Donald Trump

by

Trump Administration: Incompetence and Its Consequences

What does the breach in US security tell us about the Trump Administration.

  1. They are incompetent. Sharing battle plans on a non-approved communication channel, hours before the action is due to take place would probably result in the court martial of a serving officer.
  2. Pete Hegseth’s response was to blame the journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was invited onto the group by national security advisor (?!) Mike Waltz. In a vicious and specious personal attack he characterised Mr Goldberg as a “…deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist…” I guess, at least he could hold on to a secret until it was safe to go public and indeed refrained from leaking information that could have put troops lives at risk. More than could be said for Mr Hegseth.
  3. Mr Hegseth’s response might have been better and shorter on misplaced vitriol if he had just said “Sorry”. He is the man who is putting military personnel in harms way. Those going into battle for their country cannot have been impressed by the cavalier approach to security, nor the unprofessional tone of the conversation revealed in the leaks.
  4. The Trump Administration mean what they say. They do not like Europe indeed they have contempt for it. There actions indicate they are much more in line with the strong men leaders in the world. Those that have least regard for democracy.

Based on everything we have seen so far of the Trump Administration there are certain things we can be sure of.

There will be no ceasefire of any consequence in Gaza or Ukraine. The leaders of Russia and Israel have Trump exactly where they want him, supporting their illegal actions which are causing misery to millions of people and death and maiming to tens of thousands.

Europe cannot gain the confidence of the US. They should stop trying.

In 2029 there will be no peaceful transfer of power. Trump will do anything including a military coup to stay in power.

The only bright spot is the administration’s incompetence and hubris. Business leaders have often come unstuck in politics. They think running a nation is just like running a big company. It is not. Citizens are not employees. They are employers. They decide who should administer their country. In healthy democracies that process is peaceful and full of compromise. In tyrannies, brute force is used to prevent the people from having their say, for example, Turkey. If the tyranny delivers: food; jobs; stability; an improving standard of living; they may be able to sustain themselves for years. If they cannot do that then they often end badly.

The Trump administration is not proving to be very competent. Neither does it seem to be considering the political consequences of some of the actions being taken. Protests are gathering momentum across the country and even republicans who voted for Trump are starting to have doubts.

One positive is that the military are unlikely to feel keen to support a leadership so incompetent in holding its waters on live military actions. This might be crucial in 2029.

Whilst Trump still seems to have total control of the Republican Party, the incompetence of the administration and its random and reckless axing of “big government” may be losing it wider support in the country. If the midterms proved to be a bloodbath for the Republicans, Trumps control over the party may evaporate overnight.

We can only hope.

by

Taxing the World

President Trump’s sword of chaos, in relation to global diplomacy and trade, has been much discussed in recent weeks. But there is another area where he is attempting to impose his “might is right” doctrine which has not got as much coverage.

An area which, arguably, is equally as significant in the long term. This area is global taxation policy. As a topic you might understand why it slips under the radar! Whilst it may not set the pulse racing, nevertheless, a major initiative at the United Nations (UN) relating to this aims to address a whole series of problems with the current mechanism used to structure and manage international taxation. It impacts on relations between and within nation states and involves many billions of $s per annum currently being avoided in tax.

At the beginning of February, this year, negotiations began on the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. (UNFCITC)The only nation to object to the start of the negotiations was the United States who walked out and encouraged delegates from other nations to do the same. No other nations did, which leaves the US isolated and no longer with a voice in the negotiations. Which may prove to have been a mistake.

The UNFCITC is the culmination of a process which started it’s journey in the UN in 2022. It originated in the actions of the The African Group. This is one of the geographical areas that member states of the UN are grouped into to facilitate voting concerning various UN agencies and bodies. The representative from Nigeria proposed a resolution which aimed to shift the responsibility for global taxation policy from the The Organisation for Cooperation and Development (OECD) to a new body at the United Nations.

Why did they want to do this? In essence because the OECD, which was set up in 1961 by a number of predominantly Western European nations does not effectively represent the interest of all the members of the UN. There are criticisms that the membership is really a club of the wealthy whose principal objective is to protect the interests of its members. Not to establish a just and fair framework of international taxation. The members are overwhelmingly European states, white state, and many with a history of colonialism. There are no African members of the OECD. It is argued that the rules it established and maintains for international taxation are structured to favour the developed nations over developing ones. There are a variety of ways in which this is done but one of the most significant is the agreement allowing the point at which multinational companies are taxed to be their Head Office which they may locate anywhere.

This means that vast amounts of sales revenues can be generated in developing countries (and developed for that matter) and none of the profit associated with this has to be taxed in that country. This means there is a net outflow of wealth from developing nations mainly to the developed but also a net reduction in the in the total tax that should be paid. This is what prompted the race to the bottom in corporate tax rates as countries vied with one another to attract corporate HQ’s. By reducing its rate of corporation tax Ireland was able to become the preferred location of corporate headquarters of many global companies.

The initial resolution from the African states, supported by the G77, essentially called for the UN to begin a formal process to investigate the benefits that might accrue from having a UN based organisation to set international taxation policy. Whilst many opposed this idea, notably the US and the UK, the political machinations of the voting process meant that the proposal was not formally opposed. Which meant it was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly.

The next step in this story occurs in December 2023. The UN then considered a motion entitled: “Promotion of Inclusive and Effective International Tax Cooperation at the United Nations”. This time the opposition was beginning to break cover. This meant that the motion went to a vote. This produced the following: In Favour 125; Against 48; Abstentions 8. A landslide of General Assembly members in favour of taking forward the proposal from exploration to promotion of shifting global taxation management from the OECD to the UN.

There were a number of wrecking amendments but these were all defeated by substantial majorities.

The next step forward was in November 2024 when a UN Draft Convention on tax was produced. This pretty much contained everything the proposers could have hoped for. The objectives of the draft set out to create a fully inclusive and effective mechanism for international tax cooperation. Further that this was delivered by an organisation operating under the auspices of the UN. It also establishes principles that the international tax system should be aligned with state’s obligations under: international human rights law; sustainable development goals; environmental issues; and above all fairness. There is also a specific commitment to address the abuses related to high-net-worth individuals tax affairs.

The kinds of issue it may address include: Automatic Exchange of Information, where the financial activity of individuals and businesses in a country they are not resident or based is automatically shared with the country in which they are resident or based; Country-by-Country Reporting, forcing businesses to disclose the scale of their activities and thus level of revenue and profit they generate in each country the operate; Tax Havens or Secrecy Jurisdictions currently provide cloaks of anonymity shielding corporate and high net worth individuals from paying the taxes for which they are liable. Requiring countries to support registers of beneficial owners. In other words, registers of the flesh and blood beneficiaries of complex trusts and a variety of other financial instruments.

There are a host of abuses which need to be addressed but above all is the need to establish a truly representative body of all nations, which can ensure that current abuses are addressed but also ensure that in the long term future abuses can be prevented and a genuinely fair taxation system is established. One which does not advantage some nations at the expense of others.

Huge progress has been made on this issue and there seems to be a substantial majority of the UN General Assembly’s members who are in favour of the establishment of a global tax management system under the auspices of a UN body. Much work remains to be done. It is certain that, as the proposal comes closer and closer to being realised the forces opposed to it will focus their efforts more intensely and attempt to bring pressure to bear on the nations that support the proposal.

The achievements to date give reasons to be hopeful. They should be seen as part of a changing international landscape. One in which developing nations are beginning to challenge the international network of global organisations established by the victors of World War Two (WW2). Victors who were or had been imperial powers keen to create institutions and conventions which maintained for them a systemic advantage over former colonies and other developing nations.

This can be seen as another example of the old, post WW2, order breaking down. It is, however, a piece of good news in a depressing global environment. We should cling to it and support it.

The information in this article is taken mainly from blogs produced by the Tax Justice Network. If you are interested in tax justice I strongly recommend the site as a source of information about current tax avoidance practices and wider abuses of the tax system. It also sets out practical ways in which tax systems in individual countries, and globally, can be improved.

by

“Manners Maketh the Man”

In 1487 William Caxton wrote “according to an old proverb he that is not mannered is no man for manners maketh the man.” Now, it is as pointless to berate Donald Trump for the absence of manners as it is to berate Vlad the Impaler for cruelty, or indeed, water for being wet.

The White House press conference, however, went far beyond bad manners. It was a trap set by President Trump and Vice President Vance (VP) to goad, belittle and embarrass President Zelensky, an attempt to present him as an ungrateful recipient of US support whilst simultaneously demanding more for his country.

The Vice President led the attack with an inappropriate and untrue claim that President Valentsky had never thanked the US for their support to date. When he pointed out that he had indeed thanked them many times the VP shifted ground to he hadn’t done it today in the Oval office. Petty? Duplicitous? Inappropriate? I think we can award Vance a hat trick on this.

Putting rhetorical questions to him, making false statements about him and his country, not allowing him to answer, shouting over him, pointing and waging their fingers at him like an outraged school master of yesteryear. Their behaviour was shameful. Even on the grounds of basic common decency and manners there actions plumbed new depths of outrageous behaviour. It will be interesting to see what the bulk of American citizens felt about this extraordinary display by their Commander in Chief, the representative of their country.

As part of a diplomatic process the angry hectoring was something that has not been see since the start of World War Two when the doctrine of “might is right” was last so obviously in evidence. They clearly reveal President Trumps approach to dealing with those who have little or no power. Or indeed, to those who simply have less power than the most powerful country in the world.

But then it seems strange that precisely because of the power disparity between the two nations it was felt necessary to behave in such a loud and aggressive manner. President Roosevelt was often heard to say in relation to diplomacy that you should “speak softly and carry a big stick”. The US has the biggest stick on the planet. Why did they have to behave in that way? Is it simply Trump’s mercurial character or were they frightened of something?

Whatever the answer, there is not excuse for the behaviour.

There are a lot of people around the world trying to excuse, explain or even, simply make sense of what comes out of the Trump White House. It is difficult to do this as often what comes out of his mouth appears to be the first thing that pops into his head, with little engagement with the brain on the way through.

There are, however, some worrying areas of consistency, and the relationship with President Putin is one of those. It seems clear that there was a concerted effort by the Kremlin to support Trump’s first candidacy in 2016 with fake news, social media campaigns. When in office Trump met with Putin in Helsinki and afterwards defended the Russian leader against claims by the US’s own intelligence services that he had authorised such a covert programme of social media support for Trump. Indeed Trump made a habit of private meetings with Putin without advisors present and keeping the translators notes of the meetings during his first term in office.

After a recent discussion with Putin he came out rehearsing Russian talking point about the war in Ukraine including the charge that Ukraine started it? A classic example of newspeak. His actions since culminating in todays suspension of military aid make clear who’s side President Trump is on in the current war. There can be no mistake, he is not an impartial arbiter.

Few things in Trump world are consistent. But all those that are, are inimical to the interests of democracies wherever they are, to equality of any kind, and, without hyperbole, the existential future of the planet.

Europe may have to speak to President Trump with a soft voice, but they need to work furiously to build a big stick. Trump is not an unreliable ally that is confused or does not really understand the implications of his actions. Rather, he displays all the characteristics of an enemy and he is certainly aligning himself with all those that are opposed to liberal democratic values.

If anyone thinks a strategy of, wait until he is gone, is sensible, I think they underestimate where Trump might be taking America. We are less than three months into the new Administration and constitutional conventions have been breached willy nilly, indeed some of the clauses of the Constitution have been challenged, like that guaranteeing American citizenship to anyone born in America.

Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States confirms that, once elected President, “He shall hold his Office during the Term of Four years,…” The Constitution, did not set a limit on the number of terms an individual can hold the office. Amendment 22 however, ratified on 27 February 1951 states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…”

If the current presidency does not collapse under the weight of it own hubris, which is a real possibility, I fear Amendment 22 might be subject to challenge. Indeed it may simply be ignored by an incumbent who has filled all the key posts of government and the judiciary with yes men, including the leadership of the armed forces, which already seems to have started. The doctrine of “might is right ” may be applied at home as well as abroad.

The European political elite seem to be focused on placating Trump. One can only hope this is to buy time for them to establish a credible set of bargaining chips to defend, democratic, liberal and humane values. No one should underestimate the threat he represents to civilised order nor to the future viability of the planet as a place for human beings to thrive. There has never been a more dangerous challenge to the world than a Trump presidency.

There is a saying oft quoted by parents and teachers to their children. “Good manners cost nothing but mean everything.” If Trump ever heard this I am pretty sure he stopped listening as soon as he got to “cost nothing”. Anything that costs nothing must be worthless in Trump’s transactional world. No wonder values pass beneath his radar without causing a flicker.

by

A House Divided.

In 1858 Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at the Illinois Republican State Convention, which had just nominated him as their candidate for the position of Senator. The speech was about the issue of slavery and how it was dividing the States of the Union. His key phrase in the speech was that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The divisive issue of the time was slavery. An appalling institution but one which has a very tangible and clear definition.

At the moment the US is a house divided probably as vehemently as it was in 1858. Three years after that speech America was at war with itself.

The dividing line this time is less tangible. It is those that see MAGA as a theory of the world. One which addresses the reduction of well paid, middle class, jobs to the, “others” within, (or immigrants), and the “others” without, (notably China). A host of other economic and social issues are swept up into this portmanteau of grievance.

What it does effectively is point to genuine failures of the US to protect its citizens from the ravages of a financially driven economic system, one which is, wholly and exclusively focused on achieving the maximum rate of return on investments. A system which had concentrated wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and, with that wealth, power. Power, which has been used to defend existing riches and support their increase, partly by diverting resources from public services which historically played such an important role in redistributing wealth.

Simplistic slogans, like smaller government and lower taxes together with a host of socially repressive measures are presented as the way of MAGA.

At the moment the other side of the debate is poorly articulated and weakly promoted. The Democrats are AWOL, providing little incisive critique, nor the volume of justifiable outrage at the actions of the new President. Actions which are contradictory, but shifting, on the diplomatic level; the US from its Atlanticist position to little more than a mouthpiece for Putin; on the economic level, towards trade wars which will damage the US as much as its targets; and on the social level towards a patriarchy opposed to every form of equality which challenges white male supremacy.

Some of these shifts will be difficult for traditional Republicans. The GOP has, however, been cowed by Trump’s electoral success. Power before principle is an ever present risk in democracies. As his actions become increasingly outrageous one can only hope some may start to raise their heads above the parapet. An immensely brave action given the awesome power a US President wields, particularly one with little regard to the Constitution, much less the conventions which have evolved to ensure it remains fit for the operation of a liberal democracy.

It is quite possible that this Presidency will implode at some point. If it does, however, it will only be after millions of people have suffered and died, at home and abroad because of his megalomaniac certainty. If it does then it will likely not be because of the actions of the political elites. Rather, some more popular revolt, as the damage he inflicts on the US becomes apparent to some of those who voted for him because they thought he would bring positive change.

The MAGA brethren, those who have a millenarian faith in the truth and power of their leader will never change. But many ordinary Republicans may come to regret their vote.

Implosion is one option but there is a far darker one. The Nation made clear their concern about the sacking of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General, Charle Brown Jnr, by Trump, and his replacement with a far less qualified loyalist. The headline “Make No Mistake, This Is Trump’s Worse Move Yet”. The reason they felt this was set out in the sub-heading which concluded, “Prepare for autocracy.”

In four years time the US tradition of a peaceful handover of power will be put to its most severe test in its history.