Panama 2.0 or something new? Might vs right in US capture of Venezuela's Maduro

An American administration toppling a government it doesn’t like is nothing new. They have a long history of it, stretching back decades.

However, what happened on 3 January in Venezuela was unprecedented in one aspect: specifically in the dramatic manner in which the US executed "Operation Absolute Resolve".

When I mentioned to some friends that this was a first of its kind, a few argued it wasn’t. They pointed to the case of Manuel Noriega in Panama in the late 1980s as a precedent.

PANAMA WAS DIFFERENT

While there are similarities, they are actually quite limited. General Manuel Noriega wasn’t captured in the same way Nicolás Maduro was. 

Since many people have been talking about Panama, let me recall what happened. It was in December 1989.

Just like Maduro, Noriega was wanted by the US on drug-trafficking charges. Noriega had actually been a "friend" of the US initially, but the relationship snapped. One major reason being the murder of Hugo Spadafora, a prominent physician and guerrilla fighter, by Noriega’s government.

Just as Trump tried to negotiate a deal with Maduro, Ronald Reagan’s administration had tried to force Noriega to resign; but it failed. Noriega was widely believed to have lost the May 1989 elections. He annulled it. The US, under the presidency of George H.W. Bush, began amassing troops and invaded Panama on 20 December 1989.

And here is the difference: though the Panamanian forces were no match for the US, the fighting lasted for days. 

Noriega went into hiding, took refuge in Apostolic Nunciature, the de facto embassy of the Vatican, and successfully evaded capture for a while.

The US troops surrounded the diplomatic enclave, and launched psychological warfare that included blaring deafening rock music. Parallely, the US mounted pressure on the Vatican.  

On 3 January 1990 (that is, two full weeks after the invasion began) Noriega realised the game was up and surrendered. He was flown to the US, imprisoned, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 40 years.

THE LIGHTNING STRIKE

Unlike the Panamanian invasion, what happened in Venezuela was a "lightning strike" by the US Delta Force. US cyber-operators even plunged the capital, Caracas, into total darkness before troops swooped in on Maduro. 

They captured him and his wife (the precise word used by President Trump in his presser) and flew them out of the country to the USS Iwo Jima, and from there, straight to New York.

WILL THIS TRIGGER COPY-CAT RAIDS? 

Experts are now concerned that this new precedent set by Donald Trump could lead to similar copy-cat raids by powerful nations looking to decapitate the governments of weaker countries.

Some suggest China could attempt this with Taiwan. One of my friends even wondered: what if India did something similar in Bangladesh?

Theoretically, these are all possibilities. Weaker leaders will certainly feel vulnerable after watching the events in Venezuela. 

However, on a practical level, the realities on the ground are very different. In Venezuela’s case, while drug-trafficking was the public trigger, President Trump, during the press conference, spoke quite openly about the country's vast oil reserves being at the heart of the operation.

Furthermore, Venezuela and Taiwan are in no way comparable. Similarly, the dynamics of the India-Bangladesh relationship are very different from that of the US-Venezuela situation.

LIFE GOES ON

Barring the terrifying swiftness with which the US overran a sovereign nation, nothing much has changed in the grander scheme of things. 

This is not the first time international law has been violated. The US has done it many times before: in Iraq, Libya, and Grenada, just to cite a few. Each time, there are vociferous protests, not just in the US, but across the world, but eventually, the dust settles.

Russia, and earlier, the USSR, too have a similar track record in places like Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. Again, the world protests, but nothing really happens.

SO, INVASION IS OKAY?

Just because something has been happening for several decades doesn't make it right. What the superpowers are doing is certainly not okay. I am just portraying the reality of our world. 

Might might not be right, but the mighty usually get away with what they want.

Trump vs Acosta: White House media relations plummet to a new low

Photo credit: Time

I watched the entire one-and-a-half hour press conference President Donald Trump had with the White House media on November 07.

There was nothing unusual in the way he responded to the journalists. That is the way he is. He snubbed many of them, and called many of them part of fake news.

But the extent of frustration and anger seemed to be unusual. So also the revoking of the press pass of a White House correspondent, and the seeming warning to other journalists not to ask uncomfortable questions.

Here is the full video and transcript of the entire press conference, from C-Span. The now-well-known confrontation with CNN's White House correspondent Jim Acosta is after 27 min 30 sec.

Trump has a history of quarrels with Acosta. In Jan 2017, Jim asked him a question about "Russian meddling" and the President-elect lost his cool. Then the confrontation with Jim when addressing a joint press conference with British PM Theresa May in London. In this presser too, Trump displayed the same sort of frustration with the questions.

FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS

When the President called Jim for his turn, and the latter began asking the question, it was evident Trump was getting irritated; more irritated than with other journalists. He remarked, "Here we go ..."

To be fair to the President, he was encouraging Jim to ask questions. And his early remarks looked sporting though sarcastic, as usual. Trump very patiently explained to Jim that the immigrants can come into America, but they can come only legally.

The point of contention was Trump's characterisation of the movement of immigration as an invasion. Trump said he and Jim had differing views on whether it was an invasion or not. Jim was trying to get an explanation from the President on why he thought that it was an invasion.

Trump wasn't able to convey himself clearly. Or he didn't have a clear answer. Trump then told Jim to let him run the country and that Jim can run CNN. Jim said okay, and sought permission for an another question. Trump didn't allow, and moved to the next journalist. That was when the White House intern came to take away the mike. 

There is nothing unusual in journalists wanting to ask supplementary questions. Each journalist feels lucky to be called to ask questions, and they want to ask as many as possible. Happens all the time with all the journalists and officials who address press conferences. Even in this one, others too asked or tried to ask such questions. Trump allowed some, cut many of them.

Journalists are paid to ask uncomfortable questions; and there was no need for Trump to lose his cool. The President should have just ignored Jim and stuck on with Peter Alexander of NBC, the next journalist. There was no need to say "you are rude", "you are terrible" etc. 

And to make matters worse for the President, Peter said, "In Jim's defense, I've traveled with him and watched him. He's a diligent reporter who busts his butt like the rest of us."

JIM ACOSTA BANNED FROM WHITE HOUSE

What followed was not just unprecedented, unwarranted too. Jim's pass that gave him access to White House premises was revoked. The reason cited was Jim had his hand on the female White House intern who tried to take the mike away from Jim.

CNN's Jim Acosta has press pass suspended by White House, Sarah Sanders announces (Fox News)

Trump Bars CNN’s Jim Acosta From the White House (New York Times)

Jim didn't look angry or rude; and Jim's arm did make contact with the intern's arm in his effort to keep the mike. But surely the contact wasn't intended.

It was very clear that that his pass was revoked only because Jim has been asking unpleasant questions, not just at this press conference but in others as well. It might also have been a warning to other journalists that they might too risk losing their pass.

Then another twist in the tale. WH Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders retweeted a video which is said to have been doctored to emphasise the arm contact.

Sarah Sanders accused of circulating 'doctored' video of Jim Acosta’s interaction with White House intern (Fox News)

White House defends doctored Trump-Acosta clip used to justify reporter's ban (The Guardian)

THIS IS AN OLD ISSUE

President Donald Trump's problems with the media is now many years old. Right from the campaign days he has had the belief that a good majority of the US media are liberal, left leaning, and against him. He used all sorts of words from "scum" and "dishonest" to "sleaze" to describe the "70 to 75%" of the media that are critical of him.

On the day he was sworn in itself there was an ugly spat -- Trump said the media selectively showed vacant areas to illustrate that the crowd that came for the Trump swearing-in was smaller than that for Obama swearing-in.

He has been using the word "fake news" for news articles that either he doesn't like or those that are critical of him. His anger took on a new dimension with his expression that media are "enemies of the people".

MEDIA IS THERE TO ASK QUESTIONS

Though media is not formally recognised as a part of the political system, it is an important social platform that carries all types of information: both plain news as well as interpretative, analytical and opinionated views.

Traditionally, news by definition is all about that is not going right in the society. Journalists by definition are skeptical and they are there to ask questions and seek answers; and sometimes they have an adversarial relationship with centres of power, especially the government. Journalists are always trying to catch officials in an spot. Conversely, the officials are aware of what journalists are up to, and they ensure that don't fall for the journalists' bait.

Trump calls spade a spade, and most of the time he doesn't care much for traditions, courtesies and diplomacies. So, his run-ins with the media are no surprise. Though he generally doesn't like most of the media, from what I have read, he keenly follows all the media. He knows the power of the media, and is quite conscious of the way he is portrayed in them.

BETTER TO IGNORE, NOT CONFRONT

Confronting and attacking the media doesn't help. It only makes matters worse. The best way that is adopted by smart and clever leaders when they handle media, especially a belligerent one, is to be transparent and inclusive with them. But when there are uncomfortable or difficult questions, the smart leaders parry them, if they can't come up with a diplomatic answer.

Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton: stunning but not surprising

What has happened in the US today is not what was probable but what was possible. Donald Trump had promised a Brexit like outcome and that has come true.

What's stunning is Trump's win rather than Clinton's defeat. But I am not surprised. What has mattered finally is the frustration of the grassroots of the society like middle class and working class with a system that simply didn't work for them.

His win has followed a familiar pattern where anti-establishment forces have prevailed over status quo-ist, and politically correct conformists. We saw that in the Brexit referendum. We saw that in the rise of Narendra Modi and of Arvind Kejriwal; and also of Rodrigo Duterte as the President of the Philippines.

This is more of Trump's victory than that of the Republican Party, because another reason for the historic result is the yawning gap between political parties and the people.

Trump and Clinton stuck to the script. He blasted the elitist Washington coterie and promised moon to middle class, factory workers, delivery boys and gas station employees. She attacked Trump, focused on women, immigrants and educated elite. Finally his script worked.

The way Trump controversially but steadily worked his way through the primaries to the White House is remarkable. He began as nothing. And as he progressed, no one seemed to like his ways. But he was progressing. That was a reality, which a vast majority of people, and the media, either were blind to, or thought would peter out finally. But that was not to be.

What we now need to see is how far Trump will be able to bring the fractured Republican Party and its supporters together. Because without that unity, he won't be able carry through many of his grandiose plans. Actually he will need to reach out across the aisle as well. There is a limit to how much confrontation can achieve.

The first indications of what the Trump presidency will be came in his acceptance speech. He is doing what inevitably he has to -- sounding Presidential, conciliatory and inclusive.

But still we really don't know what his plans are. He has broken many rules already. So we can expect quite a few out of the box policy plans from him. Exciting days ahead.

Donald Trump's acceptance speech

Hillary Clinton's concession speech

Barack Obama's speech on Trump victory

What Trump should have told Chris Wallace when he was asked if he would accept election result

In the third and last US Presidential debate today early morning, Indian time, I thought Donald Trump performed much better than the previous two debates.

He was calmer, he didn't interrupt Hillary Clinton or the moderator (Chris Wallace) as often he did on the previous two occasions; and he seemed to be more focused and prepared. He seemed to be putting Hillary on the defensive on quite a few occasions.

The Republican presidential hopeful's trump card has always been that Hillary has experience, but it's a bad experience. Another is that Hillary only talks, never does or gets anything done.

Trump has no experience, and, therefore, has no baggage. People who are backing Trump are the ones who are willing to take the gamble to entrust the leadership of the US to someone who is not an original politician; and the hope is that he will fare differently, taking America out of the current problems.

But all the ground Trump seemed to be gaining finally, he lost with one answer: his refusal to say that he will accept the verdict of the election.

It was a very dangerous statement. I am sure Trump and even the audience didn't immediately get the full implications of that. What he said sounded more like what we are used to hearing in nations where democracy hasn't really taken root or in nations ruled authoritarian rulers.

Trump's pronouncement (like a few earlier too) didn't fit into the image of America the world has. In fact, his non-commitment has turned out to be the only real highlight of the debate. The rest of the debate was all on predictable lines.

For the record, here is the transcript of the relevant portions, which I am sure will go down in history.

Chris Wallace: ".... Your running mate Governor Pence pledged on Sunday that he and you, his words, will absolutely accept the result of this election. Today your daughter Ivanka said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight, do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely, sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of the selection?"

Trump:  "I will look at it at the time. I'm not looking anything now I will look at it at the time. What I've seen, what I've seen it so bad. First of all the media is so dishonest  ..... "

Wallace: "But, sir."

Trump: " .... We will find out on November eighth but I think they’re going to see through it. ... "

Wallace: "But sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact one of the prides of this country, is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner, not saying that you are necessarily going to be the you loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country, are you saying that you are not prepared now to commit to that principle?"

Trump: "What I'm saying now is I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense, okay?"

Of course, Trump isn't categorically saying that he won't accept the verdict.

However, he could have said something on these lines:

I am sure I won't have to make a concessions speech because I won't be the loser. It's Hillary who will have to. But since you asked the question, even though it's been a rigged election, I will make the same commitment that I will absolutely accept the result of the election. That's a great American tradition that I will honour.

If Trump had said this, he would have gained a few undecided voters, who knows may be even a few Democrat supporters sitting on the fence. He wouldn't have lost anything. And Wallace wouldn't have had to ask the more pointed supplementary question.

But then, that wouldn't have been Trump -- the aggressive, unpredictable, wildcard politician, who has progressed this far.

Hillary Clinton gains from Donald Trump's errors

The expectations ahead of the second US Presidential Debate that took place today was akin to one ahead of soap operas. Much of the blame must be taken by the Republican nominee Donald Trump.

It all began with the 2005 video tape that surfaced on Friday, in which Trump bragged about how his celebrity status allowed him to grope and make other sexual advances to women. That this 11 year-old tape should come to light only a few days before the debate and less than a month ahead of the poll, is more than mere coincidence. Also, it's not the first time presidential candidates have had to face ghosts from the past at the most wrong time. It's politics that a democracy gives room for.

Understandably, there was huge uproar. Trump was forced to apologize. Anyone else would have sought this unseemly distraction to end there. But not Trump. At the end of the apology, he made it plain clear that the topic would be discussed in the coming days, and signed off sounding a bit ominous, see you at Sunday's debate.

Trump then turned his focus on Bill Clinton. He got four women who have accused Bill Clinton of transgressions, on stage before the press, a couple of hours before the debate. And according to Washington Post and NBC News, there was a plan to get the four women to confront Bill just as they were to walk in for the debate. But the whole plan was nixed.

As expected, Trump raised the topic during the debate. but Hillary, who was well prepared, refused to take the bait, and steered clear of this non-topic, and focused on current topics of importance to the public.

Trump had come to the debate so much on the defensive and in negative territory, it was pretty easy game for Hillary. She knew Trump was already messing things up further; and she had to only ensure that she didn't make any mistakes. There was no need for her to push Trump deeper into the mess.

It was a dead pan performance by Hillary. She didn't score any major points; and there were no knockout punches. But thanks to Trump's conduct, Hillary seemed to be the winner today, without making winning strokes.

As I write this, it's the day after in the US; and news is breaking that House Speaker Paul Ryan has declared that he will not support Trump. But he hasn't withdrawn his endorsement. Things are so bad, that running mate Mike Pence has had to declare that he hasn't still quit the race.

Polls are showing that Hillary is gaining now. It will be too difficult for Trump to close the gap or even overtake, unless there is a miracle.