, is now turning bloody red. Unpredictably so.

An extreme Right-wing, racist, white supremacist, real-estate capitalist fanatic, he inflicted no war on the world, unlike almost all the presidents of the United States, backed by the arms industry, and their insatiable blood lust, including Barack Obama. Surprisingly, and ironically, he was bestowed the Noble Prize for Peace much too early in  his tenure — and one which he never really deserved. As was proved later.

Now Trump is celebrating the dead in far-away Yemen, a tiny and defiant country, unlike the American stooges spread all over in the Middle East. Women and children, scores of them are dead, and injured. Predictably, they always end up killing innocent, unarmed, defenseless citizens, as Benjamin Netanyahu has done  yet again in Gaza, killing 400 people in one go, yet again claiming that it was Hamas he was targeting with “full force”.

Indeed, as BBC and other media reports have categorically stated, Israel has said multiple times that the Americans were duly informed about the latest bloodbath, following obviously the typical Trumpist declaration that “all hell will break lose”. “We have made incredible achievements up until today,” said a proud Netanyahu. “Together we are changing the face of the Middle East.”

Indeed, they are. A face soaked with human blood.

Since a long time now, it has been transparent like hell that Netanyahu, on a weak wicket inside Israel, and disliked by a huge chunk of people who are not orthodox, blood-thirsty, retrograde fanatics, that he never really wanted a deal on the release of the Israeli hostages in custody of the Hamas. He dilly-dallied, did U-turns, turned his back, promised but retracted, played footsie, but he never really cared a damn for his own people. He knew, that as long as they are trapped somewhere in those dingy and dark tunnels in the ravaged landscape which the Israelis could not enter despite one year of relentless bombing, he can continue to satisfy his blood lust and kill thousands of Palestinians. This was his ‘Mission Ethnic Cleansing’ — so as to finally capture and conquer the mythical holy land — which never really belonged to them, not before the two world wars, and never ever after 1945.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum in Israel have condemned the bombing by air: “The Israeli government chose to give up the hostages.” Israel has violated the ceasefire which was  patronised by the US, post-Trump. Around 59  hostages still remain out there, waiting for freedom. Now, their fate seems to have been sealed.

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Kalil, a pro-Palestine activist from the prestigious Columbia University in the US has been detained only because he was campaigning against the genocide in Gaza. In a viral video, he was handcuffed and taken away, even while his wife, an American citizen, ran after the officers, pleading again and again that at least tell me, where are you taking him, really, you don’t have to do it this way. His detention, apparently with no legal validity, is a clear indication, that the witch-hunt in the new Trump era has finally begun, perhaps this time more brutal and nasty than the witch-hunt during the Cold War against dissenters, peaceful rebels, Leftists, artists, filmmakers and writers.

Something, which is a staple of most dictators, almost of them buddies of Trump — from Vladimir Putin to Victor Orban. A reminder of the relentless narrative ongoing in India since the summer of 2014.

ALSO READ: Trump And The New World Order

Playright Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, written in 1953, uses the historical similarity of the ‘Salem witch-hunts’ in 1692, in the backdrop of alleged witchcraft, to make a sharp comment on the Cold War witch-hunts in the US. Trump, with Elon Musk of the Nazi salute fame, and a dubious past record of inherited fascist ideology in South Africa, is now leading the witch-hunts upfront. Writes Miller in the thin book: “We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!”

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, writes counterpunch in a recent article (Operation Newspeak, March 18, 2025), is a warning about political repression, historical revisionism, mass surveillance, propaganda, censorship, and the State’s total control over truth. In the novel, which is set in an imagined future where war is perpetual, the dictator, Big Brother, and his government, ruled by the Party, dominate the superstate, Oceania…

“Newspeak is the Party’s official language, designed to prevent dissent, obstruct critical thinking, suppress rebellion, and control the perception of reality, which is achieved by eliminating words and manipulating language. “We’re destroying words—scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We’re cutting the language down to the bone,” says Syme, a character who works in the Ministry of Truth and oversees the compilation of the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary… “Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.”

Published in 1949, the book expresses a similar narrative as in Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times, released in February 1936.  The tragic story is that of an industrial worker trapped in the relentless, mechanical motions of a ruthless machine age in an oppressive factory always under surveillance, and who finds solace and hope with a homeless young woman.

Counterpunch says that the New York Times ran an article about words that are discouraged at Federal Agencies under the new Trumpist administration. A total of 172 words appeared printed in red: Native American. Women. Black. Immigrants. Disability. Gender. Advocacy. Mental health. And, of course, any phrases or expressions having to do with diversity, equity, and inclusion: diverse backgrounds, diverse communities, diverse groups, diversified, diversify, diversifying, enhancing diversity, increasing diversity, inclusiveness, inclusive leadership… These words are all to be purged from websites, grant proposals, class curricula, without delay.

Undoubtedly, Trump’s Make America Great Again in in full play in fast forward. An America which perhaps wants the slave trade back, where all Afro-Americans must be shackled and turned into slaves, sold like cattle in open markets, and their women turned into sex slaves. An America where gender justice is abolished, so is women’s rights, the rights of immigrants, now shackled and chained and forcibly deported, students, dissenters, artists, writers and filmmakers, and those of the LGBTQ communities.

A 1984 dystopia stalks America, originally a land of immigrants, while the first white settlers conquered native land by enacting a million genocides of the indigenous communities who lived in their homeland since centuries. A Make America Great Again born in the quagmire of massacres and blood lust, constantly resurrecting its vicious past, here, there and everywhere, now in Yemen and Gaza.

And, yet, we need to hold on, dig in, write graffiti on the walls and inside our soul, notes of dissent, make meaningful films against all odds, like No Other Land, refuse to succumb or compromise, and peacefully continue an infinite struggle, with a thirst which can never be quenched — like the brave people of Palestine.

As Toni Morrison wrote: “There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

Trump And The New World Order

By Jasdev Singh Rai

Around the world, countries, small and large, are recalibrating their approach to international relations and perhaps most importantly to the United States of America. The Zelensky-Trump meeting which descended into confrontation and Zelensky was almost marched out of the White House has entertained but also got politicians and diplomats wondering what next. Europeans are berating somewhat loudly that the ‘rule-based’ world order is dead or dying and that the Trans-Atlantic treaty is breaking apart. They are scuttling around in a huddle to see what remains of the order and how it can be saved.

The real question might be was there really a ‘rule-based order’ or a hegemony that Trump sees as past its date. When power shifts, it can get violent as the Europeans seem to prefer or as Trump seems to want, it can be transitioned without wars.

Much is being said about Trump’s personality and style of rule or rather lack of ‘rules’. What seems to be happening is that Trump may be as much navigating a new order of international relations and global politics as everyone else. Being President of the most powerful country, he is aware that he is helping to set the mode of direction. Trump appears to have realised that staying on the so called ‘rule based’ order is a route to economic decline, unnecessary financial burden to feed a fantasy and further loss of power on the world stage.

The emerging world order in fact started nearly two decades or so ago. The Occident may just not have grasped it, smug in the belief that its dominance in international institutions can continue to ensure hegemony. It is Europe that is still catching up and lashing about.

So, what exactly was the ‘rule-based’ world order? It was a world order instituted by the victors of World War II. It was mostly Britain, France and United States. Russia got a bit of say and China the least. Countries like India were still under colonialism.

International institutions were developed on the lines of Occident’s liberal democracy. Financial institutions, such as World Bank and IMF were set up to help development around the world in favour of the Occident.

ALSO READ: Trump, Tariffs And The Turmoil

The world was redrawn with new borders especially in the colonised world. In Europe too, the defeated were forced to accept new boundaries. Much of the colonised world was divided into administrative units without much regard to ethnic, cultural or sometimes even linguistic and natural habitats of communities. The Occident told the world, ‘this is it now’, we made you the boundaries and you stay as it is. The idea was based on Westphalian system and was neocolonialism manged remotely.

Sovereignty became the new idiom of international order. Organisations such as the United Nations were set on a path to promote liberal democracy and individual rights and sustain the boundaries unless the Occident said otherwise. The gurus or rather gods of this post-war order were Europeans, essentially the British and the French, with the USA pushed to the front to spend most of the money and the forces. The Occident benefited by predictable markets and investment opportunities. The USA was flattered and told it is Pax Americana. The USA benefitted the most financially.

Human Beings have been playing God from time immemorial to create the perfect order and peace. This is another experiment titled ‘rule-based’ order, whatever that means. There were and remain many flaws. Many decolonised countries are not natural borders, either geographically or culturally. They have largely been the result of the administrative convenience of the colonial power and generally configured around the largest or majority tribe.

Post-colonial order hasn’t been peaceful. Each country has tried to forge a ‘nation’ along the European idea of the ideal nation state. Countries seek identity based on language, ideology, culture etc. Perhaps the two most tragic examples are India and Pakistan that are still desperate to have an ‘identity’. Their internal unity is guaranteed by the use of the armed forces against their own people and continuation of colonial repressive laws.

But it is the larger world stage where hegemony was instituted with force. Almost all ancient mythologies around gods are based on the narrative that rules are for mere mortals but when they don’t suit the gods, they rise above them and do what they want. This has been evident since the ‘rule based’ world order started. Coups have taken place where a country tries to escape the orbit. ‘Revolutions’ have been instigated. And the ‘gods’ have broken the very principle of sovereignty a few times by finding excuses to invade countries that they claimed were usurping the ‘rule-based’ order.

The USA largely paid for this with increasing debt, increasing body count and a faltering respect around the world. Much of the world saw US as the bully. While it was triumphant in the beginning, it met challenges in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and a few places in South America. The USA-led Occident saw the counter narrative of Soviet Communism out, but it couldn’t quite engage confrontationally with a non-adversarial China.

China, like India, has been very smart. Much smarter than India. It has avoided any direct confrontations with small and big countries. It has pushed the boundaries of sovereignties and controversially claimed sea and Islands. It is now confronting the Occident’s ‘rule-based order’ of sovereign countries by actively pursuing a policy of trying to swallow Taiwan. China has invested widely and helped many countries around the world to raise their GDP, industry and education though direct loans and investments rather than installing pro-China regimes through coups. While the West was busy fighting bloody wars, China has increased its support around the world, its economy has become second to USA and it hasn’t really lost men in wars except in some skirmishes with India. Under China’s quiet rise a number of other countries have started to move away from the so called Occidental world order. A new currency system is beginning to compete with the dollar, led by BRICS.

It seems Trump and his advisors have understood the world has changed. Trump also realises that the old way of maintaining hegemony through imposing a so called ‘rule-based’ order isn’t getting anywhere. There have been three wars in the last twenty years. The USA has come out worse in them. There was Iraq, there was Afghanistan and now there is Ukraine.

Trump is realigning the USA to the emerging real world balance of power. There are new giants now. Boundaries are going to be redrawn as they do every few decades or centuries. Europe is clinging on to a period of hegemony that is whittling away under their feet. Ukraine is part of the waning history of the Occidental order.

Trump’s message to Europe is clear. The world is changing and will exact ever increasing financial layout and human sacrifice for those trying to sustain the Occidental hegemonic order. Trump’s America isn’t interested in maintaining something that will eventually give way. He is saying to Europe, if you want to continue with your dream, you pay for it and you send your armies, we are no longer going to be used for your indulgences.

It is that simple. There is nothing more mysterious or unpredictable to him. It only appears unpredictable because America under him is no longer following the post-war script written and crafted by Europeans. Europeans have been left standing with their ‘rule-based’ hegemony in tatters. Ukraine that put itself as the last frontier was in a way the last stand of Pax Occidentadalis. Sensing change the USA has dumped the ‘rule-based’ order, distanced itself and is seeking new lands to expand into. Whether the transition is peaceful or violent depends on Europe – in disarray currently – and its willingness to let go of its ideological hegemony.

Trump Picks Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes To Head Intelligence Panel

By LokMarg

US President-elect Donald Trump has appointed Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes as Chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

Trump emphasised Nunes’ experience as the former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and his pivotal role in exposing the Russian interference in the 2016 US elections as key qualifications for the role.

Sharing a post on the Truth Social platform, Trump wrote, “I am pleased to announce that I will appoint Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes as Chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which consists of distinguished citizens from outside of the Federal Government.”

“While continuing his leadership of Trump Media & Technology Group, Devin will draw on his experience as former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and his key role in exposing the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, to provide me with independent assessments of the effectiveness and propriety of the US Intelligence Community’s activities. Congratulations Devin,” the post added.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/113652759052067639

Born on October 1, 1973 in Tulare, California, his family is of Portuguese descent, having emigrated from the Azores to California. Nunes graduated from Tulare Union High School and was the second Member of Congress to attend Tulare Union, following Olympic gold medalist Bob Mathias, who served in the House of Representatives from 1967 to 1975.

After associate’s work at College of the Sequoias, Nunes graduated from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, where he received a bachelor’s degree in agricultural business and a master’s degree in agriculture.

Nunes was first elected to public office as one of California’s youngest community college trustees in state history at the age of 23. As a member of the College of the Sequoias Board from 1996 to 2002, he was an advocate for distance learning and the expansion of programs available to high school students.

In 2001, he was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as California State Director for the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development section. He left this post to run for California’s 21st congressional district and now serves in the 22nd district as a result of redistricting in 2010.

Notably, the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), with its component Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), is an independent element within the Executive Office of the President.

The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board assists the President by providing the President with an independent source of advice on the effectiveness with which the Intelligence Community is meeting the nation’s intelligence needs, and the vigor and insight with which the community plans for the future. The Board has access to all information needed to perform its functions and has direct access to the President.

Donald Trump won a second term as President of the United States after securing 312 electoral votes in the 2024 presidential election, defeating Democratic rival Kamala Harris, who garnered 226 votes. Following his victory, President-elect Donald Trump has moved swiftly with finalising his foreign policy and national security team ahead of his formal inauguration in January 2025. (ANI)

Donald Trump Invites China’s Xi Jinping to Attend His Inauguration

By LokMarg

President-elect Donald Trump has invited Chinese President Xi Jinping to attend his Janurary 20 inauguration, CBS News reported citing sources.

As per the reports, Trump invited Xi in early November, shortly after the election but it was not clear whether Chinese President has accepted the invitation. A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington did not immediately comment.

The president-elect’s team is gearing up to host several world leaders at the Capitol in January.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has a warm relationship with Trump and visited him at Mar-a-Lago this week, is “still considering” whether to attend, as per CBS News.

“World leaders are lining up to meet with President Trump because they know he will soon return to power and restore peace through American strength around the globe,” Trump transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said.

Recently, Trump has threatened to increase tariffs on goods imported from China, adding that the US government has set a deadline of January 19, the eve of Trump’s inauguration, for TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance to sell the social media app or face a ban in the US.

According to CBS News, TikTok is currently fighting the ban in court, having lost a bid to block the ban last week is appealing the case to the Supreme Court.

Notably, in a historic political comeback, Trump won a second term as President of the United States after securing 295 electoral votes in the 2024 presidential election, defeating Democratic rival, Kamala Harris, who garnered 226 votes.

Trump’s return to the White House marks only the second time in US history that a president has served two non-consecutive terms. The first such instance was Grover Cleveland, who served as president in 1884 and 1892. Trump had earlier served as US President from 2016 to 2020. (ANI)

A Guide to the US Elections

A Foreigner’s (Bizarre) Guide to the US Elections

By Sanjoy Narayan

To a foreign observer with little or no skin in the game, the events that are unfolding during the countdown to the US presidential elections can seem absurd, surreal, or apocalyptic, depending on an individual’s sensitivities and perception. Those responses mainly have to do with the dramatis personae in the upcoming fray. Rarely has a political event of such significance–for the US as well as the world–have had politicians of the kind of calibre demonstrated by Donald Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance (the Republican nominees for President and Vice-President) and Kamala Harris and Tim Walz (the Democratic nominees).

Let’s take Trump first, mainly because he is a more known entity than the others and he was the 45th President of the US who served from 2017 to 2021. A real estate agent and reality TV celebrity, Trump’s tenure was marked by controversy and his presidency was sharply polarising.

Yet, he achieved much. He cut taxes for corporations and individuals; he reformed the US criminal justice system, including prisons and sentencing laws; he brokered normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab states; and he presided over low unemployment rates, low inflation, and pre-pandemic stock market gains.

These were sullied by the negatives, though. Trump faced criticism for downplaying the pandemic’s severity and mixed messaging on public health measures; his measures to counter immigration, such as the travel ban and family separation policy at the southern border, significantly reduced both legal and illegal immigration but critics said it was unnecessarily harsh and damaged America’s image as a welcoming nation.

On other issues such as climate change, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement and rolled back environmental regulations. The US’ foreign relationships with traditional allies and international organisations such as NATO got strained as Trump’s policies were more domestic-focused.

Trump was also the first president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives, and he was criticised for his role in the events leading up to the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, the day Congress was set to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. Trump, who was the President then, had been claiming, without evidence, that the election was “stolen” due to widespread fraud, and he held a rally near the White House where he encouraged supporters to march to the Capitol.

As Trump campaigns for the presidency, he faces several court cases, including charges of making hush money payments to an adult film actress; for retaining classified documents at his residence; for interfering in the 2020 elections; and for inciting the Capitol riots.

If that sort of a track record and baggage of legal problems makes Trump look like a particularly bad actor in the dramatis personae in the presidential election fray, let’s take a look at Harris.

Surprisingly, Trump, actually, might look better in comparison to his main rival, Vice-President Harris, the presidential candidate for the Democrats

Harris, who is expected to be confirmed as candidate at her party’s national convention in Chicago (August 19-22), is a late entrant to the race. She was endorsed by incumbent President Joe Biden on July 21 after he withdrew from the race. Biden, 81, was showing distinct signs of cognitive disabilities, most likely related to his advanced age, and his late-stage withdrawal from the contest was prompted by his party’s leaders. The spectacle of his pathetic performance at a televised debate with Trump was the final blow to his ambition of winning a second term.

Harris has a few things going for her. She will be 60 in October and, therefore, is much younger than Trump, who is 78 and, although visibly less infirm than Biden, he shows definite signs that betray age-related debilities. Being a woman of mixed ethnicity (she is of half-Indian and half-Jamaican ancestry), Harris enjoys a cachet of support from some voter groups, particularly Black women.

A lawyer who has been a former California attorney general, and a senator from that state, Harris, who was picked by Biden as his running mate in 2020, also has liberal credentials and is known for her progressive political stances. She is pro-abortion, and an upholder of women’s rights and gender equality; also, she is a big votary of civil rights and equality for all.

However, Harris is an unproven entity. A US Vice-President’s role is of little consequence. Of course, the VP is first in line of succession to the presidency and in the Senate, the upper house of Congress, has the power to cast a tie-breaking vote. Yet, while the President might delegate some responsibilities to his VP, in effect, the role is more symbolic than of consequence.

In public meetings since she was endorsed by Biden, Harris’ speeches and statements seem to be more form than substance. In contrast to Trump who, at rallies, bangs on about how America is doomed on a path to destruction and only he can save the country, Harris is bubbly and effusive with an infectious laughter and a folksy, “I’m one of you” spirit.

American mainstream media is notoriously biased and anti-Trump. In fact, in a practice that might seem quite strange in other countries, leading newspapers and magazines openly endorse a candidate before the elections. For example, since it was founded in 1851, the New York Times has endorsed a candidate for President of the US in every election held during its history. In 2012, it endorsed Barack Obama who won, in 2016, it endorsed Hillary Clinton who lost; in 2020, it endorsed Joe Biden who won; and in 2024, once Harris is officially nominated, it will likely endorse her.

It is not surprising, therefore, that America’s media are exulting over Harris. When Biden showed signs of debility (even before the disastrous debate), few in the media called him out for that. Now, even when Harris backtracks on the views she held in the past, it rarely raises an eyebrow. A green energy champion, Harris has for long been against fracking to extract oil and gas. Recently, however, after Trump pledged that as President he was all for oil drilling to boost the economy, she backtracked on her stance and said she wouldn’t ban fracking. When Trump announced at his rallies that he would abolish tax on tips, a major source of income in the low-salary service industry, Harris soon picked up the cue and began saying the same thing. The media didn’t blink an eye.

Recently, when a well-known media personality, Alex Wagner, who hosts her own show on the MSNBC network, appeared on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, a popular late night talk fixture, and was asked about Harris’ main strength, she said it was the “joy” that Harris embraced. Others in the media have counted among Harris’ strengths her loud and infectious laughter and her ability to dance well! Few have pointed out that her speeches are largely absent of any references to economic or foreign policy. 

Her past stance on subjects such as immigration (she supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and opposes aggressive deportation policies), gun control (she wants tougher laws), and taxation (she wants progressive taxation) are totally at odds with what Trump promises–he wants to deport illegal aliens; favours existing gun laws; and promises to cut taxes.

In fact, Harris and her running mate Walz, a former football coach, appear, at least to an outsiders such as a foreigner, as homebodies more suited to smalltime local politics, as in a city’s mayoral contest, rather than in a race for the presidency of the world’s most powerful nation whose head of state is a position that affects not only the US but the entire globe.

That is why to many the race for America’s presidency could seem bizarrely surreal. There is Trump who is acutely divisive and stands for an America that wants to look inwards, deport millions of immigrants, and pursue a policy that pays little heed to issues such as climate change. On the other side, there is Harris whose lack of experience and down-home jokiness is almost akin to naivete.

There are less than 80 days remaining before the elections and the process is not a simple one. There are two components to the US Presidential elections. First, there is the popular vote.

This is the total number of votes cast by individual citizens across the country. Second, there is the electoral college. Each of the USA’s 50 states has a number of electors based on its population. In most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state receives all of its electoral votes. 

To win the presidency, a candidate needs to secure a majority of electoral votes (at least 270 out of 538), not necessarily the national popular vote. This means it’s possible to win the presidency while losing the national popular vote. In 2020, Biden won the election with 306 electoral votes and 51.3% of the national popular vote, compared to Trump’s 232 electoral votes and 46.9% of the popular vote. But, in 2016 Trump won with 304 of the 538 electoral votes, although the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote by a margin of 2.1%.

In the latest polls, Harris is leading Trump by a couple of percentage points–this is significant because when Biden was still in the race, he trailed Trump in the polls. Yet, as everywhere in the world, the US elections can be dashedly difficult things to predict. No one knows what will eventually happen in November. One thing, though: For those looking at the race from outside, it’s like an American sitcom on Netflix, probably with a much darker touch of comedy.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/