Trump Cards smh

Consulting Japan is now uniquely key to solve

Mie 10-9-16 (Ayako Mie. Ayako Mie covers Japanese politics and policies for the Japan Times. She
started her career as a reporter at Tokyo Broadcasting System in 2001. In 2008, she went to journalism
school at University of California, Berkeley as a Fulbright scholar. On returning to Japan in December 2010,
she worked for the Washington Post as a special correspondent.)

The victory of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump invoked memories of Junes
Brexit vote, a reminder that the unexpected can always happen. For Japan, a Trump
presidency could mean more headaches, as he is new to politics, to say nothing of
diplomatic expertise. In essence, the billionaire businessman represents uncharted waters, a
situation that could undermine the Japan-U.S. alliance and upend regional
security in Asia. Its a complete mystery to me what his Asia policy is going to be. He
lacks experience, he does not understand the subtlety and complexity of the regional picture,
said Andrew Nathan, professor of political science at Columbia University. It is unclear to what
degree Trump understands the importance and role of his nations alliances . Cooperating

and coordinating with Asian nations is crucial in dealing with Chinas

increasing assertiveness in the South and East China seas. U.S.

President Barack Obamas Asia pivot policy was a priority in his administration, with
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton being a chief architect of the strategy to
recommit the U.S. to the region to ensure stability. For his part, Trump has not expressed
clearly what his policy will be in Asia other than to accuse China of stealing U.S. jobs and
manipulating its currency. For Japan, the biggest concern is how Trump will
deal with the U.S. commitment. Clinton was the first secretary of state to announce
that Article 5 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty covers the Senkaku Islands, administered by
Japan but claimed by China and Taiwan. The gesture was echoed by Obama. Its unclear if
Trump will repeat that line, said Fumiaki Kubo, a professor of American politics at the
University of Tokyo. The U.S. protested Chinas militarization of islands in the South China Sea
and conducted freedom of navigation operations in the area, but it is unclear if the U.S. will
continue to do so under Trump. The real estate mogul also antagonized the

U.S. Asian allies Japan and South Korea by accusing them of freeloading
under the nuclear umbrella provided by the U.S. He also said U.S.
allies have to pay more for the protection of U.S. forces.

Japans expenditures for the so-called

sympathy budget for the U.S. military hit 192 billion in 2016 the highest in seven years. It is unclear if Trump will really ask Japan to pay more and withdraw U.S. military forces if it does not. But Ryo Sahashi,
associate professor of international politics at Kanagawa University, warned that Trump could potentially ask each of its allies to take more responsibility and defend itself by itself. It could mean upgrading of the
military capability and a slight increase in the defense budget is not enough, said Sahashi. The only thing for sure is that the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is almost dead under President Trump, who used
anti-globalization rhetoric to attract disgruntled and dissatisfied voters. While Obama is expected to make a last-ditch plea for Congress to ratify the 12-nation trade deal during the lame-duck session, he is facing
staunch opposition from a Republican majority. If TPP does not happen, the U.S. will lose credibility among its allies and partners in Asia, said Sahashi. While the election results were surprising to many members
of Prime Minister Shinzo Abes government, Abe promptly congratulated the former TV celebrity, and lauded him, saying he has not only succeeded in business with his extraordinary talents, and contributed to the
U.S. economy, but now he is trying to lead the country itself. I am looking forward to working with the president-elect closely to strengthen the U.S.-Japan alliance as well as to take the chief responsibility to secure
the peace and prosperity of the Asia Pacific region, said Abe in his congratulatory statement. Despite Abes words, Tokyo has not invested muach in establishing a connection with the Trump camp, while it has
maintained strong ties with Clinton, who met with Abe in September in New York while he was attending the United Nations General Assembly. The only aid of Trump who visited Japan recently was Michael Flynn,
who serves as Trumps military adviser. In order to fill the gap, Tokyo on Wednesday hastily announced that it will dispatch Katsuyuki Kawai, special advisor to Abe, to the U.S. next week to meet the Trump camp.

Trump presidency risks nuclear war with Russia and extinction

Zack Beauchamp, 7/21/2016 (staff writer, Donald Trumps NATO comments are the scariest thing hes

said, http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12247074/donald-trump-nato-war)
Wednesday night, Donald Trump said something that made a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia more likely. With a few
thoughtless words, he made World War III the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in nuclear holocaust plausible . This

What Trump said, in an interview published by the New

that he wouldnt necessarily defend the U.S. allies in NATO if they were attacked by a
foreign power. This extended, Trump said, to the Baltic countries right on Russias border countries
probably scans like hyperbole, the kind of thing you hear a lot in politics. I assure you, its not. Not this time.
York Times, is

Russia might conceivably invade. The NATO alliance is the key deterrent against this: It is founded on a
promise that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all. Trump is directly undermining this promise .
The consequences are hard to overstate. He is t rashing one of the foundations of the post war

European order, which has helped guaranteed peace on the contin ent for 70 years. And by equivocatin g on whether he would defend the Baltics, he creates a dangerous amount of uncertainty among Russians as to how seriously the US takes its NATO t reaty commitments the kind of unce rtainty that, yes, could spark an actual conflict between the US and Russia. This is what happens when you let a flamboyant reality star get this close to the highest office in the land: You get someone who doesnt understand the machinery of state, and plays with lite ral nuclear fire as a result. What Trump said Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in front of a gia nt American flag. (Ralph Freso/Getty Images) In the interview, the New York Timess David Sanger asked Trump if he would defend our allies in NATO and East Asia. Trump said he wasnt sure, that he would only be certain to defend countries that he thought had paid the Un ited Sta tes enough money. If we are not
goin g to be reasonab ly re imbursed for the tremendous cost of p rotecting these massive nations with tremendous wealth then yes, I would be absolute ly prepared to tell those countries, Congratulations, you will be defending yourself, Trump told Sanger. This is classic Trumpism. Throughout the campaig n, he has repeatedly insisted that American alliances dont help the United States that much, that America is owed much more f rom its allies than it receives. As a result, he says, the US needs to back away from its alliance commitments. The problem, howeve r, is that the US is t reaty-bound to defend its NATO allies. When NATO was created in 1949, it was built around a promise that an attack on one country would be considered an attack on all countries. You invade Pola nd, you start a war with the Un ited States. Now, NATO doesnt have the power to fo rce the United States or any other power to defend anyone else. Article V, the p rovision in the NATO treaty that
p rovides for collective self-defense, isnt bin ding on America in the way the US Con stitution is. Instead, Article V works by credible commitment: If the United States signals that it is fundamentally commit ted to the NATO t reaty, then it sends a signal to Russia and other hostile powers that the US will abide by the term of its agreements. This deters them f rom launching wars or any other kind of military adventurism in an American-aligned sta te. This is most re levant in the Baltic NATO states: Estonia , Latvia, and Lithuania . These countries we re former Soviet republics, and Putin seeming ly believes they still ought to be Russian possessions. He has routin e ly screwed with them: kidnapping an Estonian security officer in 2015, sending Russian warships into Latvia n waters 40 times in 2014, and repeated ly buzzing their airspace with Russian jets. These countries best hope is their NATO membership: the idea that Putin would never do in these countries what hes doing to
Ukraine, because that would mean war with the United States. But when Sanger asked Trump specifically about his feelings on Baltic allies, he said open ly that he would nt defend them. He res the critical exchange between Trump, Sanger, and the Time ss Maggie Haberman, which is wo rth reading in full: SANGER: I was just in the Baltic Sta tes. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they a re seein g submarines off their coa sts, they are seeing airplanes they havent seen since the Cold Wa r coming, bombers doin g test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania , pla ces that Americans dont think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid? TRUMP: I dont want to tell you what I d do because I dont want Putin to know what Id do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and Im not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into I raq or anyplace else, he has a news conference
to announce it. SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated TRUMP: We have many NATO members that arent paying their bills. SANGER: That s true, but we are treaty-obliga ted under NATO, fo rget the bills part. TRUMP: You cant forg et the bills. They have an obligation to ma ke payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what theyre supposed to ma ke. That s a big thing. You cant say forg et that. SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations TRUMP: Have th ey fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligatio ns to us, the answer is yes. HABERMAN: And if not? TRUMP: Well, Im not saying if not. Im saying, right now there a re many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us. In other words, Trump is saying
that his unequivocal commitment to NATO hinges on whether particular NATO states including the Baltics have forked over enough cash. Trump cle arly doesnt think of NATO in terms of an ironclad guarantee to allied states. He thin ks of it as t ransactio nal, akin to a real estate deal or (less charitably) a p rotectio n racket: The United States only protects its weaker allies if they pay up. Nice country you got the re. Shame if Russia burns it down. This th reatens peace in Europe U.S. Navy Trains In Pacific (Jordon R. Beesley/ U.S. Navy/Getty Images) A US Navy ship on an exercise. Normally, Trumps foreign policy rhetoric is scary but kind of harmless (at le ast unle ss he wins). This isnt. These comments directly undermine the functioning of NATO, and thus the foundations of global peace themselves. The absolu tely crucial poin t about NATO is that it functions on the basis of credib le guarantee. The poin t of NATO is to deter wa r, by convincing ho stile powers like Russia that
the US would 100 pe rcent defend its NATO allies. But since the res no formal le gal way to force the United States to defend its allies, this deterrence hin ges on the idea that the American le adership is deep ly committed to upholding its word and agreements in Eu rope. This is why, historically, the re has been an ironclad, bipa rtisan commitment to NATO allies. Fo r NATO to work, everyone needs to understand that Americas commitment to its allies is not a partisan football, hin ging on who happens to win an ele ction in any given year. It is a fundamental, unchanging part of American g rand st rategy, one that is and always will be a co re American commitment. With a few st ray wo rds, Trump has done serious damage to that perception. He has made it seem that US commitment to NATO is much wea ker than it is, that it could be overturned with any one election. This was always true in a literal sense: Any president could simp ly choose not to abide by Article V. But abrogating
NATO agreements was always deemed unthinkable by both partie s, which has played an important part in main tainin g credible deterrence vis--vis Russia. Trump just put the idea of the US not defending NATO in to question. This th reatens the very in tegrity of NATO itself. If NATO allies start to think that the Un ited States cant be trusted to defe nd them, that NATO is just on paper, then theyll start to wonder why they bother to adhere to this alliance in the first pla ce. If Trump wins the ele ction, this could cause them to exit the security agreement altogether. According to the best available research, this would make wa r on the European contin ent far mo re like ly. One study, from p rofessors Jesse C. Johnson and B rett Ashley Leeds, surveyed about 200 years of data on conflicts and concluded that "defensive alliances lower the probability of internatio nal conflict and are thus a good policy option for states seeking to maintain peace in the wo rld." Another study looked
specifically at the perio d from 1950 to 2000 and found that "formal alliances with nucle ar states appear to carry significant deterrence benefits." The US's formal ag reements, then, deter agg ression against its non-nuclear partners (like Germany and the Baltics). In their new book on American grand st ra tegy, Dartmouth scholars Steven B roo ks and William Wohlforth also surveyed research f rom regional experts and found a similar consensus. In Eu rope, they write, "most assessments nonetheless sum up to the conclusion that NATO is a net security plus." Trump, then, is weakening one of Americas most important security agreements seeming ly without very much thought. The nightmare scenario: actual nuclear war (Ro molo Tavani/Shutterstock) Trumps comments a re worse than just undermining NATO: By refusing to commit to the Baltics categorically, he encourages Russia to test American resolve in dangerous ways. According to some Russia experts, Vladimir
Putins ultima te wish in Eu rope is to break NATO. The way to do that, according to these schola rs, is to expose the Article V guarantee as hollow: to show that when push comes to shove, the United States or other large NATO powers wouldnt actually defend the wea ker states. The Baltic states would be the mo st like ly scenario for this to happen. They a re ve ry small, theyre right on Russias borders, and they aren't really all that important to We ste rn countries' own security. By threatening these sta tes, Russia would fo rce a que stion: Are the United States, Britain, and France really willing to sacrifice their own soldiers in defense of a tiny sta te? In 2014, the Danish in telligence agency note that Denmark is a NATO ally publicly warned that this was a serious possibility: Russia may attempt to test NATO s cohesion by engaging in military intimidation of the Baltic countries, for in stance with a th reatening military build-up close to the borders of these countries and
simultaneous attempts of political p ressu re, destabilizatio n and possib ly infiltration. Russia could launch such an in timidation campaign in connection with a serious crisis in the post -Soviet space or another international crisis in which Russia confronts the United States and NATO. The critical issue in preventin g this scenario, again, is the perception of NATO commit ment. So long as Putin believes that the US and other majo r powers a re firmly committed to the defense of their treaty allies, hes unlike ly to risk starting a war that he would almo st certainly lose. This is why Trumps comments a re so damagin g: They send a direct signal to the Kremlin that the Un ited States is less than serious about the defense of NATO allies. This sugge sts that a ploy to b reak NATO might have a bigger risk of succeeding than previously thought. But note that Trump also refused to say unequivocally that he wouldnt abid e by the NATO t reaty. I dont want to tell you what Id do because I dont

Putins confidence in NATO is undermined even though

the US, under either Trump or Hillary Clinton, remains committed to defending its treaty allies. Thats the
scenario under which misperceptions potentially escalate into an actual war between the worlds
two largest nuclear powers. Max Fisher wrote an extended piece on how this uncertainty could plausibly escalate to war for Vox
last year; I encourage you to read it. But the point, according the experts Fisher spoke to, is that a firm perception that the US
will defend its NATO allies is crucial. "That kind of misperception situation is definitely possible,
and thats how wars start," Steve Saideman, a professor who studies NATO at Carleton University, told Fisher. He then scarily
want Putin to know what I d do, he said . But the entire point of NATO is that Putin needs to know what America will do. If he knows the US will defend the Baltics, then he will like ly back off. If he knows the US wont defe nd the Baltics, then we could have the breakup of NATO which would be quite bad but wouldnt immediate ly risk World War III. The nightma re scenario, though, is that

compared modern Europe with preWorld War I Europe: "The thing that makes war most thinkable is when other people dont think its

Russias conventional military is so much weaker than it

used to be that it has been becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of nuclear use in a
war with the West. Communications between Washington and the Kremlin are so bad, according to Fisher, that nuclear war is disturbingly plausible in the event of
thinkable." But heres the scariest thing from Fishers piece.

a conflict: Russia has been gradually lowering its bar for when it would use nuclear weapons, and in the process upending the decades-old logic of mutually assured destruction,
adding tremendous nuclear danger to any conflict in Europe. The possibility that a limited or unintended skirmish could spiral into nuclear war is higher than ever. One reason
things have gotten so scary: Russias formal nuclear doctrine says the country is willing to use nuclear weapons first in the event of a sufficiently serious conventional conflict. This

Trumps comments are so unbelievably terrifying. He is creating exactly the kind of ambiguity that makes a
nuclear war a potentially civilization-ending event most plausible. Even if he doesnt end up winning the election, he
is why

has already helped send a signal to Putin that US resolve may actually be weaker than everyone thought. Im not saying were all going to die now. We most likely arent. The risks of nuclear war
with Russia are still quite low, and remain low after Trumps comments. The US hasnt withdrawn from NATO, and Russia is still relatively unlikely to gamble on a lack of American resolve, given
that it would assuredly lose any conventional war with NATO powers. But Russias calculus shifted just a bit after Trumps comments, making the risk of a catastrophic war a bit higher today than it
was yesterday. Thats horrifying. Even if Russia isnt emboldened to full-on test NATO, the consequences could be severe. Russia messing with Baltic countries could make many peoples lives far
less secure, and risk more serious incidents in the process. This isnt a game or a reality show: This is the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and potentially the human race, hanging in the
balance. Anything that raises the risk of nuclear war, however remote, should be terrifying. This is not the kind of thing you leave to amateurs yet that is exactly what the Republican Party has
chosen to do this week in Cleveland. Even if you think that everything Trump has done to date the authoritarianism, the racism, the ignorance, the petty childishness isnt disqualifying, this

If this man could make a nuclear war somewhat more likely even before he takes office,
imagine what he could do with his finger on Americas nuclear trigger .
should be.

Trump makes warming inevitable

Lucas 11-9-16(Caroline Patricia Lucas (born 9 December 1960) is a British
politician, and since 2 September 2016, Co-Leader of the Green Party of England and
Wales, a position she shares with Jonathan Bartley. She has been the Member of
Parliament (MP) for Brighton Pavilion since the 2010 general election, when she
became the UK's first Green Party MP. She was re-elected in the 2015 general
election with an increased majority.)

I still can't quite believe what has happened in the US. The sense of utter
devastation is overwhelming and it hurts. A xenophobic, dangerous,
misogynist is set to be leader of the most powerful country on Earth. A man
who mocks disabled people and whose hatred for Muslims and Mexicans has
been worn as a badge of honour. Today is a dark, dark day. I know that women in
the US, and people of color, migrants, LGBT people and many others will wake up today in a
country they fear is set to be run by a man who has waged a war of the airwaves against
them. For those of us who are concerned about climate change and that should be every
single one of us Trumps election is truly a hammer blow to the work weve been doing.
Slowly but surely, countries across the world have been moving forward and working closer
together on climate change, and now the most powerful nation on earth is to

be led by someone who denies that the earth is warming. In fact, he

believes that the concept of global warming was created by and for
the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.

Trump has said that he wants to scrap the major regulations that President Obama put in place
to reduce US carbon dioxide emissions, including the Clean Power Plan. Most devastatingly,

just a week after the Paris Climate deal became law, the US has elected a
President who wants to pull out of it. Collective global action on climate
change is no longer inevitable. Trump could seriously slow this down, with catastrophic
consequences for some of the poorest people in the world who will suffer the worst effects of
climate change. Make no mistake, Trump presents a genuine threat to some of the poorest
people in the world who will suffer the worst effects of the climate crisis . In the face of

such darkness it is tempting to hide away from it all and pretend that this is some sort
of nightmare. I have no doubt that forces in Britain will now use this as a moment to reinforce
their own worldview of a smaller country, with high walls surrounding us. And those very same
people will argue that our own fight against climate change here is somehow futile.

But we

must not slip into fatalism. Britain could now begin to lead the world on climate
change working closely with our friends in Europe. What better response to Trumps election
than showing him that investing in renewables makes economic sense and strengthens energy
security whatever his views on climate change. With states like California and New York
pursuing their own ambitious climate policies, there is hope that the US might still meet its
climate obligations. I will never believe that people are inherently closed-minded or insular,
but I do believe that people, the world over, are scared and angry and are kicking back in
ways that nobody predicted. The establishment has been dealt near-knockout

blows in both the US and Britain only to be replaced by even more reactionary
forces. By people more than willing to use the politics of hate to divide us . I
have a message for those people who will try to stir up hatred and fear. Where you try and
divide us we will stand firmer together than ever before. Where you try and pitch our
communities against each other, we will build stronger bonds between ourselves and our
neighbors. And where you try and reject the science, and condemn the world to catastrophic
climate change, we will do everything in our power to stop you. This is no time to mourn

instead we must organize like never before to keep our communities cohesive
and our climate safe. On this dark day we extend the hand of friendship to people in the US
who wake up in fear. Solidarity is a popular word, but we have to make it mean something. Its
at times like this when we need to unite, learn, resist and hope more than ever before. Today,

in whatever ways we can, lets light a candle rather than curse the

darkness.