Reverse Convergence? Donald Trump and the Prospect for US– China Stability

At the center of this work is the analysis of the consequences of implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as - the Iran nuclear deal) on divergent foreign policy approaches as the main indicators of the mismatch in relations between the United States and the European Union during the administration of the 45th US President Donald Trump. While the US unilaterally withdrew from this agreement, EU member states remained in it. The United States and the European Union, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, had completely different definitions of their own national security, insisting on their unilateral security, while failing to redefine the problem in the direction of mutual security. However, in addition, the US and EU member states, although both concerned about their own security due to the possible emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, instead of a complementary approach to the issue had a mutually competing one. Using the case study method, as well as the analytical-deductive method and the content analysis method, the author explains the difference in this approach through the concept of the strategic culture of the US and the EU and concludes that they are a consequence of the different understanding of international relations, but also due to the different identity characters of these two actors. The main thesis of the paper is that the US administration of Donald Trump, with its more realistic and Hobbesian view of international relations, and a different understanding of the US national interest in the Middle East, adopted a different approach to curbing Iran's nuclear armament ambitions compared to the approach of the European Union, which is conditioned by a more liberal and Kantian nature of its view on international relations. With unilateral foreign policy actions, Trump's administration risked causing damage and shaking its own credibility in relations with the European Union. On the other hand, the European Union remains committed to multilateralism and the preservation of the Iran nuclear deal. The subject of this research is the direction of the foreign policy actions of the United States and the European Union, in the period from the unilateral withdrawal of Trump's cabinet from the Iran nuclear agreement on May 8th, 2018, until the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, a general of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on January 3rd, 2020 in the Republic of Iraq. The current state and perspective of contemporary transatlantic political relations in the context of unilateral withdrawal will be taken into consideration. In accordance with its new foreign policy agenda and strategy, and more inclined to a realistic view of international relations, the Trump administration risked deeper conflicts and divergence with the European Union over regional security issues. Thus, there was a threat to limit the further deepening and strengthening of the transatlantic partnership with the leading member states of the European Union, especially with the government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the government of the Republic of France. Additionally, the subject of research will be the patterns of behavior, embodied in speeches and foreign policy actions, which are consistent with the different approaches of the US and the EU to the problem of preventing the theocratic regime in Iran from developing its nuclear program. Accordingly, the focus will be on the period of the Trump administration, which, with its political will to break off with the legacy of the Obama administration, began to perceive Iran as a factor causing instability in the Middle East region. The Trump administration did not ratify the Iran nuclear agreement and continued to act under its obligations, solely because of the unfavorable benefits and a large number of shortcomings for the US. Thus, the paper will analyze whether the US administration of Donald Trump had a concrete foreign policy strategy in relations with the European Union and Iran. Also, the paper will try to answer the question of whether a unilateral or multilateral approach to regional security problems is more fruitful, taking into consideration the question of whether the unilateral approach of the only superpower in the world is more effective or, on the other hand, an international coalition of states is needed to suppress the Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

State of the Union Addresses (SOUA) by two recent US Presidents, President Obama (2016) and President Trump (2018), and a series of recent of tweets by President Trump, are analysed by means of the data mining technique, sentiment analysis. The intention is to explore the contents and sentiments of the messages contained, the degree to which they differ, and their potential implications for the national mood and state of the economy. President Trump's 2018 SOUA and his sample tweets are identified as being more positive in sentiment than President Obama's 2016 SOUA. This is confirmed by bootstrapped t tests and non-parametric sign tests on components of the respective sentiment scores. The issue of whether overly positive pronouncements amount to self-promotion, rather than intrinsic merit or sentiment, is a topic for future research.

State of the Union Addresses (SOUA) by two recent US Presidents, President Obama (2016) and President Trump (2018), and a series of recent of tweets by President Trump, are analysed by means of the data mining technique, sentiment analysis. The intention is to explore the contents and sentiments of the messages contained, the degree to which they differ, and their potential implications for the national mood and state of the economy. President Trump's 2018 SOUA and his sample tweets are identified as being more positive in sentiment than President Obama's 2016 SOUA. This is confirmed by bootstrapped t tests and non-parametric sign tests on components of the respective sentiment scores. The issue of whether overly positive pronouncements amount to self-promotion, rather than intrinsic merit or sentiment, is a topic for future research.

State of the Union Addresses (SOUA) by two recent US Presidents, President Obama (2016) and President Trump (2018), and a series of recent of tweets by President Trump, are analysed by means of the data mining technique, sentiment analysis. The intention is to explore the contents and sentiments of the messages contained, the degree to which they di_er, and their potential implications for the national mood and state of the economy. President Trump's 2018 SOUA and his sample tweets are identi_ed as being more positive in sentiment than President Obama's 2016 SOUA. This is con_rmed by bootstrapped t tests and non-parametric sign tests on components of the respective sentiment scores. The issue of whether overly positive pronouncements amount to self-promotion, rather than intrinsic merit or sentiment, is a topic for future research.

This study: (The nature of the relationship between media and politics - former US President Donald Trump's dealings with social media as a model) deals with an important topic, which is the interactive nature between the fields of politics and the media, and the aim of this study is to know the nature of this relationship in the United States of America since the inception of this country, and the study focused on the nature of former US President Donald Trump’s dealings with social media. This relationship and the nature of dealing with the media were explained by political leaders in the United States of America through this study, and the researcher reached several results, including: that both media and politics occupy a large area of the history of the United States of America, And that this pattern of dealing with the space of social media has embarrassed the traditional media such as news agencies, satellite channels and famous newspapers in the United States of America and the world. and this relationship emerged through Donald Trump's use of social networking sites and his controversial handling of the media, the nature of this relationship with social networking sites by Trump has resulted in widespread controversy in political and media circles in the United States of America and the world during the spread of corona disease. Just as the media contribute to raising the profile of a political figure, it may stand against a political figure, as happened with Donald Trump, with the decision of social media companies to close Trump's accounts and fight him in the media, which has never happened with any former president in the United States of America.

This study: (The nature of the relationship between media and politics - former US President Donald Trump's dealings with social media as a model) deals with an important topic, which is the interactive nature between the fields of politics and the media, and the aim of this study is to know the nature of this relationship in the United States of America since the inception of this country, and the study focused on the nature of former US President Donald Trump’s dealings with social media. This relationship and the nature of dealing with the media were explained by political leaders in the United States of America through this study, and the researcher reached several results, including: that both media and politics occupy a large area of the history of the United States of America, And that this pattern of dealing with the space of social media has embarrassed the traditional media such as news agencies, satellite channels and famous newspapers in the United States of America and the world. and this relationship emerged through Donald Trump's use of social networking sites and his controversial handling of the media, the nature of this relationship with social networking sites by Trump has resulted in widespread controversy in political and media circles in the United States of America and the world during the spread of corona disease. Just as the media contribute to raising the profile of a political figure, it may stand against a political figure, as happened with Donald Trump, with the decision of social media companies to close Trump's accounts and fight him in the media, which has never happened with any former president in the United States of America.

Background, Objectives and Goals: From their auspicious meeting at the “Southern” White House, Mar-a-Lago, West Palm Beach, Florida on 5-6 April 2017, U.S. President Donald J. Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping seem to have struck up a friendship accord intended to maintain, hopefully augment, Western trade with China and in the process diffuse burgeoning tensions along the Western Pacific rim caused by aggressive rhetoric and belligerent behavior of Kim Jong-Un, leader of the “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea [North Korea]. In the process, the United States appears to be recasting its foreign economic policy as a return to “Dollar Diplomacy,” the hallmark of American foreign policy during the William Howard Taft presidency (1909 – 1913), mostly out of favour since then until the present moment. An objective of this paper is to clarify and articulate characteristics of “Principled Dollar Diplomacy” in the 21st century compared with its 20th century counterpart, to identify what will be its objectives and goals, then to assess the viability and sustainability of the same globally but especially along Asia’s Western Pacific rim, connecting to South and West Asia then Europe along the ancient “Silk Road” of Eurasia as an integral part of President Trump’s “Principled Realism” in foreign policy. Methods: Literature reviewed include historiographical documents reflecting both the current state of, and recent changes to, United States foreign economic policy globally, termed “Principled Realism” by President Trump as it interfaces foreign economic policy with foreign security policy, focusing particularly on what appears to be a tottering Western Pacific rim of mainland Asia, fragmented by hostile rhetoric, nuclear threats, China’s unilateral South China Sea domination. Government reports by individual countries and trading partners plus journalistic accounts, together with diplomatic interviews have been reviewed. Attention is directed to changes in trade volume involving trading partners generally, together with trade values of both imports and exports across the first six months of the Donald Trump administration compared to similar periods in administrations of former American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Barrack Obama. Presidential rhetoric will be analysed as communicated to three categories of recipients: foreign heads of state or heads of government, United States business leaders, the global general public. Some historical records are included, comparing Chinese maritime belligerence along the Western Pacific rim with similar activities engaged in by Imperial Germany during World War I then by Nazi Germany during World War II, each with disastrous consequences. Expected Results: Ever since the Florida summit meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi, an economic dialogue appears to have emerged that has expanded into diplomatic discussions involving the DPRK, Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) partners trading with both China and the United States, India, Japan, South Korea. Predicated upon President Trump’s self-assessment of his first 100 days in office, together with legitimate expectations of other nations, it should be possible to gauge the direction of “Dollar Diplomacy” across the first and second 100 days to predict the Strengths and Weaknesses of early changes in United States foreign economic policies over the first six months of the Trump Administration. Positive or negative results should be apparent in trade regimes, trade value, trade volume, as well as changes in rhetoric along the Western Pacific rim, and intensity of involvement if the state parties themselves. Stated succinctly, this is China’s chance to stand out and become a leader, potentially the leader, in Asia, and to work hand in hand with the United States and the Western Alliance to maintain continuity of “Pax Americana” for another 70 years or longer, an enduring peace from which, arguably, China has benefitted more than most countries, and stands to benefit much more across eight more decades of the 21st century. Amongst other factors, an expectation is to witness the United States and other Western Allies join with China in funding its “One Belt, One Road” or “OBOR” across Eurasia, because by partnering a rapprochement with DPRK, China and the United States should grow closer, greater and fairer trade should emerge between these two nations, that burgeoning friendship should draw in Japan and other huge trading partners of both. Possible as a successor to the ill-fated Trans-Pacific Partnership will be a sustainable “Pax Pacifica” reflecting core values of the West alongside China’s stated commitment to decreasing poverty in developing countries, providing an enormous opportunity for the Trump and Xi Administrations to cooperate harmoniously. In addition to the Pacific rim as a region, the DPRK could benefit from Sino-American investment inside of its borders, particularly if China and the West could construct international joint ventures (IJVs) in the region with each functioning as a check and a balance on the other.

Background, Objective and Goals: From their auspicious meeting at the “Southern” White House, Mar-a-Lago, West Palm Beach, Florida on 5-6 April 2017, U.S. President Donald J. Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping seem to have struck up a friendship accord intended to maintain, hopefully augment, Western trade with China and in the process diffuse burgeoning tensions along the Western Pacific rim caused by aggressive rhetoric and belligerent behavior of Kim Jong-Un, leader of the “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea [North Korea]. In the process, the United States appears to be recasting its foreign economic policy as a return to “Dollar Diplomacy,” the hallmark of American foreign policy during the William Howard Taft presidency (1909 – 1913), mostly out of favour since then until the present moment. An objective of this paper is to clarify and articulate characteristics of “Principled Dollar Diplomacy” in the 21st century compared with its 20th century counterpart, to identify what will be its objectives and goals, then to assess the viability and sustainability of the same globally but especially along Asia’s Western Pacific rim, connecting to South and West Asia then Europe along the ancient “Silk Road” of Eurasia as an integral part of President Trump’s “Principled Realism” in foreign policy. Methods: Literature reviewed include historiographical documents reflecting both the current state of, and recent changes to, United States foreign economic policy globally, termed “Principled Realism” by President Trump as it interfaces foreign economic policy with foreign security policy, focusing particularly on what appears to be a tottering Western Pacific rim of mainland Asia, fragmented by hostile rhetoric, nuclear threats, China’s unilateral South China Sea domination. Government reports by individual countries and trading partners plus journalistic accounts, together with diplomatic interviews have been reviewed. Attention is directed to changes in trade volume involving trading partners generally, together with trade values of both imports and exports across the first six months of the Donald Trump administration compared to similar periods in administrations of former American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Barrack Obama. Presidential rhetoric will be analysed as communicated to three categories of recipients: foreign heads of state or heads of government, United States business leaders, the global general public. Some historical records are included, comparing Chinese maritime belligerence along the Western Pacific rim with similar activities engaged in by Imperial Germany during World War I then by Nazi Germany during World War II, each with disastrous consequences. Expected Results: Ever since the Florida summit meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi, an economic dialogue appears to have emerged that has expanded into diplomatic discussions involving the DPRK, Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) partners trading with both China and the United States, India, Japan, South Korea. Predicated upon President Trump’s self-assessment of his first 100 days in office, together with legitimate expectations of other nations, it should be possible to gauge the direction of “Dollar Diplomacy” across the first and second 100 days to predict the Strengths and Weaknesses of early changes in United States foreign economic policies over the first six months of the Trump Administration. Positive or negative results should be apparent in trade regimes, trade value, trade volume, as well as changes in rhetoric along the Western Pacific rim, and intensity of involvement if the state parties themselves. Stated succinctly, this is China’s chance to stand out and become a leader, potentially the leader, in Asia, and to work hand in hand with the United States and the Western Alliance to maintain continuity of “Pax Americana” for another 70 years or longer, an enduring peace from which, arguably, China has benefitted more than most countries, and stands to benefit much more across eight more decades of the 21st century. Amongst other factors, an expectation is to witness the United States and other Western Allies join with China in funding its “One Belt, One Road” or “OBOR” across Eurasia, because by partnering a rapprochement with DPRK, China and the United States should grow closer, greater and fairer trade should emerge between these two nations, that burgeoning friendship should draw in Japan and other huge trading partners of both. Possible as a successor to the ill-fated Trans-Pacific Partnership will be a sustainable “Pax Pacifica” reflecting core values of the West alongside China’s stated commitment to decreasing poverty in developing countries, providing an enormous opportunity for the Trump and Xi Administrations to cooperate harmoniously. In addition to the Pacific rim as a region, the DPRK could benefit from Sino-American investment inside of its borders, particularly if China and the West could construct international joint ventures (IJVs) in the region with each functioning as a check and a balance on the other.

This paper bases on the research related to the change of US - EU relations under Donald Trump administration in the United States and its effect on the EU member states' pursuing autonomous policies. Recent analyses reveal that under the Trump administration, there has been a change of traditional economic and political relations with the EU member states. How this policy change affected the EU member states has not received much attention. The analysis reveals Trump's questioning the function of NATO and putting tariffs on the products of the EU, supporting Brexit process and having close relations with the far-right leaders of Europe present important evidence of this policy change. This change has been visible in parallel with the leading European countries' creating their own foreign and domestic policies related to increasing the power of anti-EU political parties such as in Poland, Hungary, and the United Kingdom. The analysis thus suggests Trump’s approach to these countries encouraged them to pursue autonomous policies. Moreover, current President of the US, Joe Biden’s connivance of European politics shows the continuation of this policy even without direct support to the far-right leaders of Europe. With the neoclassical realist theory informed analysis, this paper aims to present the effect of Trump administration's restructuring attempts of US - EU relations on EU member states' pursuing autonomous policies.

There is no capitalist conspiracy and the rich are not all‐powerful

This study aimed to demonstrate the impact of the US policy on military spending in the Arab Gulf States during the reign of Donald Trump extending from the 2017 to 2020,
 and to clarify the nature of military spending and the indications of this spending. The study relied on the historical system analysis and descriptive analysis approaches to describe the nature and size of military spending in the Arab Gulf States, and the amount of change that occurred in its size during the reign of US president Donald Trump. The study showed that the US foreign policy towards the region during the tenure of US President Donald Trump was based on the principle of paying for protection, and that non-payment nullifies the alliance with it and its defense. As a result, most of the Arab Gulf states concluded many military deals with the United States, as well as pledged to finance American military operations in the region, as military deals were concluded between the United States and Saudi Arabia estimated at about $ 110 billion, and a contract between Qatar and the United States in an aircraft deal of about 20 billion dollars. The size of the military spending of the Arab Gulf States during the period (2016-2019) reached (326.5 billion dollars). The average expenditure of GDP reached (33%) of GDP during that period, and it increased in 2019 to (40%). The Sultanate of Oman topped the total percentage of military spending during the period (2011 -2019), reaching (91.50%).

“Fake news” has become a global term since Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States. President Trump adopted what we describe as a “discourse of fake news” to attack and discredit news media and political rivals, which is suggested to have been reproduced by politicians in other national contexts. This article investigates whether Australian politicians adopt a fake news discourse. To do so, data are gathered over six months after Trump’s election from four political communications fora : parliamentary debates, social media (Facebook and Twitter), press, and politicians’ websites. We find fake news discourse is predominantly the domain of conservatives. Frequent users employ fake news discourse to delegitimize primarily the media, but also political opponents. Australian politicians’ use of fake news discourse is rare, but it is amplified by news media. Concerningly, it is seldom contested. We argue this has negative consequences for public debate and trust in media and political institutions.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the issue of racism became a hot topic discussed by the world community, especially in the United States. The bustle of the #STOPASIANHATE hashtag illustrates that the issue of racism is attracting the attention of the world community massively. The emergence of this hashtag was triggered by one of the political propagandas of the Former President of the United States, Donald Trump, through his tweet stating that the Covid-19 virus was the "Chinese Virus". Therefore, this paper aims to find out how the influence of Donald Trump's political propaganda on the level of racism among Asian-Americans. In this paper, the authors use qualitative research methods through case studies. The results show that Donald Trump's political propaganda affects the level of racism in the United States with an increase in hate-speech cases against Asian-Americans by 15% during the pandemic compared to 2019.

Introduction. The relevance of the paper is determined by systematic features of the 45th US President elections which led to the unexpected results for researchers, politicians and a large number of citizens and has led to a certain division of American society. Aims. The paper serves to identify and consider the key features of the 45th US President elections.Methods. The methods of comparative, systemic, structural-functional, institutional, and psychological approaches are used to review the features of the presidential campaign and the policies of the candidates for the post of the US President. Behavioral, communication and postmodernist approaches, as well as the A. J. Lichtman methodology from “The 13 Keys To The White House”, participant observation, special Big Data methods, special allocation and study of the “vibrating” state as the key factor of the final stage of the presidential electorate campaign are applied to analyze the election strategies of candidates. Results. The election campaigns of the candidates for the US President from the Republican and Democratic Party were analyzed; a comparative analysis of their electoral programs is presented; the results of voting were studied.Conclusion. The paper reveals Tramps election potential: charisma, national industry-based development, support from the Republican Party, army circles, a highly professional team with a specialist in the sphere of “electronic democracy”. The paper shows different aspects of Clinton’s electoral strategy with its strong sides: the widest known, mighty supported by the Democratic Party, by B. Obama, the 44th US President, by world financial circles and neoliberal elites. Problems with health, scandals, insufficient work with important groups of voters can be referred to as the weak points.Two candidates represent two different futures for the United States: focus on the national industries, national state and realistic foreign policy, one the one hand, while one the other hand, focus on the power of the unlimited financial elites and supranational state, toughening of anti-Russian policy. The struggle between former candidates continues even after the election of the 45th President of the United States, often in aggressive forms and actions.The author offers new comprehensive approaches to the analysis and the forecast of the future presidential campaigns in the USA, which suggests 1) the effective use of A. J. Lichtman methodology from “The 13 Keys To The White House”; 2) learning factors of the “vibrating state” (14 key); 3) the wide used Big Data, networks and postmodernist technologies; 4) special attention to the brand and the leadership qualities of the candidates.

The United States of America is often referred to as being a nation of immigrants. The latter have played an important role in its population growth and shaped its cultural identity. Immigration-related topics, therefore, have been integral part of the US political discourse and governmental communication, including in the US presidential speeches. However, no other president has faced as much criticism for raising issues related with immigration than Donald Trump, current president from Republican party. We apply a Corpus-based discourse analysis, to analyse large amounts of language data with the aim to identify and examine repetitive linguistic patterns of language uses in the context of immigration by all former US presidents in the years between 1946 and 2021, including, Trump (2017–2021).After studying Trump’s speeches via a Corpus-based discourse analysis (CDA) and comparing them with other presidential speeches, both quantitative and qualitative analysis showed that the use of lexical terms such as “immigra,” “immigration” and “immigrants” by Donald Trump was overwhelmingly more frequent than in the case of any other US presidents. In addition, his speeches revealed more populistic approach as well as negative connotation, while all the other 13 preceding US presidents used the semantic area for immigration very carefully and avoided engaging with negative connotations and narratives.