I

n the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the ongoing Israeli retaliation, is there anything different in the U.S. government’s response this time around?

The question must be answered in context. Ever since the 1967 War, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands has actually been a U.S.-Israeli occupation, with the U.S. government not just fully complicit with the occupation but also the principal backer of Israel’s continued settler-colonialism economically, politically, diplomatically, and most importantly, militarily.

Given this context, nothing much has changed in the U.S. response, except it has gotten scarily worse. In any number of ways, the U.S. government has double-downed on its support for the Israeli apartheid regime and pretended that the oppression of the Palestinian people is not even a factor in its calculations.

The first statements out of the White House of President Joe Biden articulated full-throated support for Israel and condemnation of the Hamas attack as “pure unadulterated evil,” casting Hamas not just as a terrorist organization but as a group “whose stated purpose for being is to kill Jews.”

Raising the spectre of antisemitism–as if the armed Palestinian resistance was based purely on ethnic and religious hatred and not on dispossession, occupation, theft of lands, the 16-year long siege of Gaza, and denial of fundamental human rights–was an entirely new twist for a U.S. administration and probably reflective of the Christian Zionist views held by Biden.

From there it only got worse, with the stakes for the Biden administration heightened by the upcoming presidential elections, the killings and capture of U.S. citizens, pressure from the Israel Lobby, the desire to jettison the left-leaning wing of the Democratic Party that increasingly supported Palestinian rights, and the geopolitical calculations that the attack might spoil Biden’s efforts to entice Saudi Arabia into normalizing relations with Israel.

An early diplomatic sign was the deletion of Turkey’s call for a “cease-fire” from a social media message posted by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to X, formerly Twitter. Apparently Blinken thought better of mentioning a cease-fire after posting the tweet. Past U.S. responses to Israel’s bombardments of Gaza in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 usually involved an interregnum before the State Department stepped in to call for a cease-fire or softening of the bombing.

This time around, no such consideration. The deletion signaled a U.S. green light for an all-out attack against Gaza. And indeed, as of this writing, Israel has dropped 6,000 bombs on Gaza’s dense population over a six-day period, almost as much as NATO forces dropped on Afghanistan over an entire year, according to calculations by war crimes investigator Marc Galasco, who was quoted in The Guardian.

According to internal memos obtained by the Huffington Post, the State Department also counseled that the word “de-escalation” was not to be used, and from there the Biden Administration began to actively take part in planning war crimes. It did so with Blinken’s initial call for a “safe corridor” out of Gaza and into Egypt for Gaza’s civilian population, a barely disguised call for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

A number of factors play into the U.S. role, principally the fact that it has a long-standing history of imperialist and colonialist behavior and is itself saturated with a settler-colonial tradition that included a genocide and forced removal of Native Americans. Indeed, the shared values that the U.S. claims with Israel include both the dispossession of the indigenous and establishing apartheid regimes—one of white supremacy and the other Jewish supremacy.

Several other developments also must be accounted for. With presidential elections looming next year, Biden already finds himself trailing in the polls against the likely Republican nominee, Donald Trump, who endeared himself to the Israel Lobby during his first term by recognizing the annexation of the Golan Heights and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Since Biden took office, he hasn’t undone anything Trump did, but he did snub Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by not inviting him to the White House in the first few years of his term and openly criticized Netanyahu’s plan to neuter Israel’s High Court.

Prior to the Hamas attack, Biden sought to make amends by finally inviting Netanyahu to the U.S. capital, likely in the hope of soliciting more funds from the powerful Lobby for his 2024 election campaign. Since the Hamas attack, the mainstream news media highlights the cheek-to-cheek relationship between the two administrations. Meanwhile other Republican Party presidential hopefuls appeal stridently to the Christian Zionist and racist base of their party in the hopes of galvanizing support.

Thus, the following Republicans have issued statements like these: “Level the place,” said Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “I don’t think there’s any way Israel can be expected to coexist or find some diplomatic off-ramp with these savages,” said Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). “…You can’t coexist. They have to be eradicated.” “They’re a territory that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot,” said Republican Rep. Max Miller.

Biden was hopeful of inducing Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, especially after witnessing China’s recent diplomatic moves in the region. During his 2020 presidential campaign Biden promised that Saudi Arabia would be treated as a “pariah” due to its human rights record, but he quickly reversed course once in office, fearful of a spike in oil prices. He must have anticipated that improving relations with both Israel and the Saudis would reap rewards not only from the Lobby but also from the U.S. and the Israeli military-industrial complex, which stand to gain huge profits from the so-called Abraham Accords.

Iran represented yet another geopolitical objective complicated by Hamas. Biden administration officials carefully noted that Iran seemed to be caught by surprise by the Hamas attack. However, Republicans were quick to blame Iran for the attack, claiming that $6 billion due to be freed from the sanctions regime helped enable the Hamas offensive. The Biden administration quickly shut down any release of those funds–now controlled by Qatar–which anyway were earmarked for humanitarian purposes only.

The Hamas attack has likely spoiled any effort to get Iran back into the nuclear accord that Trump exited at the Israel Lobby’s behest. Biden saw Iran’s reentry into the accord as part of his “pivot to Asia,” essentially leaving Middle East concerns behind so that the U.S. could focus primarily on its economic and political rivalry with China.

Finally, the Biden administration’s wholehearted embrace of Israel can also be seen as a way for the Democratic Party establishment to isolate its growing left-wing. Polls show that nearly 50 percent of the party’s base now has more sympathy for the Palestinians than Israel. The Israel Lobby has increasingly grown fearful of losing the bipartisan support it has long enjoyed.

By pummeling that left-wing with the images of Hamas’s massacre of Israeli civilians (itself a mirror image of Israel’s conduct over the last 75 years) and by casting Hamas as simply a terrorist organization, Biden and cohorts whipped most elected officials into line. Only Reps. Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib continued to center Palestinian suffering in the wake of the attack, while 55 Democratic congresspeople urged Israel to obey international law and called for humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The U.S. double standard is alive and well for the moment. But the more it enables the crimes of the apartheid regime, the more it isolates itself from the rest of the world, especially the Global South.

The recent exchange of verbal barbs between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden has sparked a debate across politicians and media experts, many of whom have predicted an inevitable shutdown of the Russia-U.S. relations. But as the tension between the countries escalates, both leaders seem to be stalling for time before the dramatic showdown.

After Biden’s affirmative answer to the question of whether he thought Putin was a killer by the anchor of the morning television program Good Morning America, the Russian president did not keep Washington waiting for feedback and responded in a typical sarcastic and icy fashion, saying, “It takes one to know one” and wishing Biden good health.

Biden’s strong statement was a flashback to the Bill O’Reilly remark when he called Putin a killer during an interview with Donald Trump back in 2017. However, at that time, Trump has said, “There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers.” Thus, Trump pointed not directly at Putin, but rather at the U.S. foreign policy. Yet, Biden, unlike Trump, clearly meant that Washington’s intention is to end any ties with Russia. It was a well-planned gesture aimed at showing the current U.S. administration’s attitude towards the Kremlin.

Obama-level anti-Russia policy

Philip Butler, an American geopolitical journalist and author of the book Putin’s Praetorians, an Amazon bestseller, states, “It’s clear to everyone familiar with geopolitics that the Biden presidency will be a continuation of Obama-level anti-Russia policy. Only the Western order is more desperate now than before.” He adds, “And for the current U.S. establishment, Russia is the foe to be vanquished.”

Indeed, in the eyes of the White House, Russia is a weak link in the global economic chain that poses neither a threat nor real economic and trade competition for the United States. But as Russia still dominates the post-Soviet space, borders with China (the top U.S. economic competitor), and spreads over a huge territory that has grown even further after the annexation of Crimea, Washington seems to have no quick and efficient strategy to extract Moscow – a painful eyesore in the U.S. hegemonic strategy – from the global players list.

In fact, the United States’ top goal today is to overcome China’s economic rise. The focus of Washington’s trade competition has switched from Moscow to Beijing. According to the World Bank, China’s economy amounted to $22.5 trillion in 2019, putting the United States in second place ($20.5 trillion), and the European Union in third ($19.9 trillion). From heavy equipment industry to high-tech innovations, China’s share of the global market is growing faster than that of the United States.

Meanwhile, Russia is aware that it is no longer a rising nation. Its economic institutions have proven to be weak despite the Kremlin’s global ambitions. The only way for it to keep the power balance with the U.S. now is to strengthen its ties with Asia.

Russia’s rapid turn to the East

According to Andrey Rusakov, director of the Center of European and Asian Studies at the Ural State University of Economics in Russia, this will result in Russia’s rapid turn to the East and its further economic and political integration with China. For instance, by 2024, Russia-China trade is set to double and reach $200 billion while at the end of the last year the defense ministers of the two countries extended a ballistic-missile agreement.

It’s true that Moscow remains an enduring military power, which is why it continues to be an important player in the global political arena and a major factor in U.S. strategy. According to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, based on market exchange rates, Russia’s military spending increased to $65 billion in 2019. However, when it comes to comparing defense spending across countries, the method based on the use of purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates claims to be more methodologically robust and objective.

PPP exchange rates show that in 2015-2020 Russia’s military spending ranged annually between $150 billion and $180 billion, overcoming China’s spending. While the U.S. economic leadership is absolute and notwithstanding Moscow’s heavy investments in war-torn zones across the Middle East and North Africa, which are often of strategic interest to the U.S., Russia still manages to significantly counterbalance Washington.

Future scenarios

Trying to imagine the future scenarios of the Putin-Biden diplomatic relations, one can have no expectations that Russia will take a step towards the U.S. There are two main reasons for this. The first is the surging demonization by Washington of every Russian move.

“Vilification of Russia has become a U.S. brand identity that results in sanctions and accusations against Moscow as well as concrete political decisions up to the allocation of funds to fight the ‘Russian threat.’ All this is reminiscent of the Cold War style of the USSR-USA era. Strong confrontation on many international issues like Ukraine, Syria, the Nord Stream as well as Russian internal policy (the Navalny case) is again on the agenda today,” summarizes Rusakov.

In this scenario, the Kremlin’s position will remain uncompromising for as long as possible as Russia keeps stressing its position of non-interference in other countries’ affairs and, thus, will not tolerate such an approach by others.

The second reason why the U.S.-Russia relations are deadlocked lies in Putin’s ego and proud character, which often outweighs common sense. In this regard, Russia should take the example of its Chinese partner and friend Xi Jinping who, despite his ambitions of global economic leadership, gets along with almost all world leaders.

Obviously, the ever-continuing love-hate relationship between Russia and the U.S. will persist. Biden’s hostile tone dispelled any myths of a possible thawing of U.S.-Russia diplomatic ties. However, once relations reach a tipping point, the outcome might be much more dramatic than one can imagine. At the end of the day, the spread of nuclear technology, global warming, and ecology challenges are more important than personal animosity and macho responses.

Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria, said in a webinar that the United States under the Biden administration could deploy more troops to Eastern Syria, that withdrawal of troops is not subject to consideration, and that there will be a continued U.S. military presence in Syria. “There would be a continuation in discussing Syria, but a minor change can be witnessed by this new administration due to increased sanctions on Damascus.

The withdrawal of American troops can hurt the credibility of the U.S.,” he said. Ford went on to say that a slight change can also be seen regarding the refugee border policies as during Trump’s time in office not many refugees were accepted into the U.S., while Iraq and Syria will not be evaluated separately during the Biden presidency.

The webinar was hosted by SETA Washington D.C. on February 26, 2021 and examined the Biden administration’s possible policy towards Syria. Questions such as whether Biden would continue to interfere in Syria like his predecessors Trump and Obama or he would step back were among the topics of discussion.

The recent U.S. attack targeting pro-Iranian Shia militia in Syria was discussed by a number of experts, namely Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria; Dima Moussa, the vice-president of the Syrian National Coalition; and Wael Al-Zayat, the CEO of Emgage Foundation.

Dima Moussa asserted that uncertainty can be seen in Biden’s approach to the Syrian conflict as the Syrian issue is not present on the president’s priority list. She added that as far as the recent U.S. air strike against Syria is concerned, “an inheritance from Trump is seen for now.” She concluded, “We should wait a little bit more.”

Wael Al-Zayat started by noting that it is dangerous to make predictions pertaining to this issue which has been continuing for the last 10 years. “The U.S. again will spend a lot of time discussing the Syrian conflict under Biden’s administration. America’s connection with the SDF [Syrian Democratic Forces] will continue.

Robert Ford said that it would be better if Russia took control of the eastern part of Syria because Russia is closer to Damascus compared to Washington.

There might be a comprehensive talk between the U.S. and Assad’s regime. Dialogue between the U.S. and Turkey related to the Idlib issue would be puzzling. Bilateral dialogue between Turkey and the U.S. is inevitable for the sake of the Syrian victims because they consider both countries as their protectors.”

Robert Ford said that it would be better if Russia took control of the eastern part of Syria because Russia is closer to Damascus compared to Washington; that the KGB (the USSR’s Committee for State Security) and its successor, the Russian intelligence services, have been in close cooperation with Syria; and that the Iran-Syria relations have been closer than those of the U.S. and Syria. He added that that talks between Turkey and the U.S. are necessary.

She added that a solution is not possible by military means but only by political ones. Iran, the EU, and other regional actors should convince Assad to enter negotiations. According to Moussa, an international consensus needs to be reached, Russia needs to be a part of this coordinated effort, and a thorough policy plan should be introduced by Biden.

Al-Zayat clarified that a humanitarian approach should be the Biden administration’s top priority.

Al-Zayat clarified that a humanitarian approach should be the Biden administration’s top priority. The most important issue is how to define Syria’s national interests. Civilian protection is necessary in Syria, he noted, adding that the U.S. should not be spending its budget on Syria. The United States is already facing multiple problems like COVID-19, climate change, social justice, etc. “That’s why Biden should be focusing on eradicating other problems first, and then start thinking about the Syrian conflict,” he said.

Ford expressed his belief that the U.S. should not deploy troops to Syria without a clear-cut mission. He claimed that only Syrians can resolve the conflict because it started between their government and themselves. Ford clarified that he does not think that Turkey, Russia, or Iran can resolve this issue and neither can the U.S. An inclusive national plan by Syrians for Syrians is needed. He claimed that “Joe Biden has an incredible talent. He can manage situations very well, if he wishes…Biden will be deeply involved in the military confrontation in Syria.”

Al-Zayat concluded by going against Ford’s proposal, adding that A Syrian plan does not seem realistic because several sects are present there and they do not want to solve this conflict by themselves. There is no doubt that the conflict emerged between Syrians…; however, they are no longer its major component.

As Joe Biden has not been in power for long, it is difficult to say anything certain regarding his approach to the Syrian conflict. Predictions can be made but uncertainty is bound to remain. However, before taking any step for the resolution of the conflict, including imposing new sanctions or increasing the number of troops, the U.S. must take into account the current problems, the hopes, and the expectations of the Syrian people – both those living inside and outside of Syria.

The Joe Biden administration just kicked the ball out of bounds. I am obviously referring to the White House’s response to the Director of National Intelligence’s (DNI) declassified assessment of the Jamal Khashoggi murder.

The U.S., which has long claimed to advocate for human rights chose advancing its strategic interests at the expense of people and human rights in the Middle East. The story of Jamal Khashoggi is only an example of how the U.S., both under Republicans and Democrats, is can twist the truth and choose the side of de facto rulers.

Let’s face it: The Democrats are extraordinarily skilled at aestheticizing and facilitating the multidimensional exploitation of any issue. This time around, they invented a new category for people believed to engage in serious activities against opponents outside their country’s borders – and called it the Khashoggi sanction.

Seventy-six Saudi nationals have thus been subjected to a visa ban, as members of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) security detail, known as the Rapid Intervention Force, were added to the sanctions list.

When it came to the murder itself, however, the Americans even refrained from a symbolic gesture against MBS, whom they apparently hold responsible for Khashoggi’s slaying. The crown prince will now be treated as a minister of defense.

For the record, hardly anyone was surprised to hear what the U.S. ended up doing. In particular, anyone who said that the Biden administration’s references to democracy and human rights wouldn’t actually hurt American geopolitical interests (in fact, just the opposite), had predicted this outcome.

The recalibration of Washington’s relations with Riyadh was expected to be limited in scope. In the end, the United States addressed the Donald Trump administration’s excesses, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s emphasis on American values and call on Saudi Arabia to stop state-sanctioned assassinations merely amounted to a slap on the wrist.

Some pro-Saudi commentators even interpreted the lack of sanctions as an “acquittal.” Indeed, the crown prince had already assumed “symbolic responsibility” as his country’s de facto ruler.

In other words, Biden did not banish MBS as he once promised. He committed to focusing on the future instead.

U.S. rationale in the case

Geopolitical interests trump everything else. Washington opted to preserve its “strategic partnership” with Riyadh that dates back to the end of World War II. The fact that MBS, the de facto ruler, would replace his father, King Salman, and be around for decades persuaded the Biden administration’s decision.

The crown prince had already eliminated his rivals and critics during the Trump presidency when he received preferential treatment. Right now, there is no alternative to MBS.

Any direct action against the Saudi crown prince would have radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East. A new chapter may have begun in relations between the regional powers – Iran, Israel, Turkey and the kingdom.

The Americans need the Saudis to be on their side in Yemen, Iran and Iraq.

At a time when Washington seeks to reinstate the Iran nuclear deal, alienating Riyadh would have also hurt the interests of Israel and the Gulf states.

The Americans need the Saudis to be on their side in Yemen, Iran and even Iraq. Moreover, any attempt to banish MBS may have resulted in his pursuit of closer relations with China and Russia to abandon the kingdom’s traditional alliance with the U.S.

For Republicans and Democrats alike, the superiority of real interests over values is part of the American way of life.

If necessary, the so-called Khashoggi sanctions will be imposed, possibly more harshly, on countries like China and Russia – despite the Saudi crown prince’s exemption – selectively, without risking American interests, and according to double standards.

The Saudi affairs

Biden spoke with Saudi King Salman last week, just before the release of the CIA’s declassified report on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi to exchange views on Yemen, Iran and human rights. It remains unclear how the new administration will “overhaul” the U.S. policy on Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), whom Biden does not consider his counterpart, has been calling the shots since 2017 due to his father’s advanced age. The suspension of arms sales to Riyadh, Washington’s vocal criticism of Saudi involvement in Yemen, the debate on the potential delisting of the Houthi rebels and MBS being implicated in the Khashoggi report are all precursors to the Biden administration’s review of America’s Saudi policy.

Will the Biden administration, which talks a great deal about human rights, target MBS based on the declassified findings? Any attempt to remove from power or significantly contain MBS would clearly create a new balance of power in the region. It would come as a surprise, however, if Washington were to go beyond a symbolic punishment.

The U.S. and the Middle East

Eventually, I believe the Biden administration will be compelled to deal with Middle Eastern issues, including that of Saudi Arabia, for two reasons. The new administration needs to pay close attention to the U.S. presence in the region, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria, as well as the pressing issues on the ground.

The U.S. airstrikes against Iran-backed militias in Syria were an act of retaliation. Washington had now responded to an earlier attack against its military base in Irbil, Iraq. That “proportionate” military response signals America’s preparedness to use force.

President-Elect Joe Biden has nominated Antony Blinken, a top Democratic foreign policy official and long-time adviser, as his Secretary of State.

Blinken served in senior foreign policy positions with the National Security Council during the Clinton administration and at the State Department during the Obama administration.

In between those assignments, for more than a decade, Blinken served as a key foreign policy adviser to Biden. Blinken served as the Democratic Staff Director of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2002 to 2008, when Biden was alternatively chair and ranking member of the committee.

Before being confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State in 2014 during the Obama administration, Blinken served as Vice President Biden’s National Security Adviser.

It is difficult to discern to what extent Blinken’s public pronouncements on policy issues reflect his personal views and to what extent they serve as faithful barometers of the elected officials he advises.

Since Blinken has never held elected office, it is difficult to discern to what extent his public pronouncements on policy issues reflect his personal views and to what extent they serve as faithful barometers of the elected officials he advises. Most likely, they reflect a combination of the two.

Blinken on Syria

The nearly decade-long civil war in Syria has generated the largest displaced persons crisis in the world, with more than 6.6 million refugees and 6.1 million internally displaced people.

The Assad regime’s brutal response to an initially nonviolent uprising ultimately led to an infinitely more complex situation involving armed militias, transnational terrorist organizations, proxy warfare, and regional and international armed interventions.

The Obama administration “pursued a policy of calculated dithering in Syria, just agonizing over the choices until they no longer existed,” according to Emile Hokayem, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

This muddled policy, which consisted of laying down “red lines” against the use of chemical weapons that were crossed by Assad without consequence, an ineffectual $1 billion program run by the CIA to arm and train Syrian rebels, and direct armed intervention against the Islamic State and other groups, helped the Assad regime reassert control over much of the country and made a mockery of Obama’s early call for regime change.

In 2017, Blinken praised the Trump administration for bombing Syrian airfields in response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians and called for “smart diplomacy” to “move toward a negotiated transition of power,” a goal which he admitted “eluded the Obama administration.”

Earlier this year, Blinken expressed greater remorse for the Obama administration’s “failures” in Syria. “The last administration has to acknowledge that we failed, not for want of trying, but we failed. We failed to prevent a horrific loss of life. We failed to prevent massive displacement of people internally in Syria and, of course, externally as refugees. And it’s something that I will take with me for the rest of my days.”

The Biden campaign took a swipe at the Trump administration for having “fallen short on U.S. policy in Syria.” The same could be said about Biden and Blinken’s roles in policy formulation on Syria during the Obama administration. Biden’s vague campaign pledge to “help shape a political settlement to give more Syrians a voice” portends a similarly fuzzy policy.

Blinken on Turkey 

The ongoing civil war in Syria has had dramatic spillover effects in Turkey, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees–more than 3.6 million registered with temporary protected status.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been a consistent opponent of the Assad regime since the civil war erupted and Turkey has frequently intervened militarily in Syria to protect its interests. Since 2016 it has maintained a military zone of control in northern Syria.

The Trump administration abruptly decided in October 2019 to withdraw US troops from the area and Turkey went on an offensive against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Turkey claims that Kurdish elements in the SDF have ties to the PKK, an organization designated by Turkey, EU and the US as a terrorist organization. Trump’s withdrawal of troops and support for the SDF removed one of the primary points of friction that existed between the US and Turkey over Syria policy during the Obama administration.

Despite this policy difference, Blinken in particular placed great value on US relations with Turkey and strongly backed the country against an attempted coup in July 2016.

Speaking to an annual conference on US-Turkey relations later that year, Blinken condemned the coup attempt as a “deplorable affront to the Turkish people. By taking to the streets where they faced down tanks and evaded helicopters, ordinary citizens came to the defense of their nation and sent a powerful message to the world.”

He stated that “Turkey has no greater friend than the United States. As a long-time ally, the United States remain [sic] steadfast in our support of Turkey’s democratically-elected government and institutions.” Recognizing Turkey as a valuable NATO ally, Blinken acknowledged “our share of disagreements, but we discuss them openly, directly, and truthfully as friends and partners do.”

The U.S. has now chosen its new president: Joe Biden. But despite a united front against Donald Trump, Democrat’s victory was on a razor’s edge. In the U.S., many pessimists claim that Donald Trump lost but Trumpism reigns regardless of the election outcome. Nihan Duran interviewed Human Rights Advocate and the former Vice President of World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) Poka Laenui (Hayden F. Burgess) on the future of the U.S. democracy after the Trump administration, rights of the indigenous people, and finally the root causes of Trumpism as another form of populism in the Western world.

When we compare the 2020 U.S. election with the one in 2016 when Donald Trump was running against Hillary Clinton, back then, people were associating Trump’s victory with a reaction to something called “the establishment.” Yet this issue was never raised during the current election. Why do you think it is so?

It is so because, after four years in the White House, Trump’s finger-pointing at the “Establishment” would be a self-critique. Biden did not make an issue about the “Establishment” because he had much bigger fish to fry, Trump’s absolute failure in the Corona Virus war!

Was the debate on “the establishment” baseless?

Yes, as promoted by Trump. His “draining the swamp” of those establishment crooks during Trump’s administration showed that he brought in the dredges into his administration, directly counteracting his accusations against “the establishment.”

So, what did happen to “the establishment”? Simply evaporated?

It is a matter of whose establishment we are trying to address. Trump’s new Republican establishment will evaporate. The Democratic establishment will assert itself, especially in areas where the Republicans will have abandoned as a result of the loss of the White House, the loss of the House of Representatives in 2018, and the loss of its strength in the Senate, still undetermined the extent of their Senate loss.

There have been efforts to recognize the rights of indigenous people both locally and internationally. This paved the way for what you refer to as decolonization. What makes “Trumpism” so peculiar and worrisome for the future of the U.S. democracy and the rights of indigenous people?

I see Trumpism over the last four years as an aberrational swing of the political pendulum to the extreme right, almost to the extent of the early days of Adolph Hitler, who is also elected to lead his country. In the case of the U.S., the election process was able to hold strong and finally oust Trump. But the swing to the Right has left its mark. The pendulum will now swing to the Left.

How extreme will that swing go is questionable, but the center of that question is the character of Joe Biden and the administration he puts together, as well as the team of Pelosi Schumer, as well as the influence of Kamala Harris.

If you ask whether there will be a greater movement to the decolonization of Hawaii to the extent of Independence, I will say, not immediately. But under the Democratic administrations, there has been a loosening up of the present colonization. In 1979, the formation of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in Hawaii, in 1993 the public confession in the form of the U.S. Apology Resolution, and in 2016, the adoption of Federal Rules for the recognition of a Native Hawaiian nation. All of this falls short of the call for decolonization, but it shows that under Democratic control, this progress has occurred.

Under Trumpism and his “America First” mantra, the rights of indigenous peoples throughout the world and within the current borders of the United States had no room in the Trumpist master plan.

What were the root causes of Trumpism to reign over the last years?

Power! The office of the Presidency, but a fluke of U.S. structure which allows the “electoral college” to select not the most popular but one who managed to collect a majority of the college. Once Trump possessed this power of office, he was able to threaten the weak-kneed Republicans to go along and violate long-established norms in American political life. Those Republicans did so and continued to do so as long as Trump held the power.

How do you connect Trumpism with the overall rise of populism in the Western world?

It is part of the pendulum swing from the threat of non-Western populations and countries. It is a fear of the rise of China especially, as well as Vietnam, India, and North Korea in the East. As Europe looks to the Middle East, they see those countries and peoples whom Europe had reigned over, now bursting forth and not willing to kowtow to European/American influence.

While these events are occurring, the Western world is seeing the decline of their economy, culture, and unity. Trump’s call for “America First” has many pessimists claim sound to the United Kingdom, as well as many other European countries.

Instead of embracing the changing face of the world, the European/American approach is to “circle the wagons” and take a defensive posture against the “barbarians”. They turn to build walls to keep them out, such as Trump’s wall along the U.S. Southern border which never materialized, or his immigration policies which will soon be reversed. European countries have also followed the same approach.

What would embracing the changing world mean? It could mean shared prosperity for all, through the enrichment of peoples’ cultures, religions, economy, and humanity. It could mean denuclearization among a more trusting community of nations, of decolonization allowing all peoples to guide their own futures which would allow for wiser governance and use of resources, and a wider and deeper appreciation of the peoples of the world and all of the treasures they can offer the world.