When Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the 2016 Presidential Election, he called upon using Mexican funds to build a ‘big, beautiful’ wall as his token slogan. Granted while analysts and political correspondents saw through the smoke and mirrors, regular, everyday American voters didn’t.



Flash forward to 2019, two government shutdowns, a re-shuffling of defense funds, and three years later; we still don’t have that promised border wall. Instead, as the election cycle starts to pump up again, we are presented with another Trumpian promise sponsored by America’s allies. Only this time, the matter won’t directly impact voters, rather our national security as a whole.

For context, let’s breakdown the current events between Trump, the Biden Campaign, and Ukraine. Back in 2014, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, received a board position on the Ukrainian private gas-company, Burisma. The job was highly prestigious and paid Hunter Biden up to $50,000 dollars a month. While under normal circumstances such affairs would be considered normal, the current timing of Hunter Biden’s business ventures raised eyebrows. Shortly after the events of the 2014 Ukranian Revolution, Petro Poroshenko, a pro-western leader, took the reins of the Ukrainian Government. Joe Biden, being the Vice President during the Obama administration at that time, was naturally selected to facilitate closer geo-economical and political relationships with the newly rebirthed nation.

Critics and skeptics of the current Biden campaign call foul on the unnatural timing and loose strings of the whole situation. They claim that Biden’s affairs in Ukraine had been tainted in self-interest by using his power and influence to help his son rise through the corporate ranks. To clarify, while the connections made in Ukraine by the Biden family were questionable, they very easily could have been handled with a formal investigation by the Department of Justice and FBI– not an over the phone conversation about aid with a foreign ally. Moreover, this is where we centralize the focus of the Ukraine scandal: It has nothing to do with the Bidens, that is a separate matter, this has to do with the direct executive power over breaches and national security violations committed by the Trump administration.

For starters, let’s examine the interagency process. Micheal Lewis explains in his book, The Fifth Risk, that the president oversees government agencies and cabinet members. On the other hand, their purpose is to specialize in their respective fields and act independently of the Executive. Hence, this is why so many prominent members of government agencies have been veterans of various administrations, from Regan to Obama. However, Lewis argues that Donald Trump poses a threat to such checks on his power by making attempts to overtake control of said agencies and eliminate dissident members. For reference, look back at Trump’s handling of DOD funds and ICE Detention Centers.

In terms of the Ukraine Scandal, we see Lewis’ theory in application. Back when the story first broke media waves, the Washington Post reported how, “ Officials at the Office of Management and Budget relayed Trump’s order to the State Department and the Pentagon during an interagency meeting in mid-July, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. They explained that the president had “concerns” and wanted to analyze whether the money needed to be spent.

Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an “interagency process” but to give them no additional information — a pattern that continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of Sept. 11.”

In essence, President Trump played the telephone game with Congressionally approved foreign aid. While he told the Office of Management and Budget as well as the State Department that he had “concerns” over the money being spent, he also directed his aids to tell lawmakers it was a mere “interagency process.” Lewis continues in his book how Trump’s power struggles over government agencies have been teetering a constitutional crisis since the inauguration.

Furthermore, President Trump, per a New York Times exposé on his phone transcript, was implied to have violated his oath of office by using foreign aid as a bargaining chip for his political agenda. And that’s where the line gets crossed and we, as Americans, need to take a step back. The concept of using foreign aid to get a favorable outcome or information is otherwise known as Soft Power. While soft power is highly effective for winning out tense geopolitical situations and garnering trade alliances, it is the stepping stone to corruption when used for domestic political affairs.

Take for example Saudi Arabia, when Saudi Prince, Mohammed Bin Salman was accused of having killed off controversial journalist, Jamal Khashoggi; he immediately used his multi-billion-dollar oil networks and portfolio of businesses to bypass any consequences at the following G20 Summit. What we learn from this scenario, is how Soft Power, when applied to domestic political interest can morph from a means of avoiding war to a method of abusing governmental powers and infringing upon democracy. That is precisely what it seems like Trump is doing with Ukraine, pressure, or no pressure. According to the Military Times;

“He allegedly sought to use the very security assistance dollars appropriated by Congress to create stability in the world, to help root out corruption and to protect our national security interests, for his own personal gain … If these allegations are true, we believe these actions represent an impeachable offense.”

Based on these allegations and what we know so far, Donald Trump has signaled a new path of unconventionality; his administration would be willing to adopt if given another term. First, it’s the Ukraine and Biden. Then, it could be Trump bribing Northern Triangle countries to take immigrants back to their war-torn, “corrupt” homeland. Moreover, if this current scandal goes by without consequence, then what will stop him from taking further action, such as bribing Afghanistan or Iraq in assisting the US in war crimes against Yemeni rebels. The possibilities are endless.

Nevertheless, the next election cycle is already in motion. The verdict that we, the American public, will give is consequential for the future of National Security.

The question becomes, can we afford it?

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter



Leave this field empty if you're human: