Trumps' 100 day's report card

Trumps' 100 day's report card

It's an American tradition since Franklin Roosevelt's days and Donald Trump is not exempt.
His report card for the first 100 days in the world's most powerful office is in, and grades range from tolerable to terrible. Trump called the marker “ridiculous”, even though he himself had announced a 100-day plan at Gettysburg, no less. Lincolnesque aspirations aside, reality has been cruel. Trump has floundered (मुश्किल में होना / परेशानी में घिरा होना) dramatically on domestic issues, stymied (गतिरोध) by the courts and commonsense. He was unable to repeal Obamacare or enforce a ban on six Muslim-majority countries. Just before the April 29 deadline, he was racing to get votes on a tax package. Domestic failures turned his attention to foreign policy, forcing the world to understand Trumpism: so far, a maddening blend of threatening tweets, frightening incoherence and a lack of direction. Son-in-law Jared Kushner as the Secretary of (almost) everything brings his real estate wisdom to the thicket of international crises.
Is Trump “a national and global peril“, as David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, declared in his sharp critique? Or is he the ultimate survivor who has weaponised his shortcomings into a baffling (चकरा देनेवाला / विस्मयकारी) shield? His support base remains strong, even though he has the lowest approval rating (around 40%) of any president at the 100-day milestone. More interesting is the subtle shift in perception in Trump's favour. A small majority of Americans (53%) now considers him a strong leader, thanks to the Tomahawks raining on Syria and dropping of the largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan. The commentariat cheered this `return' of US muscularity. But such military actions, unless part of a sustainable strategy, are akin to Twitter outbursts.
By this time, the overall direction of the presidency should have been clear, priorities set and a sense of order prevailing in the White House; except it's not. Even the kindest would agree that this team is falling short. The infighting (आपसी खींचतान) , the inexperience, the hype are painfully apparent with no firm grip on the mechanics of governance. The administration remains severely understaffed. An adequately staffed executive branch is essential to driving policy, especially if the ambition is nothing short of reshaping America.
A strong agenda with India is yet to be articulated (व्यक्त करना) . Department spokespersons repeat existing talking points because they have little else to share. Some say it's best that way. Being off Trump's Twitter timeline is a net positive. You can watch him deal with others and gauge what's coming your way.
If relief were expected on China and Russia policies, it's best to temper enthusiasm. On China, read Trump's most recent interview and marvel at the kowtow. “I really liked him a lot. I think he liked me”, he told AP of his meeting with Xi Jinping. “We have a great chemistry together….”, gushed `the leader of the free world' about the Communist Party of China boss. The `chemistry' produced an understanding on North Korea while obscuring all other crimes and misdemeanours. Not a word on Beijing's aggressive behaviour, or on its frantic capacity-building to establish beachheads (चौकी) farther and farther away from the mainland. Trump's embrace of Xi was duly noted in New Delhi whose China policy has acquired a certa in in-your-face character of late.
Trump has moved to a safe place on China and Russia: studied tolerance of the former and suppressed hostility against the latter. The Washington establishment approves, channelling Henry Kissinger on China and Cold War nostalgia (पुरानी यादें/विषाद) on Russia. If the trend continues, expect more hedging in Asia. On Pakistan, the situation may be slightly different. The ground in Washington is more prepared than before for a tougher policy and Trump has leeway. The US Congress and the think tank community are largely convinced, it's time to try something new with Pakistan's military-intelligence complex.
But if US commitment in Afghanistan increases, so might its perceived dependence on Pakistan -at least for US bureaucrats who overplay Pakistan's importance and underplay their own leverage. Can Trump's generals force a change in this thinking and use US leverage via the International Monetary Fund or the Financial Action Task Force? There's hope. But, as they say, hope is not a policy.
On the trade front, a robust majority of Americans (73%) support Trump forcing US companies to keep jobs at home. This is the cleavage (दरार) on which he wants to rest his presidency. And this is where maximum trouble resides for India. Last week, the White House accused top Indian companies of unfairly grabbing a “lion's share” of H-1B visas by gaming the system. The naming and shaming of Tata and Infosys was a new blow. Differences on trade and economic issues can't be finessed. Not with Trump. Ask What You Did for My US.
The India file may be caught in the tussle between nationalists and internationalists. Ashley Tellis, the preeminent US analyst on India, fears the era of `strategic altruism (परोपकारिता) ', a paradigm under which Washington has supported India without necessarily looking for reciprocity (पारस्परिकता) , may be coming to an end. Speaking at Georgetown University's India Ideas Conference, Tellis said that Trump is more likely than previous presidents to ask an Indian leader, `What have you done for me lately?' And there is no good answer. At least, not one that is likely to satisfy Washington's expectations.