G. M. Shahidul Alam
If nothing else, Donald J. Trump is an interesting character. You might like him or dislike him, but you would find it hard to ignore him completely. At times he regales you with spontaneous humour, often at press conferences, regardless of the audience or any other participants. These moments usually turn into heavy material tempered with laughter- that often acts as the best medicine.
Lately, Trump has been on a roll, setting one “record” after another in front of a multitude of news hounds, always producing striking soundbites and memorable poses. He is obviously at ease with the lighter questions that can be answered that way (unless they are serious topics that demand an appropriate tone and decorum). Whether hosting guests in his own country or speaking abroad, he addresses journalists and paparazzi in a manner that forces his point home. That can be an unnerving experience for neophyte reporters, unless they are naturally tough nuts to crack (and one can see such reporters in action).
To take an example: Trump, who had a Scottish mother and who built a golf club in that part of the U.K., has already received a proud “Scottish Boy” honour from the University of Aberdeen. But today what he has acquired is a name linked to global fame. His personal leadership has amplified that reputation and could be a valuable asset in the continuing drama of contemporary history. Another factor is his unflinching pursuit of his political mission, particularly with regard to the production element of the “America First” productivity agenda. Whether production figures and trade outcomes turn out as hoped will reflect both Trump’s pragmatic leadership and his audacity of faith.
Chief Executive Officer and Commander-in-Chief allows him to exert much clout on the world stage. After all, the US is a global superpower both militarily as well as financially, and not many countries will want to get on its wrong side. Unless it is Russia, China, North Korea, or its traditional allies with whom Washington has, as is undergoing, difficult relations. Trump might have found a way to appease much of the world as well as uplift his stature as a statesman should the Gaza imbroglio be unraveled. Hardly had his aircraft landed on US soil from UK than he meted out some said some sharp words at the UK administration (who had just bid him goodbye from their airport).
Implicitly rebuking UK on its immigration policies (maybe for allowing in some of the immigrants who joined the Londoners who had booed him during his otherwise pleasant trip). But it would also be a ploy for speaking out soon on a matter that could shock Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his great ally. He declared that Israel will not be allowed to annex Gaza, which has been suffering heavy losses in Palestinian civilian life and property. If Palestine is to become a viable independent state in the near future, it will have paid a heavy price in life and material. And staying on at the UN. A clear demonstration of choice was displayed by the member states when Netanyahu was called up on to make his address.
The TV channels seemed to be fighting each other to bring as many moving images as possible displaying sections upon sections of UN Security Council delegates from the majority of countries getting up and leaving the plenary room in good order, if somewhat sheepishly or self-consciously. In no time the vast cavernous room looked empty, was empty, except for a few delegates who were on the side of Netanyahu getting properly ready to listen to his speech and/or to cast their votes, and other demonstrations of their respective governmental decisions. The behaviour clearly demonstrating the respective governments’ choice in the Security Council may well have spelled the outcome of the conference.
Conferences, at least for a while, during which cooler heads will prevail, and bloody hostilities recede from the Holy Land called Gaza, the protagonists, the big powers, and watchers may work with each other to bring about an amicable, if not totally solidifying, solution in the Holy Land. Maybe even reach amicability. That might be stretching the endeavor a little too far. But no conflict is forever. The situation in that and other regions of this planet will be subject to change, whether created by the people and governments or by happenstance. The one immediate imperative is that peace come to the Holy Land of so many faiths and sufferers.
The writer is an MALD (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) and PhD (Boston University)
