Nigeria’s Government Cuddling Terrorists

Nigerian government need to understand that deradicalizing former Boko Haram members should not substitute for severely punishing them for the heinous crimes they committed over a period of more than 10 years. Any program intended to deradicalize these terrorists must also take into account the need to offer victims, traumatized families, communities, and society with justice and a sense of closure for their experiences.

 

There are still over 2 million individuals in northern Nigeria who have been displaced by the Islamist armed group Boko Haram and who are trying to reconstruct their lives as you read this. Camps established and managed by state governments in the northeast region have become safe havens for many people who have been displaced from their homes. With an estimated 1.8 million displaced people living in Borno State (one of the states in northern Nigeria) in the center of the conflict, the state government there began closing camps in the state capital of Maiduguri in 2021. Nigeria has violated its obligations under African regional law and international law regarding the rights of internally displaced persons by ordering people to leave camps without consulting with them, providing them with adequate information, or providing them with viable alternatives to ensure their safety and livelihoods. Nigerian domestic policy norms have also been violated by the actions.

Public data suggests that many displaced persons, who were already suffering from the fighting, have fallen further into poverty as a result of the camps' closure, finding it difficult to find food, satisfy basic necessities, or find safe housing. State governments in northern Nigeria plan to close the remaining camps, and residents are understandably worried that they may suffer the same fate if nothing changes in the authorities' attitude to the crisis.

Meanwhile, as part of Nigeria Federal Government's Operation Safe Corridor rehabilitation and reintegration program, the Nigerian military has just released another 594 Boko Haram militants and facilitators into society. A training center in the Kwami Local Government Area of Gombe State released the so-called "repentant" Islamist militants, the latest in a program whose success is still up for debate. The government should proceed cautiously along this path to satisfy the demands of justice without releasing hardened killers on the public, as has been said to be the case with some former fighters.

There are important points that need to be taken into consideration. The first is the all-encompassing idea of wrongdoing and retribution. Even while the modern justice system's end purpose is to rehabilitate lawbreakers, this does not negate the importance of imposing severe punishments and serving as a deterrent for the commission of serious offenses. One more thing is to make the distinction between extremist Salafist killers on the one hand and fringe players such as those who provide support for them, as well as those who were coerced into terrorism or family members of terrorists.

Most significantly, any program intended to deradicalize individuals must take into account the need to offer victims, traumatized families, communities, and society with justice and a sense of closure for their experiences.

 

A Plan Written in Jelly

Since 2009, Islamist extremists have been responsible for a horrifyingly wide range of atrocities in northern Nigeria. During the ceremony that marked the completion of the program for the 594 purportedly reformed terrorists, the coordinator of the program, an Army major-general named Joseph Maina, recalled that more than two million people had been displaced within their own country, and hundreds of thousands of others had been forced to seek refuge in countries that were nearby.

According to the Health and Human Rights Journal, there have been 43,000 homicides, the destruction of entire communities, and other horrifying violations of human rights in the 12 years leading up to 2021. These violations include kidnappings, sexual violence, forced labor, forced conscription of children, looting, and arson. The governor of Borno State estimated at the time that the number of deaths would exceed 100,000 by 2019. Boko Haram and its offshoots have been responsible for a number of atrocities, including the kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls from Chibok in 2014 and another 110 schoolgirls from Dapchi in 2018, as well as massacres, the widespread destruction of schools, and jail breakouts.

According to UNICEF, there has been a reduction of access to quality education for 1.3 million children, and 56% of the children who have been uprooted in the states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa are unable to attend school. Notwithstanding the pathetically low number of trials and even fewer convictions, the Nigeria's federal government has selected Operation Safe Corridor as a non-kinetic multi-agency method in support of military efforts since 2015.  This counter-terrorism strategy, despite the government's claims of success, is provocatively lopsided. Although efforts are made to de-radicalize secondary actors, the world's most hardened terrorists and their sponsors must be relentlessly prosecuted. A blanket amnesty that doesn't require a trial and penalty will only rewards the murderers.

There have been mass releases of terrorists and their families by the government and the military. Almost 500 people were laid off in March of 2022. Over 900 "repentant" Boko Haram members were registered by the Nigerian Identity Management Commission in 2020. In 2019, the Nigerian Army reported successfully rehabilitating 893 former Boko Haram fighters. Alarmingly, the fears that have been voiced by the victims of so-called rehabilitated terrorists returning to their communities have not been given the due consideration that they deserve. In addition, the thousands of citizens who have been relocated to camps known as Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) have not been given the adequate support they need to fully recover from the trauma that was inflicted on them by jihadists. This is a situation that needs to be rectified immediately.

The Nigerian government had persisted in making an incorrect diagnosis of the issue. Salafism is an apocalyptic ideology whose supporters are hellbent on forcing their version of Islam on the rest of the world and establishing a global caliphate. They believe that this would bring about the end of the world. The Salafist yearns for death in the service of jihad because they have their sights set on an eternity that is filled with unending sumptuous reward. They can pretend to repent, as the US-led coalition forces learned in Afghanistan, bide their time, infiltrate the security and civilian establishment, and execute crimes at an appropriate time. They are adaptable and tenacious.

Meanwhile, terrorism is considered a serious offense under Nigeria's current legal system, and those who are found guilty face harsh penalties. Because of this, it is both unethical and unjust to let Boko Haram terrorists off the hook by saying that they are participating in a "rehabilitation" or "de-radicalization" program.

 

Crumbled Promises

The deadly narrative of atrocities committed by the so-called rehabilitated or de-radicalized terrorists is hinted at by stories in the media that purported former members of Boko Haram have returned to their old habits and are now spying for other terrorist organizations. In March, security forces detained Ba'anaBdiya, a purportedly "repentant" Boko Haram fighter, in connection with an attack with a bomb that claimed the lives of some security personnel. The suspect, also known by his alias "Manci," provided logistical support to the militants that ambushed the troops. It was also reported a week earlier that two "repentant" Boko Haram commanders, Goni Farouq and Amir Zabu, were captured via phone intercepts planning assaults on troops.  In a similar fashion, in July 2022, some terrorists who were among the 800 people who had been "reintegrated" into the Bama village in Borno State detonated an improvised explosive device, which resulted in the deaths of eight people in the community. It was stated that the suspects kept in touch with their former coworkers and were secretly leaving the city to conduct business with other terrorists.

The demoralization of terrorists' victims, which includes troops, police, and other members of the security forces, as well as the thousands of citizens who have been slain in the conflict, is caused by releasing terrorists without putting them on trial. Many criticisms of the program have been voiced by professionals in the field of security and human rights organizations. A retired brigadier-general named Sani Usman stated that the Federal Government needs to step in, establish a committee, and review them critically based on their role in the insurgency. He suggested that the Federal Government should take these steps. The judicial system must take part in every aspect of this.

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) is unrelenting in its criticism of the Nigeria's de-radicalization exercise. It maintains that the strategy of allowing terrorists back into society after they may have and, in all likelihood, will have shed the blood of innocent individuals constitutes the gravest kind of illegality possible. No other stable nation in the world gives terrorists the impression that they can kill as many citizens as they like and still be granted a reprieve once they surrender; without being put on trial or being held accountable for their actions. By way of illustration, the Patriot Act of the United States of America enhanced the penalties for those who perform or support terrorist operations, both within the country and outside of it. A law that not only allows for the prosecution of terrorists but also allows for the revocation of citizenship for people participating in terrorist acts has been passed in the United Kingdom. The Netherlands has also announced that the sentence for an offense committed with the intent to commit terrorism will be heavier than the sentence for the basic offense. Not only does this rule apply to those who actually carry out attacks, but it also applies to those who are intending to carry out assaults. Italy has increased the severity of the punishments for terrorism perpetrators.

 

Modus Operandi

Terrorist insurgency in Nigeria needs to be put down by the government and the military. Terrorist leaders should be targeted in "kill or capture" operations, with any survivors facing public prosecution. Those on the periphery should also face consequences for their actions before being considered for de-radicalization. The governors, traditional authorities, and religious leaders of the states in the North should abolish the Sharia law penalties and devote themselves to educating their people instead. All states should prioritize providing social services and rural development initiatives to increase production and employment and decrease radicalization. The Child Rights Act should also be completely enacted and implemented. Terrorists should not be released by the Nigerian government until a full assessment and punishment has been  made.

 

Notes

Anzalone, C. (2018). Salafism in Nigeria: Islam, Preaching, and Politics. American Journal of Islam and Society, 35(3), 98–103.

Human Rights Watch. (2022, November 2). Nigeria: Displacement Camp Closures Worsen Suffering. Retrieved from HRW Press Release: https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/11/02/those-who-returned-are-suffering/impact-camp-shutdowns-people-displaced-boko#:~:text=As%20of%20July%202022%2C%20the,Cameroon%2C%20Chad%2C%20and%20Niger.

Nwannekanma, B. (2023, January 9). HURIWA Condemns Planned Rehabilitation of 613 Deradicalised Terrorists. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://guardian.ng/news/huriwa-condemns-planned-rehabilitation-of-613-deradicalised-terrorists/

Punch Editorial Board. (2023, April 4). Revisiting the Faulty ‘Repentant Terrorists’ Narrative . Retrieved from Punch Newspaper: https://punchng.com/revisiting-the-faulty-repentant-terrorists-narrative/

Ugwueze, M. I., Ngwu, E. C., & Onuoha, F. C. (2022). Operation Safe Corridor Programme and Reintegration of Ex-Boko Haram Fighters in Nigeria. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 57(6), 1229–1248.

UNICEF. (2022, June 30). Nigeria Humanitarian Situation Report. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/media/126276/file/Nigeria%20Humanitarian%20Situation%20Report%20No.%202,%2030%20June%202022.pdf

US Department of Justice. (2023). Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

 

 

The New York Drama: Why Alvin Bragg Get It Wrong

 

This indictment will continue to be viewed by me as a political drama staged by Mr. Bragg, the District Attorney for Manhattan, with the intention of garnering cheap publicity.

 

For the political drama that took place in the courtroom today, you have to give credit to the Democrats on the far left and their woke-indoctrinated representative in the office of the district attorney for Manhattan, Alvin Bragg. When you thought they had nothing else to offer, they surprised you with a wonderful episode just when you didn't expect them to. A stunning courtroom scene took place today as Donald Trump became the first former President of the United States to be charged with criminal offenses. In total, he is facing 34 of these counts. These accusations are based on three separate payments of hush money, one of which was made to a former porn star, and are related to the alleged violation of regulations governing campaign financing. They are common, but nonetheless shocking enough to hold the attention of an audience. Mr. Trump has refuted each and every one of them. According to what I have been seeing in news broadcasts from CNN, Fox News, and CBS, as well as newspaper reports, the United States of America is, as it always has been, sharply split in its responses to the most recent turn in the plot, but they are unanimous in their adherence to the spectacle. What are other parts of the world supposed to think about it? The situation calls for two quite different responses.

One should have a calm demeanor. Even while taking previous presidents to court is quite usual in other democracies, this is the first time it has happened in America. There are many previous presidents and prime ministers who have been charged with crimes, including those from France (such Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy), Italy (Bettino Craxi, Silvio Berlusconi), and Israel (Moshe Katsav, Ehud Olmert, and currently Binyamin Netanyahu). Even Olusegun Obasanjo, the former president of Nigeria, served four years in prison between 1995 and 1999. In Taiwan, indicting former presidents is practically customary. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil, has been released from prison after serving a 580-day sentence. At a special tribunal in The Hague this week, Hashim Thaci, a former president of Kosovo, entered a not-guilty plea to charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Although Mr. Trump claims that his judicial judgment is a political witch hunt,  elsewhere, similar events have not incontrovertibly destroyed democracy. Quite often, it is the opposite.

It's true that those who disagree with Mr. Trump have tried and failed to use the democratic system to remove him from office. On both occasions, the House of Representatives attempted to impeach him, but the Senate fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote to convict him. The Constitution of the United States was written to make impeachment difficult on purpose. Mr. Trump made it through the phony hearings held by a House committee on January 6th. Now, what seems to be the weakest and most confusing of the several legal issues threatening him is being used as the basis for an effort to punish him through the courts. Because of this, the New York indictment is definitely a bad move. Prosecuting a past president only affirms a key concept of democracy, that no one is above the law, if it is not a political persecution like this President Trump's case.

 

Locus Standi

On a different level, though, America's allies have good reason to be concerned about the situation. Many people have spent the past two years basking in the blissful relief that Mr. Trump is no longer in power and desperately wanting to believe that, surely, given his misconduct after the election in 2020 and his many troubles (from legal jeopardy to electoral setbacks and the rise of rivals), he cannot return to the White House. This belief is based on the fact that many people have spent the past two years basking in the blissful relief that Mr. Trump is no longer in power. Such carelessness was always foolish, but it now appears to be dangerous. The most recent attack on Donald Trump has had the unintended consequence of reinforcing his position as the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, with a road to the presidency that is challenging but not impossible. This fact will begin to have an effect on the estimates made by other countries.

Consider Ukraine. Its leaders would conclude that the threat of a Trump presidency makes it all the more urgent to make military gains as quickly as possible. The contrary conclusion will be drawn in Moscow, where Vladimir Putin will decide he should wait until the United States, Ukraine's main Western supporter, is led by a president who openly mocks Ukraine and predicts Russian conquest. Consider NATO as an alternative. Many have worried that Trump would drop it in his second term. Thankfully, Russia's aggressiveness has only served to fortify and grow the partnership. Finland joined NATO officially as its 31st member on the same day that Mr. Trump appeared in court. Now that the alliance has been shaken, all members have a vested interest in strengthening it so that it can weather another Trump shock.

This indictment will continue to be viewed by me as a political drama staged by Mr. Bragg, the District Attorney for Manhattan, with the intention of garnering cheap publicity. Obviously, there is a lot that could go wrong in order to stop the production of a new White House season of this program. As a result of the precedent that the Manhattan case has set in the United States for the indictment of a former president, it is more likely that additional, more serious cases will follow. These cases could focus, for example, on election interference in Georgia or on his mishandling of classified documents. The good news is that Mr. Trump will not be completely overpowered by these legal messes. Due to the support that he enjoys among Republican primary voters, there is a distinct likelihood that Donald Trump may win the candidacy of his party. Even while there is a possibility that he will have a lower probability of victory in a  rematch with Joe Biden, it is possible that the electorate as a whole will reward him for his efforts. The crux of the matter is that there will undoubtedly be other turns in this narrative. Yet it is important for the American people to keep in mind the horrible reality that this indictment is nothing more than a cynical political maneuver.

 

References

 

AP News. (1994, July 29). Former Socialist Premier Craxi Convicted in Bank Fraud Case. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/371a1143e1bb6ea478f5f32cb3402267

BBC News. (2021, March 1). Sarkozy: Former French President Sentenced to Jail for Corruption. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56237818

Joseph , Y., & Kingsley, P. (2022, November 3). Netanyahu Will Return With Corruption Charges Unresolved. Here’s Where the Case Stands. Retrieved from The New York Times : https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/world/middleeast/netanyahu-corruption-charges-israel.html

Newburger, E. (2021, Feberuary 13). Senate Acquits Trump for Inciting Capitol Riot Even as Bipartisan Majority Votes to Convict. Retrieved from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/13/senate-acquits-former-president-donald-trump-on-charge-of-inciting-insurrection-at-us-capitol-.html

Tara John. (2023, April 4). Finland Joins NATO, Doubling Military Alliance’s Border With Russia in a Blow for Putin. Retrieved from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/04/europe/finland-joins-nato-intl/index.html#:~:text=Finland%20officially%20became%20the%2031st,the%20alliance's%20frontier%20with%20Russia.

The Economist. (2023, April 4). What America’s Friends Should Make of The Trump Show. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/04/04/what-americas-friends-should-make-of-the-trump-show

Transparency International. (1998, June 16). Olusegun Obasanjo is Freed From Prison. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/en/press/olusegun-obasanjo-is-freed-from-prison

 

 

Alvin Bragg’s Botched Job

 

For whatever reason that made him to indict Trump, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has miscalculated. For this indictment could be the best thing that happened to Trump, simply because it could have unintended consequences that ultimately end up benefiting him and making him the personification of the phrase "what didn't kill him makes him stronger."

 

The news that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office had issued the indictment of a former president Donald Trump grabbed all the headlines last week, probably because this is uncharted territory for the American legal system, the American government and for the country, which has never seen the indictment and prosecution of a former president. Though the precise evidence against Trump remains unknown, the reason for his indictment appears centered on hush money payments to a porn actress, Stormy Daniels, in 2016 – a payment which, according to media reports, was made to silence her allegations of a sexual relationship during Trump’s first presidential bid.

There can be little doubt that the motivations behind this indictment are solely political, with the end goal of hindering Trump's ability to make a political comeback. If one examines the context of this indictment, they cannot fail to conclude that it is a political vendetta. Just consider this:  Alvin Bragg’s office pushed for the indictment after Trump's recent announcement that he intends to run for president again. Alvin Bragg probably knows that the move could severely damage his chances of winning over voters and mounting a successful campaign. Furthermore, given that 2024 Presidential election is just around the corner, Mr. Braggs figured any form of indictment could have a significant impact on the outcome of the race, potentially shifting public opinion and swaying voters away from Trump.

 According to published evidence, Alvin Bragg’s office and most politicians of the Democrat party had  claimed that Trump’s indictment is not a political stunt, but rather a necessary step to hold Trump accountable for any criminal activity he may have engaged in. They argue that no one, not even a former president, should be above the law, and that failure to hold powerful figures accountable could erode public trust in government institutions.

 Nonsense: If this indictment is not a political maneuver against Trump, then why did the New York District Attorney choose to do it now, after Trump stated his desire to run for president in 2024? If it is not a political move, then why did the New York District Attorney choose to do it now? Why didn't he take action like this, say, three years ago while the matter was still open and the statute of limitations hadn't run out? After all, they had access to all of the data that was necessary to move forward and construct a compelling case against Trump at that time. Yet they made the decision not to.

 The truth is that Donald Trump has been under the microscope of local district attorneys in New York and Georgia for potential prosecution for some time. These district attorneys are widely politically ambitious and has the goal of using Trump as a means of advancing their own careers. In New York, the investigations center around allegations of financial impropriety and tax fraud, while in Georgia, they center around alleged interference in the state's 2020 presidential election. These investigations have been ongoing for some time, and there is no clear end in sight. Furthermore, the federal Justice Department has also been pursuing potential prosecution of Trump for various reasons.

 Just like Alvin Bragg , the New York Attorney General Letitia James has also been at the forefront of a civil investigation into the Trump Organization and its various business dealings. The investigation has been ongoing for several years and has focused on potential financial impropriety, tax fraud, and other forms of misconduct. James has been particularly vocal about her determination to hold the Trump Organization accountable for any wrongdoing, and her office has issued numerous subpoenas and requested documents related to the organization's finances and business practices.

Before Alvin Bragg came into the picture, his predecessor, DA Cy Vance, was conducting  a parallel criminal investigation into the Trump Organization. The investigation is believed to center around many of the same issues as the civil investigation, including potential financial impropriety and tax fraud. Vance has been similarly vocal about his determination to hold the Trump Organization accountable for any criminal behavior, and his office has reportedly convened a grand jury to consider charges against the organization and its executives. The two investigations are independent of each other, but they are believed to be closely intertwined, and many observers believe that they could ultimately lead to criminal charges against the former president or members of his inner circle.

So, what does this evidence suggest about the new indictment against Trump? The obvious one is that the liberal Democratic party's allergic reaction to any conservative or outsider who gains considerable support from the electorate is glaringly clear. This is why they are resorting to political persecution and other extreme methods to hinder Trump's ability to raise money for political candidates. It's worth remembering that many political candidates rely on the assistance of well-known personalities in order to collect money and win endorsements. If Trump's image takes a hit, he may be less willing to lend his name and reputation to candidates. Any serious harm to a candidate's reputation or credibility in today's political climate might have a negative impact on that candidate's potential to win elections.

 

Pass the Salt, Please

Don't get me wrong, though. Trump is not an angel. In actuality, he had a reputation for being contentious ever since he entered politics. While he enjoys a sizable base of fans who see him as an advocate for conservative ideals and a political outsider, he has also come under harsh condemnation for his actions both before and during his presidency. For instance, Trump is renowned for his gruff and aggressive demeanor and has a history of making contentious claims about a variety of subjects. Thus, I don't believe anyone will have an issue with his indictment  provided it is issued in good faith and Mr. Bragg's decision is not influenced by politics. After all, Americans hold that the Constitution is supreme and that everyone, including Donald Trump, is subject to the law. The difficulty is that this indictment is very different. That is actually a political voodoo aimed at Donald Trump. Simply said, while I am not ashamed to admit that Trump is not the “goose that lays golden eggs” when it comes to politics, and that he do outrageous things sometimes, I also believe that the woke apologists and the Democratic political establishment have unfairly targeted him.

Nevertheless, I am also convinced that District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who came into office touting liberal non-prosecution policies, have stabbed himself on the foot with this Trump’s indictment. Let me put it as politely as I can: for whatever reason that made him to make this move, he has miscalculated, for four reasons. First, this indictment could potentially backfire on the district attorney's office. Even if we choose to believe his claim that his office did this to hold Trump accountable for any potential wrongdoing, the political and legal implications of the move would be significant. Indicting a former president could be seen as politically motivated and could fuel accusations of partisan bias, particularly given the contentious nature of Trump's presidency. Additionally, a high-profile trial could draw attention away from other important issues and could further polarize an already divided electorate. Furthermore, the burden of proof required in a criminal trial is high, and in the coming weeks the whole world will be watching to see whether the evidence is strong enough to secure a conviction.

 The second reason is that this indictment could be the best thing that happened to Trump, simply because it could have unintended consequences that ultimately end up benefiting him and making him the personification of the phrase "what didn't kill him makes him stronger." Even though Mr. Bragg and the Democratic establishment may hate Trump with every fiber of their being, they cannot deny the fact that Trump has a large and devoted base of supporters who are fiercely loyal to him, and who may view any legal action against him as politically motivated persecution. In fact, this indictment could even serve to further solidify his base and rally support around him, with many of his followers seeing it as evidence that he is being unfairly targeted by the "deep state" or other political enemies.

Another factor that could work in Trump's favor is the attention that an indictment would bring. Even negative attention can be helpful in politics, as it keeps a person in the public eye and keeps them at the forefront of people's minds. Trump has always been adept at using the media to his advantage, and an indictment could allow him to continue to dominate the news cycle, which has been a major factor in his political success. Moreover, any legal action against Trump could also serve to keep him relevant and in the conversation. Trump has always been a polarizing figure, and an indictment would only serve to amplify that. People who may have been apathetic towards him before could suddenly become interested, and his loyal base would likely become even more energized. In other words, an indictment could actually work to Trump's advantage by keeping him in the public eye and keeping people talking about him.

 This indictment can equally give Trump a sense of victimhood. Trump has always portrayed himself as an outsider fighting against the establishment, and an indictment would only serve to reinforce that narrative. If he is able to convince his supporters that he is being unfairly targeted by the "deep state" or other political enemies, then he could use that to his advantage to rally his base and garner sympathy from undecided voters.

Having Trump face charges might also make him more of a martyr in the eyes of his supporters. To many of his fans, this  indictment would lend credence to their belief that he is being persecuted by the political and media establishment. If Trump can exploit his legal woes as a rallying cry for his supporters, he may emerge from any legal battles stronger than before. A charge would also give Trump the chance to play the underdog, a role he has always relished. Trump has always portrayed himself as a fighter; if convicted, he may be able to prove to his supporters that he would fight even if the deck is stacked against him. This might strengthen his standing with his base and win over those still on the fence about him but drawn to his doggedness.

 It's also important to consider the prospect that an indictment would allow Trump to continue utilizing the victim narrative long after any court processes had completed. It is possible that he may continue to utilize his legal troubles to keep himself in the public eye even if he is eventually found guilty. He might be able to rally his fans and get his political agenda farther along with this. Last but not least, this indictment would boost Trump’s  image as a political outsider who operates outside the norms of the political system. He has worked hard to cultivate this image, and this indictment would only serve to bolster it. If Trump can convince his supporters that he is being singled out by the political establishment (which is very possible), he may be able to utilize this to rally his base and forward his political agenda.

Although he may not realize it at the moment, District Attorney Alvin Bragg has painted himself into a position, and I feel terrible for him. In the following weeks, we will be watching to see how this drama unfolds. For the time being, I'd rather consider the courageous words of American businessman and philanthropist Warren Buffet, who once said, "When the tide goes out, that's when you discover who's swimming naked."

 

 

 Notes

 

Cheney, K., Carney , J., & Orden, E. (2023, March 31). ‘Unlawful Political Interference’: Bragg Defends Trump Indictment Against GOP Attacks. Retrieved from Yahoo! News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/unlawful-political-interference-bragg-defends-142220802.html

Cole, D. (2023). Donald Trump Has Been Indicted Following an Investigation Into a Hush Money Payment Scheme. Here’s What We Know. Retrieved from CNN Politics: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/31/politics/trump-indictment-what-to-know/index.html

Gorlon, M. (2020, June 13). What Does the Saying “When the Tide Goes Out, You Find Out Who is Swimming Naked” Mean? Retrieved from Medium: https://gorlon.medium.com/what-does-the-saying-when-the-tide-goes-out-you-find-out-who-is-swimming-naked-mean-4d28b79b0b69

Halpert, M. (2023). Trump and Stormy Daniels Cash in on Merchandise After Indictment. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65143479

Malcolm, J., Smith, Z., & von Spakovsky, H. A. (2023, March 31). The Indictment of Donald Trump: The Players and the Cards They’re Playing. Retrieved from The Heritage Foundation: https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/the-indictment-donald-trump-the-players-and-the-cards-theyre-playing

 

 

Toshiba: The Fading Jewel of Corporate Japan

 

After receiving a financial lifeline from JIP,  a Japanese private equity firm, it remains to be seen how Toshiba will overcome its current challenges and adapt to changing market conditions in the years ahead.

 

Toshiba was once the symbol of Japan’s industrial might, making everything from memory cards to nuclear reactors. Founded in 1875, the company grew to become a major player in a number of industries, including consumer electronics, home appliances, and power systems. At its peak, Toshiba was widely regarded as one of the "Big Four" of Japan's electronics industry, along with Sony, Panasonic, and Hitachi. The company's success was due in large part to its innovative spirit and its commitment to research and development. It was responsible for a number of groundbreaking products and technologies, including Japan's first radar system and the world's first laptop computer. Its reputation for quality and reliability also helped to cement its position as a leading brand in Japan and around the world.

Today, Toshiba is a complete shadow of itself. Though one of Japan's largest and most prominent conglomerates, the company has been struggling in recent years with a series of financial and governance issues. As a result, foreign private-equity firms have reportedly been circling the company, seeing an opportunity to acquire a stake in a once-great Japanese firm that has fallen on hard times.

The opening act for Toshiba’s problems is clear: the company has been beset by a number of problems, including a major accounting scandal in 2015 that forced the resignation of its then CEO Hisao Tanaka and a significant restructuring effort. According to published evidence, Toshiba cooked its book to inflate profits by $1.2 billion between 2007 and 2014. The executives who were implicated in the scandal bowed deeply in apology. A new crop of the company’s leadership had to apologize again when its big bet on Westinghouse, an American nuclear-power company, went sour, leading to a $12 billion loss. To remain financially afloat, Toshiba sold its prized memory chip division to a consortium led by Bain Capital, an American private-equity group. The company also issued a block of new shares – a move that attracted foreign investors, including Effissimo Capital Management (ECM), a Singaporean asset manager, which amassed a stake of nearly 10%, making it the largest shareholder in the company.

 Good for the Goose, Bad for the Gander

 Toshiba's troubles have been compounded by the ongoing shift away from traditional consumer electronics products like TVs and laptops, which has hit Toshiba's core business lines particularly hard. The truth is that Toshiba, like many other traditional consumer electronics companies, has been facing significant challenges in recent years due to the shift in consumer preferences away from products like TVs and laptops. This shift has been driven in large part by the rise of mobile devices and the increasing popularity of streaming services, which has resulted in declining demand for traditional electronics products.

 Toshiba's core business lines, including its consumer electronics division, have been particularly hard hit by this trend. The company has struggled to compete with newer players in the market, and has also faced intense price pressure as a result of the increasingly competitive landscape.

 In addition to these challenges, Toshiba has also been dealing with a number of other issues in recent years, including a major accounting scandal that resulted in significant financial losses and a loss of trust among investors. As a result of these challenges, Toshiba has been forced to undertake a major restructuring effort in an attempt to turn the company around and focus on more profitable business lines.

 Despite these challenges, Toshiba remains a major player in a number of key industries, including nuclear power, semiconductors, and storage solutions. The company's expertise and assets could make it an attractive target for private-equity firms looking to gain a foothold in these areas. Reports suggest that several foreign private-equity firms are considering bids for Toshiba, with potential suitors including U.S.-based KKR & Co., Bain Capital,  and Brookfield Asset Management, as well as Canada's Brookfield Infrastructure Partners. Any acquisition would likely face significant scrutiny from Japanese regulators and Toshiba's management, but the interest from these firms suggests that there is significant potential value to be unlocked in Toshiba's business.

  

Whisky for My Men, Beer for My Horses

 The collapse of the surprise bid to take Toshiba private and the subsequent ousting of CEO Kurumatani Nobuaki was a significant development for the Japanese conglomerate. Tsunakawa Sastoshi, a former boss who returned to the job after Kurumatani's departure, has put forth a different strategy for the group, proposing that it be split up instead.

 The proposal to split up Toshiba comes amid mounting pressure from shareholders, including activist investors, who have been calling for changes at the company. The split would involve separating Toshiba's various businesses into different units, each with its own management team and reporting structure. This would allow each unit to focus on its core competencies and improve its competitiveness in the market. In March 2022, Mr. Tsunakawa  basically fell on his own sword as the plan faltered, after Toshiba’s shareholders killed the proposal for a split into two businesses, one focused on electronics and the other on infrastructure.  Mr. Tsunakawa soon resigned from his position amidst opposition to the company's restructuring plan. The new interim CEO, Taro Shimada, reportedly intends to continue with the current break-up plan that has been approved by the board of directors.

 Toshiba’s problems remain. In 2020, the Japanese government has tightened regulations on foreign investment in industries deemed important to national security, and this has made it more difficult for foreign companies to acquire or invest in Japanese companies. Toshiba has interest in many sectors that are important to Japan’s national security, including nuclear power, chips, and quantum computing. Regulators actually helped scuttle earlier buy-out bids for Japanese companies. Bain Capital, which ultimately acquired Toshiba's memory chip unit in 2018, appears to have navigated these challenges successfully. The firm worked closely with Japanese regulators to ensure that its bid complied with local laws and regulations, and had also secured the support of key Toshiba shareholders. As a result, the Bain-led consortium was able to complete the acquisition, which was seen at the time as a major victory for the firm and a sign of its ability to operate successfully in Japan.

 The good news is that Toshiba appears to have finally found a softer landing: in March 23, 2023, the company’s board accepted a $15.2 billion buyout offer from a group led by the private equity firm Japan Industrial Partners (JIP) – a development that can potentially draw a line under years of upheaval at the conglomerate. It remains to be seen whether this offer will be accepted by Toshiba’s shareholders, and if they do, what the implications will be for the company's future. However, it is clear that Toshiba is facing significant challenges and will need to make significant changes to remain competitive in the global marketplace.

 

 

 

References

Mundy, J. (2014, September 19). Toshiba Shifting Away From Consumer PCs. Retrieved from Trusted Reviews: https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/toshiba-shifting-away-from-consumer-pcs-2922272

NBC News. (2015, July 21). Toshiba CEO Hisao Tanaka Resigns Over Accounting Scandal. The Associated Press. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/toshiba-ceo-hisao-tanaka-resigns-after-1-2bn-cooked-books-n395626

Reuters. (2017, March 29). After Crippling $12B Loss, Toshiba's Westinghouse Nuclear Division Files for Bankruptcy. Retrieved from https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/after-crippling-12b-loss-toshibas-westinghouse-nuclear-division-files-for-bankruptcy

The Economist. (2022, April 9). Toshiba: In Search of an Ending. p. 52.

Yamazaki, M. (2023, March 23). Toshiba Board Accepts Japan Industrial Partners' $15.2 Billion Buyout Proposal. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/toshiba-board-agrees-accept-jips-153-bln-buyout-proposal-nikkei-2023-03-23/#:~:text=TOKYO%2C%20March%2023%20(Reuters),of%20upheaval%20at%20the%20conglomerate.

Yamazaki, M., & Murdoch, S. (2021, November 12). Toshiba Plans to Split Into Three After Wave of Scandals. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/technology/toshiba-set-announce-split-into-three-firms-shareholder-reaction-focus-2021-11-12/

 

 

What’s the Matter With African Union?

 

African Union is basically a paper tiger, because historical experience had shown that many countries in Africa, including the small ones, can thumb their nose at it. Some of the leaders of these African countries, particularly that of Ethiopia, had at some point either leaned on African Union’s diplomats who displeases them, or had them expelled altogether – a prove that Africa’s task of building a union greater than the sum of its parts remains unfinished.

 

African Union , Africa’s regional club which replaced the continent’s discredited predecessor, the Organization of African Unity(OAU), is 21 years this year.  Founded in 2002, the African Union is supposed to resolve the continent’s wars, ease the flow of trade across its borders and help Africa to speak with one voice  in world affairs. According to Thabo Mbeki, a former president of South Africa and one of its founders,  the African Union will transform Africa into a continent of democracy in which the people participate and the rule of law is upheld. Twenty-one years after its formation, African Union’s record is mixed.

The union’s first genuine, though incomplete, achievement is its creation of the African Continental  Free Trade Area in 2021. Its early efforts  at peace-keeping  and upholding democracy are laudable too. Unlike the OAU, which refused to interfere in the affairs of the other African countries (that it, its member countries), the African Union has the power to intervene, without consent, to stop a bloodbath or to prevent tribal conflicts from getting out of hand. It sent African troops into the Darfur region of Sudan in 2004 to halt a genocide. Three years later, it established a mission to combat jihadist insurgency in Somalia – an insurgency that has continued to attack and degrade the Somali government’s ability to both provide security and alleviate the dire humanitarian situation in the country. And for approximately two decades coup d’états have become much rarer, thanks to the African Union’s strict no-coup policy.

In other respects, though, the African Union has come to resemble the paper tiger it replaced.  At each summit it approves admirable-sounding projects, but only a few of them go anywhere. It is no secret that more than a third of Africans think the African Union is a useless organization. And they have a genuine reason for assuming that position too: One of the goals of the African Union is to end conflict in Africa by 2020. That ambition is now pushed back to 2030. Also, in addition to the war in Ethiopia, jihadists and insurgents  still run amok across different countries of Africa. For instance, in Mozambique, the government is struggling to crush a bloody insurgency in its impoverished north. And in Eastern Congo, the government is fighting with rebel militias. Coup d’états are also making a comeback in Africa: with coups occurring in Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali, and Sudan, it is only natural for Africans in general to complain that there has been a puncturing of the democratic norms that the African Union had been trying to enforce.

Other Africans lament inaction on the path of the African Union. The organization followed the United Nation’s model by establishing  the African Union  Peace and Security Council (AUPSC)– a 15-member panel. To most  Africans, the AUPSC has lost some of its energy and zeal. For instance, the AUPSC chose not to expel  Chad from the union when the son of Idriss Deby, Chad’s late dictator, seized power after his father’s death in 2021. This decision to give Chad a pass constitute a bad precedent.    

The Word on the Street

In plain terms, even if it were more willing to be firm, the African Union has little by way of sticks or carrots to enforce its decisions. Many countries in Africa, including the small ones, can thumb their nose at it. In 2015, the African Union (AU) proposed to send 5,000 peacekeeping troops to Burundi to help quell violence and instability in the country following President Pierre Nkurunziza's decision to run for a controversial third term. However, Burundi's government refused the offer, stating that the deployment of foreign troops would be seen as an invasion and that the country's security forces were capable of maintaining order.

 The decision was widely criticized by the international community, including the United Nations, which warned of the potential for further violence and human rights abuses in the country. Despite the government's assurances at the time, Burundi continued to experience political unrest and violence, including targeted killings, disappearances, and torture. The crisis in Burundi during that period had  far-reaching consequences for the country's people, with many fleeing to neighboring countries as refugees. While the worst of the violence had eased, the situation remains fragile and tense, and efforts to promote peace and stability in the country are ongoing.

 Ethiopia is another country whose government basically told African Union to get lost. In March 2021, the Ethiopian government announced that it would not be receiving a delegation from the African Union (AU) to investigate human rights abuses in the Tigray region, which has been the site of a conflict between the Ethiopian government and Tigray forces since November 2020. The government cited sovereignty concerns and stated that it was capable of conducting its own investigation.

 This decision was met with criticism from some African leaders and human rights organizations, who argued that an independent investigation was necessary to hold those responsible accountable and to ensure that such abuses do not happen again.

 

Making it Happen

 What lessons should be drawn from this farrago? The obvious one is that cries of  sovereignty were being used by the leaders of African countries as an iron wall against  intervention by African Union. The other lesson is that, to become an effective organization, African Union should stop allowing such cries of  sovereignty to be a substitute for taking bold actions when member countries were set ablaze. In general, a stronger and more effective AU is essential for the development and integration of Africa. To achieve this, African countries needs to strengthen the institutional capacity of the African Union and demonstrate political will to work together for the common good of the continent.

 

Notes

 

Agupusi, P. (2022). The African Union Has Had a Shaky Two Decades but Problems Can be Solved. Retrieved from American University's School of International Service: https://www.american.edu/sis/news/the-african-union-has-had-a-shaky-two-decades-but-problems-can-be-solved.cfm

Butty, J. (2022, September 7). African Union is Failing Africa – Analyst. Retrieved from VOA Africa: https://www.voaafrica.com/a/african-union-is-failing-africa/6735160.html

Human Rights Watch. (2022). Burundi: Events of 2021. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/burundi

Plaut, M. (2014). Why is the African Union Still Failing Its People on Peace and Security? Retrieved from African Arguments: https://africanarguments.org/2014/01/why-is-the-african-union-still-failing-its-people-on-peace-and-security-by-martin-plaut/

Reuters. (2020, November 21). Ethiopia Rejects African Mediation, Pushes Toward Rebel-Held Tigray Capital. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-conflict-idINKBN28108V

The Economist. (2022, February 12). The African Union: Older and Less Wise. p. 41.

 

 

 

Why GOP Doctrine of Isolationism is Dangerous

 

While some of my fellow Republicans had continued to flirt with the doctrine of isolationism, the bottom line is this: Isolationism can hurt the U.S. by damaging the economy, weakening political influence, limiting security options, and reducing cultural exchange. Even though the U.S. should always prioritize its own interests, it should also engage with the world in a responsible and constructive manner.

As a Republican myself, I had watched the Republican Party undergo significant shifts in its ideology over time with great interest. Historically, the Republican Party (also known as the Grand Old Party [GOP]) has been associated with a more interventionist foreign policy, particularly during the Cold War era. However, in recent years, some members of the party have adopted a more isolationist stance, advocating for a reduced U.S. presence in global affairs. This doctrine of isolationism is often based on the idea that the U.S. should focus on its domestic issues and avoid getting entangled in foreign conflicts. Some proponents of isolationism argue that U.S. involvement in global affairs is costly and often leads to unintended consequences.

 Fox News’s Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity offers us a perfect example of the Republican Party’s addiction to the doctrine of isolationism. For instance, both Carlson and Hannity have been known to express views that align with isolationism, particularly in the context of foreign policy. They has criticized U.S. involvement in conflicts overseas and has advocated for a reduction in U.S. military presence abroad.

 Carlson, in particular, has been critical of U.S. involvement in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, arguing that the United States should not jump into any European conflict involving Russia. He has also criticized the manner in which the United States withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, describing the whole process as chaotic. According to him, President Biden did a necessary thing in an ugliest possible way.  

 Hannity has also been critical of international organizations such as the United Nations and has argued that the United States should prioritize its own interests over those of other countries. He has expressed skepticism about international trade agreements and has advocated for tariffs and other protectionist policies to protect American jobs and industries. Hannity's views on isolationism are reflective of a broader debate within the Republican Party over the role of the United States in global affairs. While some Republicans support a more interventionist foreign policy, others, like Hannity, argue for a more isolationist approach that prioritizes American interests and avoids entanglements overseas.

 Of all the prophets of the doctrine isolationism, the most popular is the former U.S. president, Donald Trump. In fact, he is the King of isolationism because he pursued several policies that could be seen as isolationist during his regime. For example, he advocated for the United States to pull out of international agreements, including the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal. He also imposed tariffs on imports from several countries and withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. He also expressed skepticism about the value of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is a military alliance between the United States, Canada, and several European countries. According to Trump, some NATO member countries were not contributing enough financially to the alliance and that the burden of defending Europe was falling disproportionately on the United States. He also questioned the relevance of NATO in the current geopolitical landscape, suggesting that the alliance was formed to address threats that no longer exist.

 Trump's criticism of NATO caused concern among some US allies, who saw it as a potential weakening of the alliance and a signal that the US might not come to their defense in the event of an attack. However, Trump also succeeded in pushing some NATO countries to increase their defense spending, which had been a longstanding US concern.

 It is worth noting that Trump's criticism of NATO was not universally shared within his own administration or among some members of the Republican party, and his approach to the alliance was often controversial. However, the issue of NATO's relevance and the burden-sharing among its members is a long-standing and complex debate that extends beyond the Trump presidency.

 To be fair, not all of Trump's policies can be characterized as isolationist. He also pursued an active foreign policy in some areas, including the Middle East and North Korea, and advocated for increased military spending.

 While I am neither an expert in international relations nor a politicians, I do believe I am well-informed enough to provide some insights on the potential consequences of isolationism. First, advocating for a complete withdrawal from global affairs the way some of my fellow Republicans recommend can lead to negative consequences, such as limiting the ability of the U.S. to promote peace, democracy, and human rights around the world. Isolationism can also damage diplomatic relations with other countries and weaken the U.S.'s standing as a global leader.

 Moreover, the U.S. economy is closely tied to the global economy, and isolationist policies could harm American businesses and consumers. The U.S. relies on international trade and investment to support economic growth, and cutting off ties with other countries could lead to economic stagnation. Not only that, isolationism can limit the U.S.'s ability to respond to security threats around the world. By withdrawing from global affairs, the U.S. could leave a power vacuum that could be exploited by adversaries or lead to conflicts. There are cultural consequences too. For instance, isolationism can limit cultural exchange and diversity, leading to a narrow and limited worldview. It can also reduce the U.S.'s ability to learn from other cultures and promote mutual understanding.

 On the other hand, some proponents of isolationism argue that reducing the U.S.'s involvement in global affairs would allow for greater focus on domestic issues such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare. They also argue that U.S. military interventions overseas have been costly in terms of both lives and resources. I believe America can still do these things while, at the same time, continue to be a major player in international affairs.

 Lessons From History

 To support the above analysis, I will provide two important real events of historical significance and explain how the pursuit of the doctrine of isolationism by the world governments contributed to them. The two events I am referring to are the Great Depression and World War II.

 Start with the Great Depression.  In plain terms, isolationism played a role in causing the Great Depression in a number of ways. First, isolationist policies led to a reduction in international trade, which in turn reduced the demand for goods and services produced by American companies. This lack of demand led to a decrease in production, which ultimately led to a decrease in employment opportunities and wages.  Second, in 1930, the U.S. government passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs on 20,000 imported goods to record levels. This act was intended to protect American businesses from foreign competition, but instead, it had the opposite effect. Other countries retaliated by increasing their own tariffs on American goods, reducing international trade even further and causing a decrease in economic activity. According to the available published evidence, the  Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act resulted to worldwide decline of 66% between 1929 to 1934. Third, isolationist policies led to a reduction in foreign investment in the United States. This reduction in investment led to a decrease in capital available for business expansion and innovation, which limited economic growth and development. Finally, isolationist policies contributed to political uncertainty, both domestically and internationally. This uncertainty led to a lack of confidence among investors and consumers, which further reduced economic activity.

 All of these factors contributed to the economic downturn that eventually led to the Great Depression of the 1930s – the longest and the most severe economic downturn in modern history, marked by steep declines in industrial production and in prices, mass unemployment, banking panics, and sharp increases in rates of poverty and homelessness. By reducing international trade and investment, isolating the United States from the global economy, and contributing to political uncertainty, isolationist policies played a significant role in causing the economic collapse of the 1930s.

 Isolationism vs. World War II

 The policy of isolationism being promoted by the world governments during the first half of the 20^th century equally played a role in causing World War II. For instance, the isolationist policies in the United States and other Western countries allowed aggressive expansionist regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, to expand their territories unchecked. The appeasement policies of Western European powers of Britain and France, driven in part by a desire to avoid conflict, allowed these regimes to build up their military strength and ultimately invade their neighbors.

 Isolationist policies also contributed to a lack of collective security among nations. The United States, for example, refused to join the League of Nations, which was established in 1920 after World War I to promote international cooperation and prevent future wars. This lack of cooperation and shared responsibility for global security left individual nations, particularly the European nations, vulnerable to attack. Even when the United States and other Western countries began to recognize the danger posed by aggressive expansionist regimes, isolationist sentiment delayed intervention. The United States, for example, did not enter World War II until after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. By that time, Nazi Germany had already conquered much of Europe and was threatening to invade the Soviet Union.

 Above all, the isolationist policies also contributed to global tensions by creating the impression that Western countries were unwilling to stand up to aggressive regimes. This encouraged aggressive expansionist regimes to believe that they could act with impunity, which ultimately led to war.

 Simply put, isolationist policies contributed to the outbreak of World War II by allowing aggressive expansionist regimes to expand their territories unchecked, by contributing to a lack of collective security, by delaying intervention, and by fueling global tensions.

 

The Way Forward

 The doctrine of expansionism, or the policy of expanding a country's territorial or economic influence, has been a significant part of U.S. history since its inception. The U.S. has expanded its territorial boundaries and global influence through various means, including military conquest, diplomacy, and economic influence.

 In the 19th century, the U.S. engaged in territorial expansion, acquiring new lands through military conquest, purchase, and treaty. For example, the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the acquisition of Florida in 1819, and the Mexican-American War in 1846-1848 all contributed to the expansion of U.S. territory.

In the early 20th century, the U.S. shifted its focus to economic expansionism, seeking to expand its economic influence through trade and investment. This policy led to the establishment of economic spheres of influence in Latin America and the Pacific, as well as the creation of the Open Door policy in China.

 It is worth pointing out that expansionism can provide a buffer zone between the U.S. and potential adversaries, reducing the likelihood of conflict. For example, the acquisition of territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam allowed the U.S. to establish military bases in the Caribbean and Pacific.

During the Cold War, the U.S. pursued a policy of containment, seeking to contain the spread of communism and expand its sphere of influence around the world. This policy led to military interventions in Korea, Vietnam, and other parts of the world, as well as the establishment of military bases and alliances around the globe.

 In recent years, the U.S. has focused on expanding its economic influence through trade agreements such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as promoting democracy and human rights around the world.

 It is no secret that the doctrine of expansionism has played a significant role in shaping U.S. history and global influence. While it has brought economic and strategic benefits, it has also been criticized for its negative consequences, such as the exploitation of resources and the suppression of local populations. Therefore, any expansionist policies should be pursued in a responsible and ethical manner, taking into account the interests and well-being of all parties involved.

 The bottom line is that isolationism can hurt the U.S. by damaging the economy, weakening political influence, limiting security options, and reducing cultural exchange. While the U.S. should always prioritize its own interests, it should also engage with the world in a responsible and constructive manner.

 

References

Bang , P. F., Bayly , C. A., & Scheidel , W. (2021). The Oxford World History of Empire: Volume Two - The History of Empires. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fordham, B. O. (2007). The Evolution of Republican and Democratic Positions on Cold War Military Spending: A Historical Puzzle. Social Science History, 31(4), 603-636.

Gstalter, M. (2019, May 31). Fox News Commentator: Republicans Who Don’t support Trump’s Tariffs ‘Should Go Jump Off a Cliff’. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/homenews/media/446390-fox-news-commentator-republicans-who-dont-support-trumps-tariffs-should-go/

Hannity, S. (2022). Live Free or Die: America (and the World) On the Brink. New York: Threshold Editions.

History Channel. (2023, March 18). Republican Party. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/us-government-and-politics/republican-party#section_5

Juul, P. (2022, June 22). The Revival of Conservative Isolationism. Retrieved from The Liberal Patriot: https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-revival-of-conservative-isolationism

McTague, T., & Nicholas, P. (2020, October 29). How 'America First' Became America Alone. Retrieved from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/10/donald-trump-foreign-policy-america-first/616872/

Office of the Historian. (2017, May 9). American Isolationism in the 1930s. Retrieved from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/american-isolationism#:~:text=During%20the%201930s%2C%20the%20combination,non%2Dentanglement%20in%20international%20politics.

Schwartz, S. (2023). National Security, Isolationism, and the Coming of World War II. Retrieved from Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/lesson-plan/national-security-isolationism-and-coming-world-war-ii

Stabile, A. (2021, August 16). Tucker blasts Afghanistan Withdrawal: Biden Did ‘Necessary Thing’ in ‘Ugliest Possible Way’. Fox News. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-blasts-afghanistan-withdrawal-biden-did-necessary-thing-in-ugliest-possible-way