Mid-east peace elusive; China's move

 

Gordon L. Weil

Missing handshake

After almost any peace deal, the representatives of the two sides shake hands. 

When a conflict ends without a deal, it’s either because one side won or because it’s not peace but a truce, there’s no handshake.

In Northern Ireland, the two sides shook hands.  In the Camp David accord between Egypt and Israel, the two sides shook hands.  Even in Vietnam, Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger shook hands, though both regretted it when hostilities continued.

Eisenhower did not shake hands with a German general.  McArthur did not shake hands with the Japanese surrender representatives. 

At Sharm El-Sheik, while Trump basked in the aura of a yet unwon Nobel Peace Prize, Israel’s Netanyahu was absent to avoid being in the same room as Palestinian leaders.  Hamas was absent, perhaps of a split within its own ranks leaving people who know nothing other than terrorism in charge in Gaza.  No handshake.

Since the flash summit, Israel has killed Gazans because they came too close to the IDF and Hamas has refused to disarm.  Israel has slowed food supplies, because Hamas has not turned over all bodies of hostages, though they may be difficult to find.

In the final rush to free the hostages and line up Trump for an instant Nobel Prize, there was no apparent concrete action to put the next steps into motion. That was left for more negotiating though neither side has shown an inclination toward final peace. 

Trump can earn his Prize, but the U.S. must do much more.  Hamas holds on.  An international occupying force is urgently needed, including the still-reluctant Arab nations.  Israel must not limit food deliveries, and they must flow from Egypt, with the U.S. putting real pressure on Israel if necessary.

Meantime, no handshake = no peace.

Who’s worse?

Suppose a major power seeks to enrich itself at the expense of other nations.  It imposes tariffs without a basis for their rates and that probably violate the rules of the World Trade Organization.  It refuses to negotiate, but imposes conditions that will intentionally harm its trading partners.  It does not fully understand the impact of its trade policies on its own people.

Name the country.  China?  U.S.?

The correct answer is both.

The U.S. has also imposed high tariffs on key Canadian exports that have hit the economy there hard.  It wants to destroy an auto agreement with Canada that has existed for decades, since long before any free trade agreements.  Their auto industries are integrated. 

To oblige the U.S. and protect the auto deal, Canada had joined it in imposing its own matching 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.  That move gained Canada nothing with Trump.  Canada is blocked by no real negotiating progress.   Canadian people grow increasingly angry with Trump’s talk of their country becoming the 51st state.

Along comes China.  It offers to remove the reciprocal tariffs it placed on Canadian agricultural exports in response to the EV tariff, if Canada eliminates the EV tariff.  It will buy Canadian oil at market prices when Canada gears up to make such exports.  But Canada worries that China seeks great power equivalence with the U.S., Canada’s traditional ally.

This story is a bit oversimplified, but what is Canada to do?  Which is better for Canada?  With China, it can get some relief from Trump’s trade policy and immediately increase farm exports. Trump avows he wants to dominate the U.S. and Canadian auto markets.  Would Chinese competition improve the outlook for Canada?

It will take time for this testing to end, and perhaps U.S. policy may change.  But Canada won’t support “America First,” opting instead in favor of a newly strong Canada.  Losing the Canadian connection would be a massive unintended consequence of Trump’s trade policy.

Trump versus Marconi

On December 12, 1901, Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi transmitted a message from England to Newfoundland.  It was the first wireless connection between two continents.  It began to shrink the world.

While globalism is rejected by some people, including Trump, Marconi made it inevitable. He sent a technological signal that the earth’s seemingly great distances would come to mean little.  An increase in world commerce would become inevitable as technology quickly followed, developing countless possible links across countries and continents.

“No man is an island,” wrote the British poet John Dunne.  After Marconi, no nation is an island.

The original America First believed that the U.S. could concede Europe to Hitler, because America was protected by a vast ocean.  U-boats off New York City quickly proved that wrong.

Trump does not seek world domination, but to make the U.S. an island of self-sufficient prosperity.   This simply cannot work without a high cost to Americans.  Despite the theories of some short-sighted economists, the bill is just beginning to be paid.

 

Maine Gov. Mills wants Collins' Senate seat

 

Gordon L. Weil

The formal announcement Tuesday by Maine Gov. Janet Mills that she will seek the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Republican Susan Collins deserves attention.

Collins’ skill consists in convincing Maine voters she’s a moderate.  But her support for some of Trump’s actions and appointments look less like her traditional balancing between two sides and more like temporizing.  Her support for Justice Kavanaugh and Secretary Kennedy work against her.  The political situation has become too dire for some voters to accept her usual approach.

Mills is a right of center Democrat in a state that is majority Democratic with a heavy concentration in the southern First C.D. and a smaller GOP preference in the Second C.D.  By her own balancing, she has managed to rile some liberal Democrats.  Whether she has pleased more conservative voters remains to be seen.

Mills is 77 years old.  She would be the oldest first-year senator ever.  Even if candidates soft- peddle the age issue, it is sure to be a factor.  Collins is 72 and Sen. Angus King is 80.  Mills has been endorsed by Sen. Chuck Schumer, which probably means little in Maine, though it tells you something about how he sees his role.

She will face a primary challenge next June from several declared candidates.  Right now, Graham Platner, an oyster farm operator, veteran and local official, seems to be the most serious. He’s raising money and has the strong backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders.  Could Platner be Maine’s Mamdani (though less progressive)?

In some ways, the outcome of a Mills-Platner contest could suggest the direction of the Democrats.  Younger voters may want a change from the usual balancing by the state’s major politicians.  For example, in the two state referendums this fall, Mills opposes GOP efforts to make voting more difficult, and opposes a red flag law. That’s one for each side. 

Maine will be a money magnet.  The referendums are attracting major funding as will the Democratic primaries for Senate and governor.  Of course, the GOP will go all out for Collins, a possible key to their holding their Senate majority.

Collins, even when she starts out with low poll numbers, has succeeded in defeating relatively weak Democratic candidates.  This year, Mills, who has won two state-wide elections for governor and is well-known, is a different kind of challenger with a track record.  Collins has not yet announced that she’s running.

Are the times right for Mills rolling to primary and election wins?  Could be, but watch for the Democratic left and if Collins can sustain her appeal as a moderate.

Nobel sends a message, going beyond 2025 Peace Price

 

Gordon L. Weil

This is not a column about “I told you so” and my forecast that President Trump would not win the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize,

It is a column about “They told you so.”

The Prize Committee announcement of Maria Corina Machado, a Venezuelan, was a brilliant display of meanings and messages aimed at everybody from Trump to all of us.

In selecting Machado, the Nobel Committee sent three messages. 

First, it favors recognizing people who have made personal sacrifices on behalf of the rights of others. 

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for decades.  Andrej Sakharov was sent into internal Russian exile.  Carl von Ossietsky, a German journalist who revealed that the Nazis were breaking arms agreements, died in their prison.  Martin Luther King, Jr.  Maria Corina Machado.

Machado lives in hiding from the Venezuelan regime.  Her political movement saw its national election victory stolen.  She fights on.  The Nobel Committee is not sure she will be in Oslo to receive the award or how she is being protected.

The second message is that Venezuela is under authoritarian rule, which impoverishes its people. In this view, it shares Trump’s outlook and his desire to see a new government there. The Committee made it difficult for Trump to criticize the decision.

The third message is that individual action matters.  National figures have been recognized, but a single person, taking risks and showing courage, can awaken others to action.  The Prize recognizes and encourages individuals who try to change the course of history toward peace.  Many winners were unknown before their selection, which turned a spotlight on their causes.

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee laid out its focus clearly.  It said: “Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence…. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation.”

Without democracy, it argues, there cannot be lasting peace.  The Committee’s concerns apply to the United States today and to other countries increasingly made to feel more comfortable in sliding into autocratic rule, following the American lead.

Trump will most likely hope that a successful deal for the future of Gaza will earn him next year’s Prize, and he is sure to promote himself for it.  The world should be served well if there is such a deal.  But it is premature now to conclude that a deal, even if reached, will be fulfilled by Hamas or Israel.  Much may depend on the role of Arab states.

Trump and his backers compartmentalize, stressing his efforts for peace, while setting aside his hostility toward others.  He has transformed world trade, not through negotiations, but by sheer force.  He has bombed Iran.  He sinks boats on the high seas.  He has created a War Department, imbued with the “warrior ethos.”  He covets other countries.  He “hates” his opponents.

While no Peace Prize winner was a perfect person, their character pervaded their lives and their words.  Trump asks the Nobel Committee to segregate his peacemaking from the rest of his actions.  But this is not the Best Actor at the Oscars, awarded no matter whatever else the star has done.  The winner here must be seen as a laudable model.

What is the Committee’s message for the rest of us?  Individual action on behalf of democracy and peace matters.

If we care about the course of our country, each person needs to decide what they can do as an individual to preserve and promote democracy and peace.  Handwringing and sloganeering are not actions. 

The Nobel Committee said: “Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended….”

The big mistake: one of the strange ways to make policy today

 

Gordon L. Weil

The news overflows with events caused by unrelated and unusual sources: a mistake, harassment, bullying and appeasement, and drinking your own bathwater.

The big mistake

The talks aimed at bringing an end to the Gaza War became possible, because of one man’s mistake.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has held onto power by promising to eliminate Hamas.  Israel has reduced threats from Iran and its proxies, replacing it as the dominant Middle East power.  Arab states, who had lined up with Israel against Iran, are now nervous.

Israel has successfully killed Arab leaders in neighboring countries, crippling Israel’s enemies.  Netanyahu sought to force Hamas to quit by killing its leaders in Qatar, who were invited there to negotiate indirectly with Israel.  His intelligence advisors opposed the plan, but he persisted and launched an attack.  The U.S. was not informed.

President Trump, Israel’s most stalwart backer, was shocked.  That single Netanyahu mistake caused a shift in U.S. policy.  Trump would no longer give Israel unstinting support in its Gaza policy.  He forced Netanyahu to call the Emir of Qatar from the Oval Office and apologize.  Trump pressed Netanyahu to end the Gaza War.

The Israeli leader also saw the U.K., France, Canada and others turn their backs on him.  He could not remain blind to his country’s increasing isolation and the loss of its special place in the world.

External Hamas leaders that Israel tried to kill, not those in Gaza, decided it was time to seek a ceasefire.  That way they could end what was a losing game.

Harassment as a tactic

Trump may believe that he won in 2020.  He discredits the Biden administration, and openly “hates” and seeks revenge against Democrats. If he finds they did anything against his interests, he is out to get them.

It does not matter if they are not guilty of any offense.  By bringing the force of government on them, he tries to sully their reputations and deplete their funds as they defend themselves.  The charges may be inconsequential and lack evidence and amount to little more than harassment.

He replaced experienced prosecutors with his own lawyer to get a flimsy indictment against former FBI Director James Comey.  Comey’s move to get the case tossed may be based on Trump’s open effort at retaliation.  If that succeeds or he is easily acquitted, Trump’s reputation might suffer more than Comey’s.  

Appeasement

Trump’s ego and self-esteem are legendary.  He believes in his own superiority and expects others to agree.  Flattery that might embarrass others nourishes him.

His sudden actions on tariffs have forced other countries to seek relief from losing U.S. markets.  Many have acceded to his demands and others have resorted to lavishing praise on him.

By acting rapidly and forcing other countries to make offers to him to gain relief, he puts “America First,” avoiding true negotiations.  When bullied by him, countries may try appeasement, with the hope of preventing something worse.   History shows that appeasement doesn’t work, though bullying might.

Except maybe not with Canada. Trump demonstrates a profound ignorance and lack of political sensitivity when he speaks of the “51st State.”  Canada plays its own role in North America and the world.  The U.S. and Canada need one another.  But Canadians now move away.  They will not appease, and the U.S. may pay the price.

Appeasement is now occurring in domestic politics.  Nobody favors the government shutdown, but the Democrats will accept Trump’s decision by hammering the loss of medical care by millions.  Surprisingly, Maine’s Sen. Angus King has rejected the Democratic position because he fears that Trump will do something even more harmful during the shutdown.  

Trump frequently backs down when he faces resistance.  He has not yet acted on the threats King feared.  If the threats work, it will partly result from the Democrats’ weakness.

Drinking your own bathwater

Failing to answer Democrats’ oversight questions, Attorney-General Pam Bondi attacked a senator for supporting Trump’s first impeachment.  Her focus is inward-looking, emphasizing Trump’s past grievances. She will not deal with current concerns, instead taking refuge in old complaints.  That’s called drinking your own bathwater.

What’s true of Bondi and other officials, it’s also true of Trump himself.  From the election campaign until his recent remarks to top generals and admirals, he delivers the same speech, loaded with self-praise and loathing for Biden.  It is riddled with factual errors, stated as if they were widely accepted.

His administration aims at enhancing Trump’s reputation, not America’s.  He has failed to note that most of the 2025 Nobel science winners are based at campuses of the University of California.  He wants the Nobel Peace Prize; he rewards his country’s scientific achievements by cutting university budgets.

Why Trump won't win Nobel Peace Prize

Gordon L. Weil

1. The Nobel Peace Prize award will be announced on Friday, October 10.  Nominations closed January 31, 2025 for this year; Trump had been president only 11 days.  The Nobel Committee can add names after that date but with hundreds of nominations made, that’s unlikely.  Who was nominated is not known for 50 years.  The Committee is composed of five Norwegians, as Alfred Nobel had decided.  An idealist, he wanted the awards to go to peacemakers and those who created conditions of peace.

2. Mediators seldom win.  Presidents Carter (Egypt-Israel) and Clinton (Jordan-Israel and Eritrea-Ethiopia) plus Sen. Mitchell (Northern Ireland), all successful mediators, did not win, though some of the parties on each side, settling their conflict, did.  Carter won for his later efforts.  President Theodore Roosevelt won for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War.

3. Warriors don’t win if they use force or power.  Bombing Iran or using promised U.S. tariff cuts to induce agreement is probably not peacemaking.  

4. The U.S. has been the sole vote in the 15-member UN Security Council against decisions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.  Israel has been condemned by the UN and others for its actions there, resulting in the deaths of many Palestinians, aid workers and journalists.  With its veto in support of Israel, the U.S. under Trump has blocked calls for a ceasefire.

5. Trump has relabeled the U.S. Department of Defense as the Department of War.  That is clearly not what Alfred Nobel had in mind.

6. Trump claims to have ended seven wars.  In the case of India-Pakistan, the issues are far from resolved, and India rejects his claim.  In another case, he does not seem to know what countries were involved.  Others, even if true, were relatively minor or not armed conflicts.  Quality, not quantity, counts.

7. Promoting oneself publicly does not work. The Nobel Committee wants to appear independent, not pressured.  By the same token, it is supposed to be insulated from Norwegian politics, which Trump tried to leverage.  Nobel Prizes may have political overtones, but they are usually not the result of public campaigns.

8. Trump may feel that if Obama received one quickly, so should he. The Nobel citation for Obama was based on his being the first American president to endorse disarmament (not because of his race).   To the Committee, the statement was historic.  Like other anticipatory Nobel Prizes, this one did not yield the desired result.  Vietnam turned out so badly so quickly that Kissinger wanted to give his Prize back.

9. The Nobel Committee received many nominations of organizations doing peace-promoting work.  While it may not honor an organization it has already recognized, like the International Committee of the Red Cross (actually, a Swiss organization), it could look to Africa, Asia, Latin America or Oceania to award its seal of approval.  It might avoid picking an aid organization involved in Gaza, unless it wanted to make a strong statement.  If it selected a laudable organization anywhere, the choice could lessen the chance of Trump claiming to be more qualified than another individual who won the Prize.

10. Maybe next year. 

Will Trump's low poll ratings translate into votes?

Gordon L. Weil

Lurking behind almost all political speculation about the Trump regime is whether low poll ratings of him and his performance may translate into the results of the 2026 congressional elections.

If the Trump GOP can hold onto control of both the House and Senate, Trump could be emboldened to extend his efforts to reshape not only the American government but the entire nation.  If the Democrats gain some political leverage, they would have a chance at halting his progress or even reversing some of his changes.

While he is making drastic changes to the way the government operates, aided thus far by a supportive Supreme Court, the best national polls, based on their careful and publicly revealed methods, show that his performance is unpopular, as is each of his major policy moves. 

The likely electorate is about evenly divided between Republicans, Democrats and independents.  While he continues to enjoy strong support among the Trump GOP, the Democrats steadfastly oppose, and a clear majority of independents joins them.  Will these sentiments convert into votes for Democrats and independents or will partisan loyalties prevail at the ballot box in 2026?

The latest NY Times/Siena poll reveals the doubts of some Republicans.  Asked if Trump’s “actions go so far that they are a unique threat to our system of government,” 45 percent of Republicans said they did.  Even 17 percent of Republicans said he is exceeding his lawful powers.  And 26 percent thought he had gone too far in attacking the media.

On possibly the most important question, given Trump’s promises to improve the economy, 42 percent of Republicans said his moves had not made much of a difference to them.  People who have been struggling with prices and wages offered him support in 2024.  Without improvement in their lives, some become possible defectors.

If some of Trump’s key policies were receiving a net positive response, they might outweigh these sentiments.  But they aren’t, possibly leaving him with the hope that his forecast of a thriving economy works next year and impresses voters just in time.

Without a strong and unified Democratic Party, this could mean that the 2026 elections, though focused on Congress, would be a referendum on Trump.  Before the vote, the Democrats could better target their campaign to the concerns of a broad number of voters – the economy, health care, and jobs.  Or Trump could abruptly change course, at least on some issues.

Beyond the possible loss of some Republicans, so disillusioned with Trump that they would vote against him, the other election rebalancing could be a higher turnout than usual for a congressional election year.  The electorate shrank between the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, including many Democrats, so some absentees might come back to vote.

While the 2026 elections could look like a referendum, they will consist of 435 separate House races and 35 Senate contests (including two special elections).  Conventional wisdom is that the party opposing the president usually picks up seats. With only a four-seat margin now, the Trump GOP is trying to gerrymander districts to allow them to surmount the conventional outcome.

Both parties usually win most House districts by large margins, especially when aided by incumbency.  But, in 2024, each won enough seats by a margin of less than five percent to be able to tip the balance in their favor, if they hold their own and pick up a few close races they had lost.

Democrats (and independents) would be likely to focus on GOP seats in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas and Florida.  Those seats could make the difference.

The Senate is different and closer to a referendum, because national issues often arise in statewide races.  Twenty-two Republican seats and only 13 Democratic slots are at stake.

The most vulnerable Senate Republican is Maine’s Susan Collins.  Despite her easy past wins, the Democrats will challenge her Trump support, and she is polling poorly.  Open seats held by the GOP in Iowa, Kentucky and North Carolina will be highly contested.  Perhaps surprisingly, even Texas, Ohio and Alaska could be in play.

While the Democrats could regain House control, they are unlikely to move from their 47 seats (including two independents) in the Senate to the 60 that would give them a veto over Trump, unless he faces a tidal wave of rejection.  But they could set the Senate agenda with only a simple majority, as the GOP now does.

This analysis does not suggest that the Democrats will pick up control of either house, just that it’s possible, depending mainly on Trump.  But he has become more vulnerable since his inauguration.

The campaign may have just begun with the shutdown clash.  We are entering into the season of speculation as more state and local elections, including New York City, build toward next year’s vote. 

Trump faces weak opposition

 

Gordon L. Weil

“This is a deeply divided country.”   That statement has become part of the national mantra. 

The split is between Donald Trump and his loyal Republicans and an ill-formed opposition.   Each side embodies a collection of sentiments and interests that cannot be explained simply in partisan political terms.

The Republicans discovered in 1994 the virtues of party discipline, and they have increasingly set the terms of the national debate about change.  The Democrats have seen their power fade as they coasted, propelled mainly by the dying momentum of post-World War II democratic liberalism.

With Trump as their charismatic leader, his Republican Party has become a strong political force.  It draws on people with a variety of interests, fears and claims.

It includes people who resent that a great nation cannot control its own borders.  Others reject traditional Democratic big-spending policies.  Many want change, making them loyalists of a president who brings change, whatever it may be.

The wealthy support him to obtain tax policies that further enhance their wealth, their growing assets being used by him as a measure of national economic health.  The economy operates free from protective constraints.

Social issues add people seeking to delay and undermine an inevitable shift in national power from traditional white, male control to women, Blacks and other rising groups.  Their tools include gerrymandering and voter suppression.  He inflames personal social and religious beliefs to gain votes by promising to crush alternate views and practices.

Trump has given his backers a window of opportunity.  His administration has a sense of urgency that reflects his desire to seize the moment, before it is lost.  If he can cement in place the changes he is making, it might take the nation decades to change course.   He wants his results, and he wants them now.  He rejects compromise and its proponents.

He maintains his partisan support by offering a combination of rewards for the wealthy and hope for average people.  His MAGA aura may lead some to back him, even against their own interests. 

The Trump GOP leaves behind the traditional Republicans, and emphasizes the individual over the community.  Abandoning tradition, it does not favor weak government, preferring strong, authoritarian power.  

His efforts have not produced favorable results for Trump.  A recent, reliable poll shows that none of his key policies has majority support and that he himself is unpopular.  This may increase his urgent need to produce measurable results.

There’s no organized opposition to the Trump GOP.  The leaderless and confused Democrats offer few positive proposals.  Instead, they continue to rely on the belief that Trump’s political and personal unpopularity will lead his Republicans to defeat themselves, a proven failed concept.    People don’t love Dems just because they don’t like Trump.

The Democrats have failed to mobilize support, because they are poor at communicating their position, and they lack constructive alternatives.     There’s no official party spokesperson.  Too often, when they respond, Democrats rage into democratic abstractions.

The Democrats downplay their traditional agenda in favor of issues, while most important, do not focus on the needs of many people who are struggling now.  They fail to confront creatively the immediate problems affecting many Americans – health care, housing, jobs, purchasing power, equality. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt offered universal policies benefitting people without regard to whether they were northern Blacks or white poor in the racist South.  People shared common problems that demanded common solutions.  The opposition to Trump should recreate that kind of community of interests – a coalition of Democrats, independents and traditional Republicans.

This New Coalition must be bold.  Trump builds support by his bold moves. The coalition message must have broad appeal, prepare to be vigorously and dishonestly opposed, and make its case well and persistently.  To broaden its appeal, it will have to rebalance the issues it emphasizes.

The battle against climate change while ignoring transitional job loss hasn’t worked.  Trade policy has stolen jobs.  Government cannot make vague promises about a brighter future to people worried about their jobs.  It should have a carefully phased policy that creates, say, affordable home building jobs as coal mines close, keeping people continuously employed.

People want universal health insurance, a roof over their heads, jobs, decent pay.  When such government help is reduced to pay for tax cuts, strong, creative and coordinated opposition is needed.   The Democrats often resort to righteous indignation as a response, when they need a specific platform and a voice.

Coalition policies, paid for by the community for the good of the community, contrast with abandoning those who need help.  Creative policies cost money.  But there’s no humane alternative.  The coalition needs a specific agenda, like the conservatives’ Project 2025, to provide  answers about covering the cost. 

Unquestionably, government must assume more responsibility for the common interest.  More tax revenues are needed.  So is tax reform, especially of a system that benefits so few at the expense of so many. 

Increased government action will be called socialism.  But that’s wrong and must be rejected.   For example, universal health insurance can be provided through private companies, and it works.

This frames the issue. The Trump GOP: uncompromising, authoritarian control, reduced public services, unfair tax policy.  The Coalition: restore and expand public services, open and lawful operations, tax reform.   The choice comes now.