State of the Union 2019

                                             

This is the time of year when many pundits like to make predictions for the upcoming year. Shortly after I started the Weekly Bystander, I realized that it was foolish to make predictions. Most predictions are either just wishful thinking, or simply a call for the continuation of the current trend. For example, last year hardly anyone predicted the downturn in the stock market in the last quarter that left market averages in negative territory for 2018. 

Nevertheless, I would like to do some wishful thinking of my own for 2019. Given the fact that Democrats in Congress will obviously be even more obstructionist in the next two years than they have been in the last two, I would like to see the President focus even more on foreign affairs. Now that Democrats control the House of Representatives, I believe that President Trump will have little success in advancing his domestic agenda through Congress.  He will have to follow President Obama’s example and govern by executive order and administrative action.

Internationally, however, he has a freer hand. In his upcoming State of the Union address he could present himself as a champion of world peace and claim that his primary goal in the coming year will be to lessen tension all over the globe. 

 One of the reasons I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 was his stated concern about the danger of nuclear war. I cannot find the exact source but I recall that when he was asked about the greatest issue facing the country, he put the threat of nuclear war at the top of the list. I do not recall whether any other candidate expressed a similar concern. Certainly, it was not a big issue during the 2016 campaign or in the recent 2018 mid-term election. 

Last year we commemorated the hundredth anniversary of the end of World War I, a conflict sparked by the assassination of a leader in central Europe that eventually led to the slaughter of millions. Many even think that the aftermath of WWI led to the rise of totalitarian states with their horrible persecutions of their own people, and ultimately the devastation of the Second World War.

There are many trouble spots in the world where a similar spark could ignite a nuclear exchange that would have unthinkable consequences for the whole world. The President could make the lessening of tensions his major issue in the coming year. Here are some examples.

First, some real collusion with Russia would be a very good idea. Russia does not have to be an enemy of Europe or the United States. It would be really beneficial if Russia was brought into working relationships with Europe and the USA that would be beneficial to all.

If Russia became the primary supplier of oil and natural gas for Europe, it would have little reason to aim intermediate range nuclear missiles at its customers in Europe. It would have every reason to treat its customers well. At the same time, Russia would receive a much needed revenue stream. 

As far as the USA is concerned it would be much better for us if Russia became a wealthy modern economy rather than a backward third world nation with so much of its GDP going to support a massive military. We don’t want to drive Putin’s back to the wall either economically or militarily. If we cut a deal with Russia, we could radically rethink the need for NATO, a military force that the Europeans don’t even want to support. 

The Ukraine remains a simmering issue that could easily burst into flame. The Ukrainians themselves have the most to lose if a spark should ignite a military exchange of any sort. Both sides have much to gain by cutting a deal that would guarantee a Ukraine independent of both NATO and Russia. 

Second, the closing of a fair trade deal with China would not only benefit both sides economically, it might also lead the Chinese government to reconsider and reduce its provocative military build- up in the South China Sea. The last thing anyone wants is some trigger happy pilot on either side buzzing a rival warship.

We no longer have to fear Communist ideology in either Russia or China. It is true that both have authoritarian governments but their leaders seem much less interested in Communism than teachers and students on American colleges and universities.

Korea would also be a good place to cut a deal on behalf of peace. A peace treaty between North and South Korea would finally bring an end to the Korean War that began in 1950. It would be a great first step in reducing the enormous military weaponry already in place on both sides of the demilitarized zone. If all it takes to get North Korea’s leader to dismantle his nuclear program is the removal of American troops from the peninsula, I think it would be worth it. We should let the Korean people decide.

Finally, there is no greater tinder box in the world than the Middle East. American troops have been stationed there for over 16 years. Impossible as it might seem, I do think that deals could be cut there that would involve both Russia and Iran. If you look at a map, you will see that both of them have much more reason to be there than we do. After all, we don’t need the region’s oil anymore.

In his State of the Union address the President could even trump the Democrats by offering sanctuary to all Syrians, especially Christians, who would be left unprotected by our withdrawal. We could easily transport them to the wealthy cities and states in our country that have already offered sanctuary to asylum seekers.

###