Trump's mini-me at State has embraced his Buchananite nationalism almost entirely

Pompeo Questions the Value of International Groups Like U.N. and E.U.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke out against several treaties and institutions, including the United Nations and the European Union, during a speech in Brussels.

In a major speech on Tuesday [December 4], Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried to explain one of the abiding conundrums of the Trump administration: How does a nationalist lead on the international stage?

The answer, he said, is to revamp or jettison some treaties and institutions while bolstering others.

Among the institutions that Mr. Pompeo criticized were the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of American States and the African Union. 

But he embraced NATO, which President Trump has harshly criticized, as an “indispensable institution.”

. . . .

The World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization also came in for sharp criticism.

“International bodies must help facilitate cooperation that bolsters the security and values of the free world, or they must be reformed or eliminated,” he said. 

After the short speech, Mr. Pompeo took no questions.

Did Kissinger get it right or not?

Last week I was browsing through Henry Kissinger’s 2014 book, World Order, when the news broke that Jim Mattis, the US defence secretary, had resigned, sending a shockwave of new uncertainties across Europe. 

It made these lines from Kissinger all the more striking: 

“The United States has every reason from history and geopolitics to bolster the European Union and prevent its drifting off in a geopolitical vacuum; the United States, if separated from Europe in politics, economics and defence, would become geopolitically an island off the shores of Eurasia, and Europe itself could turn into an appendage to the reaches of Asia and the Middle East.”

One key sentence in Mattis’s resignation letter pointed to the importance of the US respecting its allies. 

It read like a final verdict on something Europeans had been dreading ever since Donald Trump’s election but were wary of acknowledging: the utter indifference of this American leader to postwar alliances. 

A US “separated from Europe” has suddenly become more of a reality.

. . . .

The spectre that’s haunting Europe today is multifaceted: a Trump‑Brexit‑Putin nexus has taken shape. 

With the Brexit countdown approaching and European parliament elections due in May, things look ominous, and Mattis’s message will have done little to reassure anyone. 

But much could change if Brexit is somehow halted.

. . . .

This year, Trump’s hostility to the EU (he calls it a “foe”) morphed into a systematic onslaught.

One shocking moment came when Trump’s national security adviser Mike Pompeo gave a speech in Brussels this month lambasting the European project. 

Meanwhile, both Trump and Putin have made clear they want the Brexit train wreck to run its course. 

The US president has openly encouraged a no-deal British departure from the EU, and last week Putin mused that Theresa May should “fulfil the will of the people”.

These men’s motives may vary but the endgame they seek – sowing division – is much the same, and it’s just as obsessive. 

Trump is interested in an isolated UK and a disembowelled EU which would no longer be able to set rules and standards in trade. 

Putin wants to secure geopolitical gains for Russia in Europe in a quest for a sphere of influence, as revenge for defeat in the cold war.

. . . .

Brexit has so far united continental Europe much more than it has divided it. 

Brexit is also a lose-lose project on which more and more Britons are apparently starting to turn their backs. 

Neither Trump nor Putin are going away any time soon. 

Brexit, on the other hand, increasingly looks like a fading prospect.

. . . .

But the biggest boon to all Europeans – and the biggest blow to both Trump and Putin’s calculations – would surely come if Brexit didn’t happen at all. 

This could change the entire narrative about a continent beholden to hostile forces.

In fact, a Brexit reversal could be Europe’s finest hour, after a decade of crises. 

If Britain changed its mind and remained in the European club, it would save itself and Europe from unnecessary havoc and absurdity: a cause for celebration whatever side of the Channel you live on.

If you judge the EU by the very nature of its enemies – autocrats or would-be autocrats – then surely putting an end to Brexit takes on a wider meaning than just securing market access. 

Trump and Putin have placed high stakes on Brexit as something that would vindicate their world view. 

Brexit is very much part of their project. Now is the time to disappoint them.

Not one hint from the Guardian columnist on how that might happen.

Mattis and Trump both urge that the United States cannot be "the world's policeman," but they mean very different things by that.

For Buchananist Trump the cliche expresses rejection of the postwar/Cold War alliances, supranational institutions, and global institutions the US led in building and in which the US still participates.

For Mattis it is a reason for embracing, expanding, and strengthening them all.

More on Trump's Buchananist commitments can be found in the New Yorker.

Expect more this from the Duce in the new year, when Democrats in the house are expected to pretty much put a stop to his domestic agenda.

He will turn to foreign policy, where presidents are stronger than the congress and the courts.

He will be a wrecking ball.