Mediaboss Marketing

HAMBURG, Germany A couple of years ago I took a vacation to Sicily. I had parked my car in a public lot when a local guy approached me to ask for money. I pointed to a sign that read free parking, so why did he think he could demand anything of me? He said that of course I was not obliged to pay him, but if I wanted to make sure my car was undamaged upon my return, Id better be friends with him and give him a couple of euro.

We had a deal.

I thought back to this episode when I watched the Trump impeachment hearings last week. To European eyes, what is on display there is more than just a controversy over whether Donald Trump abused his presidential powers. Rather, it looks like the defining battle between two ideas of America: America as a partner and America as a bully. The bigger question hanging over the entire impeachment question is whether a majority of Americans believe that coercing a country like Ukraine into cooperation for the sake of the Republican Party is acceptable foreign policy.

From everything we know, Mr. Trump put President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-dont situation: Either you deliver political ammunition against the Democrats by publicly announcing investigations against the son of Joe Biden, or I will freeze our military assistance to you. To a country at war with Russia, this choice basically meant: become a pawn in my political campaign, or risk serious damage.

Only a slim majority of Americans endorse the proceedings which means that for tens of millions of Americans, Donald Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing, and theyre O.K. with it. Democrats believe it was an abuse of power; everyone else, it seems, believes President Trump was just trying to do a deal.

That view is not surprising. Since the end of the Cold War, America has gained little from the liberal world order on which it spent more dollars, blood and lives than any other nation. Free trade and democracy? They came back to haunt Americas industry when China and its state-subsidized manufacturers outcompeted everyone in the World Trade Organization, without opening its own markets.

A free and united Europe? The continent that America protected and supported for 70 years has profited nicely from integrating low-wage economies into the eurozone, which enabled cheap exports.

A rules-based international order? While the European Union would be happy to include Ukraine, a swing state between liberalism and authoritarianism, into its economic realm, the bloc does little to help defend its neighbor from Russias overwhelming military force. Instead, its up to the United States to deliver the anti-tank missiles. Bad deal, indeed.

And of course, such voters have a point. There are plenty of reasons America should demand more equitable burden sharing and reforms to international rule books, starting with the World Trade Organization.

But thats no excuse for dumping the fundamentals of American leadership in favor of a more transactional, debased form of nation-state influence peddling. The old principles (even if they have not always been honored) would still be worth applying, especially the idea that partnership as opposed to bullying for personal gain creates trust, a trust that creates further partnership, which sets in motion a virtuous circle of ever greater mutual respect and gain that is, ultimately, to everyones benefit.

Listening to Ambassador Bill Taylor at the hearings, a nonpartisan career diplomat last stationed in Kyiv, one of his principled statements seemed to have almost fallen out of time: If we believe that nations get to decide on their own economic, political and security alliances, we must support Ukraine in its fight against its bullying neighbor.

In other words, building a level playing field surely comes at a price for the one who provides the machinery. But it will pay off. Short-term costs can create long-term gains. Wealth is created by non-zero-sum exchanges, as economists say.

Maybe the loss of precisely this belief is what lies at the core of Trumpism: Why care about trust when you can exert coercive power? There is no foreign policy principle involved unless it is that the president, as the sole representative of America abroad, should be able to do whatever he wants. That is why, whatever you think about whether Mr. Trump abused his constitutional powers at home, he certainly violated a core principle of American leadership abroad.

Mr. Trumps Art of the Deal approach to the world is the opposite of what made America great. It replaces trust with suspicion and turns partners into skeptics. It is a global version of the Sicilian world order I encountered in that parking lot everyone, even the smallest con, using whatever they have to advance their interests. Is that what America wants? If not, it needs to put more trust in what used to be its greatest quality: creating trust.

Jochen Bittner is a co-head of the debate section for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

More here:
What the Impeachment Hearings Look Like From Europe - The New York Times

Earlier this month, Trump took the unprecedented step of saying not only that he would prefer Boris Johnson's Conservatives to win, but controversially suggested that Johnson should do a pact with the rival Brexit Party, led by Johnson's rival, Nigel Farage.

Ever since the campaign got underway, Trump has been used as a weapon by many of Johnson's opponents -- most notably the main opposition Labour Party.

The claim itself is spurious. Johnson is a man who has just struck a deal with Europe and appears to have shifted significantly toward a friendly relationship with the European Union being his priority. The 500 million figure is easy to pull apart for anyone with access to a smartphone. And Johnson has repeatedly insisted that the NHS will not be on the table in any trade deal with the US.

True or not, it's a message that taps into a bias many voters will already have. "Labour has a structural advantage on the NHS," said Rob Ford, professor in politics at the University of Manchester. "The public simply trusts the Conservatives less than Labour and believes that the Conservatives are more likely to privatize parts of the NHS."

Making this election about the NHS helps Labour in more ways than simply hammering the Prime Minister. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has a confusing Brexit policy and doesn't cope well with questions on his plan. And as Ford explained, "Every voter who is talking about Boris selling the NHS to Trump is probably a voter who isn't talking about Boris getting Brexit done."

An indication of the perceived effectiveness of using Trump as an attack line can be seen in an analysis of paid-for Facebook ads from Labour and other groups that oppose Johnson.

Read this article:
Donald Trump is unpopular in Britain. That's why he's being used to attack Boris Johnson - CNN International

IN DECEMBER 2017 the Democratic Republic of Congo was in ferment. Joseph Kabila, then the president, seemed to be weighing whether or not to stand in an election, even though he should have left office fully a year before, having served his two full constitutional terms. In Kinshasa, the capital, Mr Kabilas allies remarked casually that perhaps the president would stand again. It was at that moment that the American government imposed sanctions on Dan Gertler, an Israeli mining billionaire who is a close friend of Mr Kabila. Steve Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, announced that at the direction of President Trump, he was placing sanctions on Mr Gertler, together with 12 other serious human-rights abusers and corrupt actors. Mr Trump, he said, was declaring a national emergency with respect to serious human-rights abuse and corruption around the world.

The imposition of sanctions on Mr Gertler came as a shock to many companies operating in Congo. According to Tom Perriello, formerly Barack Obamas envoy to the Great Lakes region of Africa, it probably helped push Mr Kabila to his eventual decision to stand down in the elections that took place a year later, last December. Yet under the Obama administration, the Treasury had considered sanctions on Mr Gertler and backed off. Under Mr Trump, it did not hesitate. Indeed, his administration has been more enthusiastic than any other in history in using financial sanctions. Partly that is because the president is intent on bashing places like Iran and Venezuela. But that is not a complete explanation: sanctions have expanded everywhere. This stands in stark contrast to other parts of Mr Trumps foreign policy.

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.

According to data gathered by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a law firm, in his first three years in office Mr Trump has added over 3,100 people and entities to the sanctions list run by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a division of the Treasury. That is only slightly short of the 3,484 that George W. Bush added in his entire eight years in office. Last year, Mr Trump added 1,474 names to a list that is now around 7,500 long. The Trump administration has not just expanded sanctions but innovated with them toofor example, by stopping the trading of Venezuelan sovereign bonds.

America is not alone in imposing targeted sanctions: the European Union and the United Nations have programmes too. But Americas is of special importance because of the countrys position at the heart of the worlds financial system. When individuals suffer sanctions from the Treasury, their assets in America are frozen. But the effect goes further than that. Firms which operate in America, or make payments in dollars, cannot easily deal with individuals on the list. Such is the reach of the dollar that penalised individuals will struggle to open bank accounts, own assets or be paid, even in countries that are not close to Mr Trumps America. When companies face sanctions from Americas Commerce Department, as Huawei, a Chinese telecoms giant, does, it has a similar effectthey cannot buy from American firms.

Mr Trump has used sanctions as a bludgeon in high-profile disputes. In September, imposing measures on Irans national bank, he declared they would be the highest sanctions ever. Last month, when Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, launched an invasion of Syria, Mr Trump threatened to swiftly destroy Turkeys economy, as the Treasury imposed targeted sanctions on three Turkish officials. But more quietly, his administration has also punished unprecedented numbers of people accused of corruption and human-rights abuses in more unexpected places. Many such as Mr Gertler have been targeted under the Global Magnitsky Act, which came into force in 2016, and allows America to impose sanctions on people even from countries in which there is no national sanctions programme in place.

In October the Gupta brothers, two Indians accused of working with Jacob Zuma, South Africas former president, to loot state institutions, were added to the Treasurys list. Weeks later Mr Trump added Owen Ncube, the Zimbabwean security minister, to the list. America now sanctions 85 Zimbabweans. According to John Prendergast, an activist who co-founded The Sentry, a pressure group which investigates corruption and human-rights abuses in Africa, Mr Trumps use of the Global Magnitsky Act to go after crooks and murderers has been a game changer.

What has driven this surge in sanctions? According to Marshall Billingslea, an assistant secretary in the Treasury department, the growth reflects Donald Trumps innovative financial statecraft. Certainly, they seem an ideal tool for Mr Trump, who wants to put foreigners under lots of pressure but is reluctant to send troops or bombers to do the job. Sanctions are perceived to be an option for when words aren't good enough but war is too much, says Elizabeth Rosenberg, of the Centre for A New American Security, a think-tank in Washington, DC.

Mr Trumps personality is clearly a factor too. Mr Mnuchin has announced sanctions in person more than two dozen timesinstead of leaving it to more junior officials as previous treasury secretaries did. He has claimed to spend half of his time working on sanctions. The commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, has been almost as enthusiastic. Adam Smith of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher argues that unleashing sanctions on people and firms is quicker and cheaper than most of the other things that Mr Mnuchin and Mr Ross can do to bring about change. In an administration less steeped in the formal deliberative policy process than most, that matters, he notes.

That raises another question, howeverdo sanctions work? In a tactical sense, it seems fairly clear that they do. Targeted sanctions make people miserable, says Mr Smith. In October the Zimbabwean government declared a national holiday in order to organise protests against sanctions on its members. Mr Gertler has hired lobbyists including Alan Dershowitz, a prominent lawyer, to try to get off the list. The sorts of people who suffer sanctions in general do find that they need to deal with America and American companies.

Yet in a strategic sense, it is really not so clear that sanctions are achieving much. Mr Trumps government says that for sanctions to be lifted, Venezuelas president must step down, while Iran must transform its foreign policy. Such a full capitulation seems unlikely. Nor is it obvious that individuals are responding. Beyond increasing his lobbying bill, the sanctions on Mr Gertler did not evidently change his behaviour. He still flies to Kinshasa on his private jet each week and is still close friends with Mr Kabila, who retains considerable influence in Congo. He still collects royalties of around $30m per year on his mining interests. Glencore, one of the biggest mining companies in Congo, found a way around the Treasury by paying him in euros. If sanctions did help push Mr Kabila to step down, it was because they signalled Americas seriousness about seeing the back of him.

In a research paper, The Sentry, Mr Prendergasts outfit, points to successes in places like Liberia and Sudan in changing the behaviour of individuals targeted. But even it admits that all of the sanctions programmes it analysed suffered from poor conceptualisation, co-ordination, implementation, and enforcement. Diplomats are not always engaged in sanctions policy, which comes from the Treasury and Commerce, not their bosses in the State Department. The staff keeping lists of entities under sanctions up-to-date are stretched thinmany African sanctions programmes have nobody to manage them. That means they can sometimes be dodged. Overall the American government has little idea how well sanctions work or what their effects are, according to a report released last month by the Government Accountability Office.

Few will shed a tear for foreign officials who can no longer buy penthouses in Manhattan and the like. But people can be penalised in this way on the basis of entirely classified evidence. There is no way to appeal. And the costs affect more than just the individuals. One risk is that financial firms simply cut off whole countries to ease the cost of compliance. In Zimbabwe, for example, local banks by law cannot comply with American sanctions. That means that American banks will not deal with them. That is certainly not the cause of Zimbabwes economic problems but it does not help.

If they do not change behaviour, sanctions risk becoming less a tool of coercion than an expensive and rather arbitrary extraterritorial form of punishment. Over time, foreign powers could begin to create work-arounds that would make them less effective. If that happens, the Trump administration will have weakened one of Americas strongest non-military weapons. But work-arounds will not be easy to produce as long as America is the worlds pre-eminent financial centre. For the moment at least, Mr Trumps sanctions policy is a bright spot in an otherwise lamentable foreign-policy record.

View original post here:
Donald Trump uses sanctions more keenly than any of his predecessors - The Economist

Update (November 26, 2019 at 1:05pm EST): Please let the record show that the back-and-forth about Conans gender continued for another day:

Well leave this to your Thanksgiving table debate league to settle once and for all.

The original article continues below.

Every Monday before Thanksgiving the president and first lady get their first big Amazon order of the season. Their enormous Christmas tree arrives. This year was no different; Melania Trump threw on a great coat and came out with her husbandgosh, whats his name? Hold on, itll come to me!to welcome it, per tradition. It all went off without a hitch once again. But this year, there was a surprise guest to help usher in the tree. The president introduced Conan, hero dog, who played a key role in the targeted raid that led to the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in October, to the assembled press core. Like I always say, nothing says the holiday season like hosting a terrorist hunting dog at the White House.

Now, heres something: The dog is a girl. This according to Yahoo News Hunter Walker, the pool reporter sic-ed, as it were, on the president as he travels. Senior aides confirmed it on background, he wrote in his email, which goes out to press from all over the country. Shes a literal femme fatal. She is 100% that bitch, if you prefer.

Now, heres something else: Conan is actually a boy dog, also according to Yahoo News Hunter Walker, the pool reporter sic-ed, as it were, on the president as he travels. He issued a correction to his earlier report. I know! What a whirlwind!

But you know what? It doesnt matter. In this one video, that man refers to the pup behind him only as Conan and the dog, praising its capability for violence and intelligence like Conan is one of his golfing buddies. It makes sense that he would repeat the name of the dog and the word dog over and over again like a malfunctioning Dale Carnegie robot; my guy just learned what a dog was and what they do for a living, so he wants to repeat the word dog an absolute ton. See, it helps him remember what one is and also convinces everyone else that hes known it all along. Double whammy!

But in the end, its a useful, genderless compulsive speech pattern. Its like he doesnt see gender. He just sees a gorgeous dog, a beautiful dog, an intelligent dog, a kind of excitingly scary dog. Conan is neither man nor woman; it is simply a hot dog, in the presidents eyes.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

Kate Middleton is having a moment, and heres why the queen is a fan Caught between boomers and millennials, is Generation X really our last, best hope? Were Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, Kate Middleton, and Prince William ever actually the fab four? As the college-admissions scandal rolls onward, Felicity Huffmans and Lori Loughlins paths diverge once again Prince Andrews fallout continues as he seems unable to stay away from giving interviews From the Archive: The American nightmare and ballad of Richard Jewel

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily newsletter and never miss a story.

See original here:
Conan the Dog: Donald Trump Really Wants to Show Off This One Dog He Knows - Vanity Fair

The Art of the Deal ghostwriter said President Donald Trump and two of his adult children and a son-in-law all belong in prison.

Tony Schwartz co-authored Trump's notorious book, which was first published in 1987, and is now a vocal critic of the president.

"Crime family: Donald, Ivanka, Jared, Donald Jr. They all belong in prison," Schwartz tweeted on Monday evening.

President Trump is facing impeachment for alleged abuse of power by soliciting a foreign government's interference in the 2020 election to his personal benefit.

Trump is also facing probes by a number of bodies, including Congress and the New York attorney general, into allegations such as tax fraud, campaign finance violations, and his inauguration funds, among others.

The family real estate business, The Trump Organization, is caught up in some of those investigations.

The president's two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, currently run the Trump Organization.

His eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, was an executive there until her father entered the White House. She and her father both resigned from the company at the same time in 2017.

There are also a number of ethical concerns around the Trump family and its business dealings, such as Ivanka Trump's patent-seeking in China as her father wages a trade war against Beijing, and their alleged use of the presidency to promote their properties and businesses.

Jared Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump, has faced scrutiny for his dealings with foreign governments, in particular a bailout his own family's real estate business took from the Qataris, and his personal relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.

The Trump family denies any wrongdoing.

Back in May, Schwartz said, in light of everything we now know about President Trump, he would rename the book he wrote on behalf of the

"If I had to rename The Art of the Deal, I would call it The Sociopath," Schwartz said on CNN.

"Because he has no conscience, he has no guilt. All he wants to do is make the case that he would like to be true.

"And while I do think he is probably aware that more walls are closing around him than ever before, he does not experience the world in the way an ordinary human being would."

Then in June, when the journalist E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of sexual assault in the mid-1990s, adding to a list of women who have made such allegations against the president, Schwartz called him a "serial felon."

"A 16th woman yesterday accused Donald Trump of sexual assaultin this case rape, with very specific details," tweeted Schwartz.

"In what sane & decent world can this man continue as president of the United States?" continued Schwartz's tweet, adding that he believed Trump should be put on trial for repeated "violent criminal behavior."

Originally posted here:
Trump 'Crime Family...Belong in Prison,' Says 'The Art of the Deal' Ghostwriter - Newsweek