Murari Sharma: Transformation of May-Maybot-May?

British Prime Minister Teresa May presented herself as upbeat in her party’s annual conference, in September, in Birmingham. Her dance before her speech demonstrated it. However, recent developments suggest that the beleaguered premier had/s no political, economic or diplomatic reason to be euphoric.

Of course, May is a competent politician with a harsh edge. She rose through the Tory ranks to become home secretary and then prime minister beating her formidable competitors. She has proven her harshness with her ‘hostile environment’ policy, continued austerity under linguistic velvet, and Windrush legacy, which cost Amber Rudd her job as home secretary. 

However, after the snap general elections in 2017, she has not had much to celebrate. Politically, her party lost its majority in the parliament, making her reliant on the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to retain her post. She is caught in the tug of war between her pro-leave and pro-remain party members at this critical juncture of sensitive Brexit negotiations. 

Boris Johnson, her pro-leave former foreign secretary, has been stabbing her front and center in pursuit of his prime ministerial ambition. Several members of parliament from her party have already written letters to the 1922 Committee, expressing their lack of confidence in her leadership.

Diplomatically, because of the above reasons, May’s credibility as a reliable negotiating partner in Brussels is next to nil. The European Union has rejected her Chequers Plan, cherry-picked from a number of EU agreements with different countries. It has asserted that either UK must ensure free border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, as agreed in the Good Friday Agreement or let NI stay in EU. 

Economically, the British economy has slowed down because of Brexit uncertainty and potential loss of free access to EU single market. Consequently, growth rate has been revised downward. The Bank of England, the central bank, and businesses have warned that UK economy will tailspin if Britain crashes out of EU without an agreement. IMF has warned the no-deal Brexit might push UK into recession. 

Above all, the issue of Northern Ireland is an existential question for the United Kingdom. If London breaches the provision that there would be no physical border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, IRA violence may resume. It it abides by the agreement but crashes out of EU, it will have to effectively cede NI to EU/Ireland.

Faced with this set of dangers, what was it that May meant to show with her upbeatness and her dance in the Tory annual national conference?

A few things come readily to mind. One, it was all optics to show that she was not intimidated by Johnson’s onslaught. Two, she might have sized up that Johnson does not have a majority to topple her from her perch. Three, she might have just wanted to shed the image of Margot, a robotic person.

Four, it could be a swan song. Why go out crying if you have to go out anyway? Show confidence and hope for the best. If the situation goes against you, so be it. Five,  she might have been confident that her soon-to-be-made announcement about the end of the austerity could buy her some breathing space from challenges from all sides.

Only time will tell, and the time to tell is around the corner. In other words, May is on borrowed time. Those actively opposing her within her party apart, some of her own current ministers wanted to know from her Tory Conference speech to give an indication as to when she was planning to step aside. She gave no such indication.

But the reality is going to come to bite her sooner than later, and the bite will come from the Brexit quagmire unless EU generously accommodates her at the cost of undermining the single market’s integrity.

 

Advertisements

Murari Sharma: Kavanaugh has failed the job interview

On 27 September 2018, I watched the testimony by Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh in the US Senate Judiciary Committee and could not help to conclude that the US justice system has lost its soul in these hyper-partisan times. Though the hearing is only part of the vetting process, if it were the only process, Kavanaugh has failed to establish his bona fides and failed his job interview.

For starters, the US President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Kavanaugh for the vacancy left open in the Supreme Court by the retirement of Anthony Kennedy.  Ford has alleged the judge had sexually molested her when both of them were in high school. He said he never did it.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh did it under oath. She said with 100 percent certainty that Kavanaugh assaulted her. He said, though sometimes he drank too many beers, he never assaulted Ford. Evidently, one of them has lied under oath and committed a crime, but it would be impossible to know who has been mendacious until an independent body carries out a thorough investigation.  

Both Ford and Kavanaugh made their cases forcefully and emotionally. Several times, both suffered a broken voice. Both had backers in the Judiciary Committee. Democrat senators were soft on Ford. Republican senators asked Rachel Mitchel, a prosecutor tapped by the all-male Republican senators to question Ford, and openly urged and egged on the judge to spit fire against the Democrats. 

Other than that, their presentations were in sharp contrasts.  Ford was calm, clear, coherent, professional and believable. In contrast, Kavanaugh was hysterical, angry, incoherent, obfuscating, evasive, openly political and unprofessional. If they were being interviewed for their academic grade, Ford would have received my A+ and Kavanaugh no more than a C.  

Similarly, if Ford and Kavanaugh were competing for the same one vacancy and if I was one of the selectors, my vote would have gone to Ford, not Kavanaugh. I have several reasons for such evaluation.   

One, Ford was measured, civil, polite, composed, and apolitical. These are qualities the American people would want in Supreme Court justices who are appointed for a lifetime. Kavanaugh was just the opposite — hysterical, rude, restless and threatening, and highly political. He openly lashed out at Democrats, almost half of the Judiciary Committee membership — 10 out of 21 members. 

Two, Supreme Court justices, appointed for a lifetime, must in principle stay, and act, above the political fray. Ford mentioned that she was independent and acted like one, without slinging partisan muck. On the other hand, the man who was supposed to be above politics attacked one party as if he was one of the political operatives, not a judge who must apply the law without fear or favor.  

Three, Ford’s presentation and answers were clear, logical and coherent, like that of an accomplished judge, even though she was the victim of a sexual assault by Kavanaugh.  In contrast, the judge was evasive, obfuscating, and frequently illogical and incoherent. 

Four, I am sure both Ford and Kavanaugh rehearsed their presentation prior to the testimony, but their public presentations were in sharp contrast. She could have been more hysterical because she was the victim. But Kavanaugh was way more hysterical, aggressive and over-rehearsed, giving the impression that he was hiding the facts behind the drama. Perhaps, he rehearsed too much.

The judge might have imitated the hyper combative style of President Trump who nominated him. The style the privileged minority grievance and anger shown towards the lesser mortals who are trying to hold them to account. But there is a significant difference between them.

Trump has been using elite victim-hood and anger to score political points and prolong his rule beyond the first term. It makes his style politically understandable. Kavanaugh, a judge, must have been balanced, judicious, and professional.  But he was ill-tempered and hysterical and therefore professionally inexcusable. 

What makes Kavanaugh’s performance dreadful is that, if he is confirmed, the Supreme Court, already polarized between conservative and liberal justices, will be further politicized. At 53, as a lifetime judge, his legal views will shape the course of the US justice system for decades in the wrong direction. 

On a personal level, I fully sympathize with Ford who was sexually assaulted. If Kavanaugh is innocent, as he has claimed he is, I equally sympathize with him. But the issue has already tarnished his image beyond redemption. Even if the Republican majority in the Senate rams his nomination through (though FBI is asked to investigate the allegations before the Senate vote), his public image as a reckless sex predator when he was young will stick to him forever regardless of the FBI’s findings.

As a result, even when he uses his best legal mind, his legal opinions and verdicts will always be suspect of partisan and anti-women bias. Therefore, it would be best for the US justice system for Kavanaugh to pull out his candidature and let someone else without such controversy take the seat in the Supreme Court.  

Murari Sharma: Brexit — A Political Project

If you are frightened that Britain’s exit from the European Union will make life in Britain more expensive and less pleasant, you could very well be in the majority now. But as a British citizen, you can still prevent it if you and millions of other voters like you write to your members of parliament and tell them at their local surgeries that Britain should not leave the European Union.

It would not be easy, however. Most Brexiters and some Remainers would argue that Brexit must happen owing to the fact that the British people have voted in favor of Brexit in the 2016 referendum. On the surface, that is true.

However, in essence, it is not true for two fundamental reasons. One, democracy allows people to change their mind in every election and change their government if they deem it necessary. Therefore, another referendum can change the result of the 2016 referendum.  

Two, when the British people voted to leave the EU in 2016, they did not know what they know now. The Brexit leaders had lied to them that Britain outside the EU would be much better off. Now the government itself has published a series of papers describing the potential short-term disaster — lack of food and medicine, miles long queue of trucks at Dover, etc. —  and long-term impacts and measures to mitigate them, including the mobilization of the military. 

To avoid such a disaster, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has written in The Observer of September 15, 2018 that the British people must have the second vote on whether they want to leave the EU. Even wildly ideological Brexiters — such as Jacob Rees-Mog, Boris Johnson, and Davis Davis — now concede in their significant volte-face that there would be short-term pain when Britain leaves the EU.

However, that was not what these Brexiters had told the British voters before the 2016 referendum. At that time, they had falsely promised that Britain would control migration, divert the 350 million pounds paid to the EU to the National Health Service, and conclude trade agreements with the rest of the world quickly and favorably. None of them has turned, or will turn, to be true.

Let us examine these elements individually. The British society is aging, and its birth rate has tumbled to below the replacement rate. To work in farms, factories, shops and old-age homes and to pay taxes, you need all categories of people — skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled — through immigration.  If you stop immigrants from EU countries, you would have to bring them from other nations. So controlling immigration was largely a myth.

Likewise, the promise of an additional 350 million pounds to be given to the NHS every week was a snake oil. According to the Treasury, Britain would lose 12 billion pounds every year if it cannot strike a free trade deal with the EU, which is several times more than the expected savings of 350 million pounds paid to the EU every week. So the NHS will have less money and it will also lose hundreds of thousands of skilled healthcare people from the continent when Britain gets out of the European club. 

In the trade front too, the picture is not rosy. Japan, India, and other large trading nations had warned before the referendum that Britain would lose if it left the EU. These countries would rather negotiate a trade agreement with the EU covering 27 countries than the United Kingdom.

Similarly, the United States under President Obama had told Britain that it would have to wait in the back of the queue for a trade agreement. No matter what he says at the spur of the moment, President Trump would not conclude any trade agreement without his country having a significant advantage over the British side to fulfill his pledge of “America First.” 

In fact, Brexit is a project of the British elite, for the British elite, and by the British elite facilitated by the lay people through their votes.  The prominent Brexiter have already secured their economic future in Britain and outside. For instance, Jacob Rees-Mog has established the arm of his investment fund on the continent. Some of them have their accounts in Bermuda, Panama and other tax heavens.

But Brexit will make these elite politically more powerful against the ordinary people. They can gut slash taxes for themselves as they please, gut the state as they want, destroy the labor protection provision as they wish, and limit your human rights as they find convenient, without the checks and balances from the EU and the European Court of Justice.  

Having said that, I am not here to suggest that Britain has no future outside the EU. Simply because it has left EU, Britain will not be Somalia or Egypt. It will still remain a rich country. The question is whether it would be as rich as the comparable European countries, let alone being Singapore, as the Brexiters seem to dream. 

Britain can pioneer a new technology and pull ahead of other European countries, as it had done with the industrial revolution. But short of that, it does not have the bullying strength of the United States to have favorable trade deals or does not enjoy the strategic commercial location as Singapore does. So take what Brexiters say only with a pinch of salt and support the second vote. 

 

Murari Sharma: Big Countries Often Don’t Like Rules

There has been a continuing debate about whether India wants both the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation to succeed or is using the former to dilute and weaken the latter. The fourth summit of Bimstec concluded recently in Kathmandu did not dispel the reason for that debate.

For starters, Saarc consists of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Bimstec has Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand as its members. In both groups, India —  the largest country and economy — is the pivot.

Evidently, progress in Saarc has been sluggish. Established in 1985, it has set up some regional institutions, harmonized and standardized the nomenclature of goods, and relaxed some visa rules, and that is about it in almost four decades. Introducing a free trade regime in the region a-la the European Union remains a pipe dream.

For this slow progress, the strategic rivalry between India and Pakistan is often cited as the reason; it is certainly a major reason but not the only reason.

About Saarc, India has always held ambivalent views. On the one hand, New Delhi needs Saarc and free trade within its members to expand its own market for goods, investment and technology and to project regional power, including in the event that the UN security council expanded to possibly include India as one of the permanent members.

On the other, New Delhi privately sees Saarc as a forum where smaller countries seek to gang up against it to tame it. One Indian former foreign secretary was caught fuming against Saarc along this line. Bimstec will not be free from the same Indian ambivalence for the same reason.

However, this attitude is not unique to India. All large countries don’t appreciate the regional/global mechanisms and rules that demand of them to compromise their interest for greater good and demonstrate such ambivalence. Transformational leaders make compromises for long-term interest and hide their disdain for such rules and mechanisms. Transactional leaders like the US President Donald Trump wear it on their sleeves.

Trump has done it by pulling the USA out of the Transpacific Trade Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement and threatened to pull out of the NATO, the WTO, and NAFTA.

In addition, we know it takes years to develop uniform standards and regulatory alliance necessary for a free market. For instance, several countries have been negotiating for years and even decades to join the EU. On the other side of the spectrum, the United Kingdom is struggling to strike a balance between the regulatory alliance to benefit from the EU’s common market when it leaves the organization and to exercise its independent right to make laws and control the border.

Therefore, one cannot imagine that the regulatory and standards alignments within Bimstec and between Bimstec and Asean (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), which would be inevitable owing to Myanmar and Thailand being members of the latter as well, is going to be easy. Which means, in the short to medium term, the prospects for Bimstec to establish a free trade area are not any better than doing so within Saarc. In the long run, as John Keynes has said, we would all be dead.

Yours truly has no doubt on his mind that that Indian authorities understand this complication very well and yet they have put their feet in two boats. This has given room for the suspicion that perhaps New Delhi has pushed Bimstec forward to sideline Saarc. It is up to the Indian government to dispel such suspicion by pushing the Saarc process forward as its largest member while also moving ahead with Bimstec.

Murari Sharma: Back-breaking Federalism

Nepal’s Finance Minister Yuva Raj Khatiwada asked the World Bank to augment its assistance to help Nepal finance its newly minted federalism. When the new constitution was being written, federalism was a necessity to secure fragile peace after the decade-long Maoist insurgency. However, it was politicians duty to write the new statute in a way that could be politically agreeable and economically viable. However, they have created seven states which, as we are now learning, are extremely difficult to sustain.

When politicians were toying with the ideas of creating 10-14 states, several knowledgeable and concerned people, including yours truly, had warned through their articles and opinions about the estimated colossal cost of federalism and advised to keep the number of states to a minimum.

For instance, yours truly had — based on the experience of the United States, United Kingdom and India — written as early as in 2012 that the number of states must be limited to four because even four states, together with hundreds of local bodies, would require additional 200,000 staff, thousands of paid politicians, and their administrative expenses to become fully functional. It means the states and local bodies would eat up most of their revenue, leaving little for development projects and activities (see Kantipur Daily on 24 January 2012).

So it is not that the politicians had no idea about the anticipated expenses associated with the number of states. What it means is either they imagined when federalism is introduced, money would go on trees, which I very much doubt. Or they were simply laying the foundation, in the name of consensus, to enrich and reward as many of them as possible with state largess. While politicians do not enjoy a great reputation worldwide, what baffles yours truly is that some otherwise knowledgeable people like Professor Lok Raj Baral became complicit in this plunder in the service of political expediency.

Now it has become increasingly clear that the politicians’ main objective was to maximize their opportunities to live on state resources. That is why their first priority has been, as reported day in day out, to buy expensive vehicles from ministers to ward chairpersons in states, reward themselves with handsome salaries and allowances, and to travel in and outside the country, and decorate their offices. Some local bodies seem to have spent their entire revenue on vehicles. All this plunder has generated negative vibes in the country against federalism, which is not a good sign because it could lead to unrest and conflict.

To cover such mindless expenses, local bodies have raised some taxes up to 5,000 percent, something I had predicted in another published article. This is just the beginning. Now the states will impose their own exorbitant taxes to raise revenue for their expenses, and so more pain is along the way. Most of these resources will go to sustaining political officials and staff, not to carrying out development activities that are absolutely essential to promote development and uplift the people’s standards of living.

Therefore, the country’s finance minister is forced to go out with his begging bowl to for foreign assistance.

A country should try to live within its means other than in times of recession and depression. Though debt has become a fact of life for states across the world, there is a big difference between those states that have resources to pay back and those that don’t. For instance, the United States can continue printing dollar notes and finance its debt as long as the investors believe Washington can pay back its obligations. Similarly, other countries with economic might also command similar credibility and confidence. But countries like Nepal are in a different league altogether. Our credit rating is in the junk category.

How do we live within our means, or at least don’t go way above and beyond our means? There are only three options: Reduce expenses, increase revenue, or combine both.

Desperate for development, a developing country cannot possibly reduce its expenses drastically, though there is enormous room to eliminate waste and use the available resources more effectively and efficiently. However, it can and must decrease non-productive expenses by taking several measures, as we have seen in other countries. For instance, we can merge administrative activities of adjoining local bodies to cut costs. This is what exactly local councils have been doing now in the United Kingdom.

We can have state assembly meetings every two years for two reasons. One, state assemblies will not have enough business for yearly sessions, so they can meet every other year. Two, several state assemblies in the United States have this provision, which proves that it works.

There is very little room to increase revenue in Nepal. Numerous people still live in absolute poverty as measured by the multidimensional index and do not have the capacity to pay the kind of taxes local bodies have already introduced and the states will do shortly. The economy is not developing above the inflation rate, which means the real income has not gone up. If you tax the people too much, they will rise against the government.

A combination of both will be the best strategy. Nepal can increase revenue by introducing more slabs in taxes, so those who earn more pay their fair share and those who are at the bottom end will feel relief. Nepal should not follow the debunked voodoo notion that tax increase kills growth. If you look at the history of growth, it has been the highest when the taxes were also the highest in the United States and Europe. That is not to say that too much tax does not stifle growth. It does, but tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, as the Republicans have claimed while the proof points to the opposite direction in the United States.

Nepal is a relatively small country with fewer than 30 million people, and it does not need seven states to govern. Either there is a logic for as many states as the ethnic groups in Nepal if you look at the issue from the identity point of view. If you have already merged identities within each state, then there is no need for unsustainable seven states. All we need is three and at most four states, and if we reduce the number of states, the administrative expenses will skyrocket.

Reducing the number of ministries and combining the departments doing similar jobs would be another way to reduce administrative expenses. But in Nepal, ministries are being divided so more politicians could become ministers and enjoy the perks associated with their position. Pathetic but real.

If we don’t take such sensible steps, Finance Minister Khatiwada and his successors will have to continue going out to the world with their begging bowls while the country will continue to pile up foreign and domestic debt to a level when it cannot service anymore, let alone pay back. It is time to leave political expediency aside, be real, and do what is right for the country and people, not for politicians themselves.

Murari Sharma: Brexit Blues

Theresa May, the British prime minister, is on a mission to breach EU unity over Brexit, the departure of Britain from the European Union. Michel Barmier, the EU negotiator for Brexit, has rejected out of hand the cherry-picking proposal of May, known as the Chequers plan. It is highly doubtful that May will succeed in her mission, which means more nasty pains for May and Britain down the road.

After Barnier rejected the Chequers plan, May has tried to use charm offensive and divisive strategy to have a good deal. In a charm offensive, she herself broke her vacation in Italy and visited Emmanuel Macron, the French president. France is one of the hardliners in the Brexit negotiations and potentially the largest beneficiary of Brexit, as Paris might get a substantial chunk of London’s financial industry.  Though the details of the conversation are yet to come out, one can conclude that the talks did not go in Britain’s favor.

May sent her ministers to several capitals to drive a wedge in EU unity. To be sure, some EU members are not as committed to the integrity of EU as others. Those that have rightist governments, such as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, and those that have suffered economic pain being part of the Euro, such as Greece and Italy, would welcome the loosening of EU grip on their countries. However, there are no indications that her ministers had much success to report either.

Ireland and Spain could veto any soft deal unless their concerns are fully addressed, which is bad for Britain. Ireland wants to keep free movement between it and Northern Ireland as promised under the Good Friday Agreement that ended the three-decade-long conflict in Northern Ireland. Britain’s maximum facilitation or maxfac, sacnning technology that would obviate the need for human intervention at the border, is a dream because such technology does not exist. EU is one of the guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement.

Spain wants the status of Gibraltar to be decided under the Brexit agreement. All along, Spain has claimed the rocks tucked into the Mediterranean Sea. Because EU takes decisions based on unanimity, each of these EU members has a veto on Brexit deal.  Such thorny issues had been brushed under the carpet before the Brexit referendum in June 2016.

Before the referendum, people were promised a huge Brexit dividend. Brexit hawks had promised that Britain will have a cake and eat it too. In other words, they will take back control from Brussels, limit EU migration, have the power to make trade deals independently, not pay the membership fee while continuing to have access to the single market. By a four percent margin, British voters voted for this fantasy.

The edifice of the European Union is built on five pillars — four freedoms: freedom of movement for goods, for services, for capital, and for people and the supranational jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. If any of these five pillars has been weakened, let alone demolished, EU as we know it will not survive. What Britain is asking is just for that.

Donald Trump, the US president, has supported Britain. He believes a weaker Britain will be the taker of US demands and standards in any bilateral trade deal. EU food standards are much stricter than US standards.  For instance, EU has banned chlorinated US chicken and genetically modified foods. A weakened Britain would help Trump’s agenda to Make America Great Again at the cost of EU standards.

Reality has been biting Britain now as EU debunked its fantasy land. For two years, May could not rally her feuding ministers behind a common position on what Brexit should look like. Last month, she forced her hard-line ministers to accept a soft Brexit in her Chequers retreat, leading to the resignation of such Brexit hawks like Boris Johnson, then the foreign secretary, and David Davis, then the Brexit secretary, among others.

But Barnier rejected the Chequers plan as well. It was only a little softer cherry-picking than as promised during the referendum. If May has all but the Chequers plan to put on the table, a hard Brexit is sure to follow. So May visited Macron on a charm offensive and sent her ministers to Europe to drive a wedge in EU unity.

Meanwhile, though the impact of the Brexit referendum has not proved at cataclysmic as widely predicted at the time, the fear of a no-deal Brexit has begun to bite Britain. Sterling has already taken a tumble of 20 percent. Investment in the UK is being withheld due to the uncertainty. Growth has slowed down, and companies have started moving some of their operations to the continent and slash their workforce in Britain.

What is more, the May government is preparing for a hard Brexit now. Plans are being chalked up to mobilize the military to ensure an orderly distribution of food and other necessities. Sterling is expected to lose further ground. Growth is expected to slow down further and even enter into the recession territory. Brexit dividend promised during the referendum has vanished from official discourse. Predictions are being made about several miles of trucks waiting for clearance at Dover.

This has frightened a section of the ruling Conservative Party. Some Tory peers in the upper chamber voted against a hard Brexit, defeating the government’s hard Brexit proposals more than a dozen times. Some members of May’s party in lower chamber have threatened to vote against the government if it chooses to go for a hard Brexit.

Propped up by the DUP, the May government has a razor-thin majority. Labor is in favor of a customs union with the EU, which raises the possibility of the government getting defeated if in case the hard Brexit is the only thing on the table. Pro-Remainers from all parties outnumber the Pro-Brexiteers in both houses of parliament. If push comes to shove, May’s government might fall, paving the way for fresh elections and installment of Jeremy Corbyn, the Labor leader, in 10 Downing Street.

To soften EU and breach EU unity, London is using its security leverage. But for EU, it is an existential question. If Britain gets what it wants, EU as it exists will unravel quickly. All its members would want its benefits but not its costs, like Britain. If EU keeps its integrity, Britain will have to live with what it doles out, so more Brexit blues are certain to hit May and Britain.

Murari Sharma: Damage that will Take a Long Time to Repair

The American President Donald Trump returned to his country after wrecking havoc to US relations with its closest allies and cozying up with its strategic rival, Russia, who is also viewed by US allies as a threat to their democracy and security. He has created a fine mess, and it may take many years to rectify. You can wreck things up quickly but you require a long time and right policies to repair the damage. 

His first trip was to Brussels, to the NATO summit, where Mr. Trump rubbed other NATO members the wrong way by bullying. While he was right to insist that other NATO members reach the target of 2 percent of their GDP to be spent on defense, Mr. Trump didn’t stop there. He asked them at that last minute to up the spending to four percent, something that had not been discussed, and threatened to pull out of the organization if the allies did not heed his demand. 

From Brussels, Mr. Trump flew to London where he insulted his host and stayed away from London. He undermined the sitting Prime Minister Theresa May, his host, and sang paeans of Boris Johnson who had just resigned his post and who was doing everything to undermine the prime minister. He said Mrs. May was wrecking the negotiations with the European Union and Mr. Johnson would make a fine prime minister.

That was not all. Mr. Trump broke the protocol by walking ahead of Queen Elizabeth. He mostly avoided London where huge protests took place throughout his UK trip against his intemperate remarks and false claims made by him multiple times in the past. 

Mr. Trump had insulted the London Mayor Sadiq Khan, blaming him for the terrorism and spate of knife crimes in London. He had even said mentioned the non-existent bloodbath on different occasions, though so far whatever has happened here in comparison to what happens every now and then in gun crimes in the United States. 

From London, he flew to his golf course in Scotland, where protests became a constant feature. But the worst happened in Helsinki when he met with Mr. Putin.  From there, Mr. Trump walked into his most embarrassing performance in Finland where he met his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. 

Mr. Trump’s officials, as well as the Republicans and Democrats in Congress, had warned Mr. Trump to act tough with Mr. Putin with respect to Russian tampering of US elections and role in Syria and other hot spots. But Mr. Trump not only didn’t raise the irritating issues, at least as much as is publicly known, he also put down his own intelligence agencies and sided with Mr. Putin on the election tampering. As he returned to Washington to a barrage of criticism from all sides, Mr. Trump rowed back by saying that it was a slip of tongue. 

That was not all. He branded the European Union, something the previous US administrations had helped build to keep the peace in the perennially warring European states, as the biggest enemy of the United States. Besides, he criticized Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, while he lavished his praise on Mr. Putin on multiple occasions.

It all came on top of the trade war that has started between the USA on one side and the European Union, China, and other countries, on the other. Mr. Trump has also threatened to pull the US out of the World Trade Organization, the successor of GATT, which the US had helped create for rule-based international trade.

Where will this destruction of the existing world order without anything to replace it lead? Chaos.  It will harm not only the United States and its allies, it will also weaken the World Trade Organization, and other mechanisms that have kept the world’s strategic and trading balance largely stable. It will adversely affect the rest of the world and seriously.

Will it make America Great Again, as Mr. Trump has vowed to do? Highly unlikely. 

When will the sun shine on Mr. Trump? He has already silenced his officials by ruthlessly firing those who disagreed with him. Congress, both houses controlled by the Republicans, could bring stop Mr. Trump from all this nonsense by standing up to him. But as the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has said, the Republicans in Congress have proved spineless to prevent Mr. Trump from his madness and shamelessness.      

So the ‘Trump madness’ will go on during Mr. Trump’s term unless Congress changes hands in November this year. It may continue if the American people give Mr. Trump another term. Because of Mr. Trump’s unprincipled and erratic actions, Mr. Putin and other leaders who flout democratic norms are having a great time.

But the United States and the rest of the world will pay dearly for Mr. Trump’s actions. We don’t know what other dangerous ideas Mr. Trump has up his sleeves and how much more damage they will do. But what Mr. Trump destroys as the occupant of the White House will take decades to mend. Building something is always takes more time and resources than destroying it.