Kambiz Foroohar, Bloomberg: UN Braces as Trump’s Detente With Russia Upsets Balance of Power
* Historic alliance between U.S., U.K. and France seen at risk
* Foreign diplomats are said to be ‘flying blind’ with Trump
President Donald Trump’s outreach to Russia is reverberating through the United Nations, where U.S. allies worry that a partnership between Washington and Moscow could undermine a historic balance of power dating to the early days of the Cold War.
For decades, the five veto-wielding members of the 15-nation Security Council have fallen into two camps -- France, the U.K. and the U.S., referred to as the P3, on one side and Russia and China on the other.
Just days into his presidency, Trump is upsetting all that.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Too early to say that the U.S. is entering a period of "detente" with Russia .... but I know that many in the Kremlin are hoping that this will be the case. As for the role of China and Russia in the Security Council .... they are making it very clear that they want the U.S. to join them .... Russia And China Wants The U.S. To Join Them To Split Up The World (January 26, 2017). If such an alliance ever comes to past (which I do not see happening now .... but later .... who knows what the future holds).... the UN will definitely then become a minor payer.
This has some intriguing possibilities. Unfortunately it could lead to some "horse trading" that some may not like and that frankly may unethical. with that said the US is in a dire situation and has few good options.
ReplyDeleteEssentially the UK and France are able to punch above their weight because of an "alliance" with the US. At present, these countries are contributing little to US interests, are costing much, and are frankly undermining US interests. Furthermore if the five permanent members of the UN Security Council were being selected today it seems unlikely that the UK or France would be a permanent member assuming the choice is the 5 most powerful nations. Add to this the dire situation the US is in there is probably little the US can actually do to help the UK or France.
In summary, we are getting little from this, it is costing us much, and there is little we can do for them. As such, jettisoning them might be the way to go. I'm pretty sure they'd have no problem jettisoning us. At a minimum, the nature of the alliance and our commitment needs to be reworked based upon what is realistic and in a manner that serves American national interests.
The article doesn't seem clear how this split would work. I'm assuming the US withdraws its support for Eastern European and former Soviet Republics. Apparently the Russians believed if they withdrew from these countries as part of the negotiations to end cold war I that a NATO or western force would not move into these areas. Whether such an agreement really existed is not known but this would not seem an unreasonable request by Russia as part of the negotiated end to Cold War I. Furthermore should Russia choose to move back into these areas for national security purposes the US looks the other way or at least this would be my assumption.
I'm assuming China gets its claims in the South China Sea . Clearly "made in China" is important to the US but the trade agreements do need to be reworked. Part of getting China to agree to this will probably be to recognize China's claims here.
While most of the talk seems to focus on what the US must do or not do. For example, the US must halt NATO and roll it back, the US must recognize China's claims etc, there are probably some things America will want as well and America's interests need to be respected. Examples would be the Chinese and the Russians have extensive activities and presences in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Panama, and elsewhere in Central and South America that reasonably could be viewed as a major national security threat to America. As part of the agreement, they would agree to withdraw from these areas and not interfere should America need to move in for national security reasons.
Hence we could say the world is being "divided up." Obviously America would be a junior partner in the endeavor. As stated, this may be unethical and some may not like it and perhaps it should not e pursued at all but America has few good options at this point. Perhaps a great place for American leadership to start would be to cool the rhetoric directed at China. We need them to negotiate in good faith. Such rhetoric seems hardly productive toward accomplishing this goal.