WEF 2017
«Die Welt hat keine Führung mehr»

NZZ AM SONNTAG von Alain Zucker, Davos 26.1.2017, 13:22 Uhr

Ian Bremmer, Experte für Geopolitik, hält es erstmals seit dem Kollaps der Sowjetunion für denkbar, dass es zu einem Krieg zwischen grösseren Mächten kommt.

NZZ am Sonntag: Donald Trump ist seit Freitag neuer Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten. Die Wirtschaftselite in Davos ist der Meinung, es komme schon gut. Sehen Sie das auch so?

Ian Bremmer: Ich frage mich, ob die Leute dies wirklich finden oder einfach nur sagen, weil – eine andere Wahl bleibt ja nicht. Doch Fakt ist: Trump ist der unberechenbarste und am wenigsten qualifizierte US-Präsident, den wir je hatten, was die Weltpolitik betrifft. Und dies in einer Zeit, in der das Verhältnis Amerikas zu seinen Verbündeten bereits in einem schlechten Zustand ist.

War die bisherige Weltordnung schon am ­Auseinanderfallen, bevor Trump Präsident wurde?

Der Weg war vorgespurt. Und nun kommt einer, der für das Gegenteil dessen steht, was die amerikanische Aussenpolitik bisher kennzeichnete. Er will weder Freihandel vorantreiben noch den globalen Sheriff spielen. Die Pax Americana ist seit Freitag vorbei – die Welt hat keine Führung mehr.

[...]

The State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned

By Josh Rogin January 26 at 11:02 AM

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-ro...m=.f88393b9d92b

US State Department's entire senior management team quits as Secretary Rex Tillerson takes up post

The move was part of an exit of officials who do not want to work under Donald Trump

Andrew Buncombe, New York

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...t-a7547916.html

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.

Tillerson was actually inside the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday, taking meetings and getting the lay of the land. I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Department’s long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me.

Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

[...]

Das State Department ist ein Scherbenhaufen.

Das State Department ist ein Scherbenhaufen.

A handful of senior management staff at the State Department have resigned this week, department officials said today -- representing an unusually large exodus for a change of administrations on C Street.

Among six politically appointed officials at the State Department to hand in their resignations was the Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, who has worked at the department for over nine years and was first appointed to the job by President George W. Bush, officials said.

"Kennedy was an institution," as one senior State Department official put it.

Kennedy helped lead the transition at the State Department for the incoming Trump administration and was a well-respected figure within the building. Yet many Republicans associated Kennedy with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's tenure, and dragged him into the fallout from the Benghazi terror attack as well as Clinton's private email controversy, making his departure somewhat unsurprising.

Senior State Department officials familiar with the circumstances insisted these resignations occurred not as a protest of the incoming administration, but said that they were essentially asked to leave, though they were technically not fired.

By nature of their positions, these people would have been made to submit a resignation letter, but the administration doesn't have to accept it. Indeed some resignations were not.

"As is standard with every transition, the outgoing administration, in coordination with the incoming one, requested all politically appointed officers submit letters of resignation," Acting State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement today.

"The Department encourages and advocates for senior officers to compete for high level offices in the Department. These positions are political appointments, and require the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm them in these roles," Toner added. "They are not career appointments but of limited term. Of the officers whose resignations were accepted, some will continue in the Foreign Service in other positions, and others will retire by choice or because they have exceeded the time limits of their grade in service."

President Trump's selection to be the next Secretary of State, former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, is expected to be confirmed by the Senate next week.

Readout of Secretary Mattis’ Call with German Minister of Defense Ursula von der Leyen

Jan. 26, 2017

Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis provided the following readout:

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis spoke today by telephone with German Minister of Defense Ursula von der Leyen to introduce himself and exchange perspectives on defense security issues with one of our closest allies.

The two leaders discussed the importance of the alliance between the United States and Germany, both bilaterally and as members of NATO. The secretary assured the minister of the United States’ enduring commitment to the NATO alliance. He thanked Minister von der Leyen for her country’s leadership in NATO activities on the Eastern Flank and in Afghanistan, and acknowledged the role that Germany plays in fighting terrorism, specifically in the counter-ISIL coalition. He also cited the strategic importance of Germany as the host to 35,000 U.S. personnel, the largest U.S. force presence in Europe.

Both pledged to consult in the months to come and look forward to working together at the Munich Security Conference in February.

Wer näht denn demnächst T-Shirts im Akkord für 5$/Stunde? 1 Mio neue Jobs? Wer näht Jeans und klebt Turnschuhe/Sneaker? Wer baut Handys und Laptops?

Most of the clothing Americans buy at Walmart, Macy’s and Target are made abroad, including 97 percent of apparel and 98 percent of shoes, according to the American Apparel and Footwear Association.

Trump promised last month that 'things will be different' at the UN

Trump said set to halt funding for UN agencies, other groups that give PA, PLO full membership

President preparing executive orders that would also stop payments to organizations linked to terror-sponsoring states, NY Times says

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing two executive orders that would halt US funding to the UN and other bodies that grant full membership to the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The orders would reduce the United States’ role in international bodies, including the United Nations, and start a review process that would seek to potentially withdraw from multilateral treaties, the report said. Trump has been spending his first days in office signing a series of executive actions, including on abortion, immigration and border control.

According to The New York Times, a first draft order, titled “Auditing and Reducing US Funding of International Organizations,” would drastically reduce or terminate funding for UN agencies or other bodies that meet any one of several criteria. Among them: Agencies that “give full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization,” support abortion programs, or engage in any activity that skirts international sanctions against Iran or North Korea.

Federal law already requires the US to withdraw US funding from UN agencies that “accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.” That statute, enacted in 1990, is what required former president Barack Obama to defund UNESCO, in 2011, after it accepted a Palestinian bid for full membership.

[...]

The new Trump order would also require eliminating all American taxpayer payments to an organization that “is controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism,” or considered to be engaging in the persecution of minorities or any other form of human rights violation, the Times said.

Those criteria apart, Trump’s order also calls for ratifying “at least a 40 percent overall decrease” in aid the US provides to international institutions.

[...]

The US government gives the United Nations roughly $8 billion in both mandatory payments and voluntary contributions each year, with at least $3 billion going to its regular and peacekeeping budgets.

Those funds make up 22 percent of the UN’s financial resources, more than any other country contributes.

[...]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-said-se...plo-membership/

In Venezuela, we couldn’t stop Chávez. Don’t make the same mistakes we did.
[...]

The recipe for populism is universal. Find a wound common to many, find someone to blame for it, and make up a good story to tell. Mix it all together. Tell the wounded you know how they feel. That you found the bad guys. Label them: the minorities, the politicians, the businessmen. Caricature them. As vermin, evil masterminds, haters and losers, you name it. Then paint yourself as the savior. Capture the people’s imagination. Forget about policies and plans, just enrapture them with a tale. One that starts with anger and ends in vengeance. A vengeance they can participate in.

[...]

Populism can survive only amid polarization. It works through the unending vilification of a cartoonish enemy. Never forget that you’re that enemy. Trump needs you to be the enemy, just like all religions need a demon. A scapegoat. “But facts!” you’ll say, missing the point entirely.

[...]
Don’t feed polarization, disarm it. This means leaving the theater of injured decency behind.

That includes rebukes such as the one the “Hamilton” cast gave Vice President-elect Mike Pence shortly after the election. While sincere, it only antagonized Trump; it surely did not convince a single Trump supporter to change his or her mind. Shaming has never been an effective method of persuasion.

Iran will ban Americans from entering the country in response to US President Donald Trump’s “insulting” order restricting arrivals from Iran and six other Muslim states, the foreign ministry said Saturday.

Das ist ne harte Nuss, beim letzten Austrittsversuch von Bundesstaaten gabs 4 Jahre Krieg und über ne Million Verluste.

Was den Iran betrifft: Wie kann man nur so unglaublich dämlich sein und das Tauwetter das zwischen Iran und dem Westen gerade eingesetzt hat, so nachhaltig, willentlich und absichtlich gegen die Wand fahren?!

Schau doch mal wer an diesem Deal verliert:

- Die Öl und Gas Industrie, weil der Iran den Preis drückt
- Die Waffenindustrie, wenn das Tauwetter anhalten würde
- Die Rechte in Israel bzw. die aktuelle Regierung, weil man mit dem Feindbild weniger Wahlkampf machen kann.

Schau doch mal wer an diesem Deal verliert:

[...]
- Die Rechte in Israel bzw. die aktuelle Regierung, weil man mit dem Feindbild weniger Wahlkampf machen kann.

Donald Trump

Exekutivunordnung

Nun auch ein Einreisestopp für Menschen aus Syrien. Sind die vielen Anordnungen des US-Präsidenten nur eine Machtdemonstration oder haben sie realpolitische Auswirkungen?

Von Sebastian Moll, New York
28. Januar 2017

Donald Trump ist ein mit allen Wassern gewaschener Mann der Show. Seinen Aufstieg hat der neue US-Präsident schließlich vor allem seiner Präsenz als Reality-TV-Star zu verdanken. So sind Trumps öffentliche Auftritte stets Inszenierungen mit knallig kalkulierten Effekten.

Ganz sicher galt dies auch für seine erste Amtshandlung als Präsident. Hinter dem Schreibtisch seines neu dekorierten Büros thronend, unterzeichnete er kaum eine Stunde nach seiner Amtseinführung vor geladenen Medienvertretern seine erste Exekutivanordnung. Es war eine Demonstration der Macht und der Entschlossenheit.

Seither kommen aus dem Weißen Haus beinahe täglich neue Dekrete dieser Art. Trump demontiert Obamas Gesundheitsreform, verfügt einen Einwanderungsstopp für Menschen aus muslimisch geprägten Ländern, ordnet den Baubeginn einer Mauer an der Grenze zu Mexiko an. Seine Anhänger jubeln, scheint sich der Präsident doch als genau der starke Mann zu erweisen, als der er sich während des Wahlkampfes verkauft hat.

Seine Gegner erzittern derweil vor seinen offenkundig autokratischen Tendenzen. Manche sehen gar den Beginn eines diktatorischen Regimes in den USA, das die demokratischen Institutionen aushebelt und die Checks and Balances des amerikanischen Systems umgeht. Als Muskelspiel hat Trumps Erlassorgie insofern seine Wirkung erreicht. Realpolitisch hat sie allerdings weit weniger Gewicht.

Der Rekord liegt bei 3.721 Dekreten

Das Instrument der Exekutivanordnung ist eines, dessen sich mit einer einzigen Ausnahme alle bisherigen US-Präsidenten bedient haben. Lediglich William Henry Harrison kam nicht dazu, er starb nach 31 Tagen im Amt. Rekordhalter ist indes Franklin D. Roosevelt, der während des Zweiten Weltkriegs 3.721 Dekrete unterzeichnete. Obama rangiert mit 277 im vorderen Mittelfeld, kurz hinter George Bush und vor John F. Kennedy.

Ermöglicht werden die Dekrete durch Artikel zwei der US-Verfassung, der den Präsidenten als Inhaber der Exekutivmacht und obersten Befehlshaber der Streitkräfte definiert. Da die Anordnungen jedoch nicht explizit in der Verfassung vorgesehen sind, haben sie einen juristisch ambivalenten Status. Fest steht allein, dass sie nicht die Kraft eines Gesetzes haben; Exekutivanordnungen aus dem Weißen Haus sind keine monarchischen Edikte.

Rechtstheoretiker glauben, dass die Reichweite der Anordnungen schon durch die Eifersucht der anderen Regierungsgewalten begrenzt wird. So erklärte David Pozen, Jurist an der New Yorker Columbia University, gegenüber dem Nachrichtenportal The Intercept, dass historisch gesehen die Gerichte und das Parlament immer Widerstand geleistet hätten, wenn sie das Gefühl hätten, der Präsident missbrauche seine Macht.

Das musste zuletzt Barack Obama schmerzlich erfahren, als der Kongress sich weigerte, Mittel zu bewilligen, um Insassen aus dem Gefangenenlager Guantanamo auf Kuba an Anstalten auf US-Territorium zu überführen. Damit war seine Anordnung, Guantanamo zu schließen, hinfällig.

Mehrere Exekutivanordnungen von George W. Bush wurden indes von Gerichten vereitelt: Bush konnte weder die öffentliche Einsicht in Unterlagen seiner Präsidentschaft verhindern, noch 27 Organisationen als "terroristische Vereinigungen" einstufen lassen.

Durchschlagskraft der Erlasse fraglich

Auch Trumps scheinbarer Aktivismus in den ersten Tagen seiner Präsidentschaft ist nicht so ungewöhnlich, wie er angesichts der allgemeinen Aufgeregtheit der vergangenen Tage erscheinen mag. Es ist im Gegenteil ein gängiges Vorgehen neuer Präsidenten, in den ersten Wochen ihrer Regierung durch Exekutivanordnungen Entschlossenheit zu zeigen und den Ton für ihre Amtszeit vorzugeben.

So begnadigte Jimmy Carter am ersten Tag nach seiner Amtseinführung Kriegsdienstverweigerer, die nicht nach Vietnam gehen wollten. Obama unterschrieb in seiner ersten Woche nur eine Anordnung weniger als Trump. Neben der Schließung von Guantanamo ordnete er unter anderem die Behandlung von ausländischen Gefangenen gemäß amerikanischer Rechtsprechung an.

Ähnlich wie bei Obamas Anordnungen ist die Durchschlagskraft von Trumps Dekreten eher fraglich. Die Mittel zum Bau der Mauer an der mexikanischen Grenze müssen vom Kongress bewilligt werden. Ob er das tut und wenn ja, wann, ist ungewiss. Ohne das Parlament kann Trump höchstens Mittel aus vorhandenen Töpfen umleiten. Die würden aber bestenfalls für den Beginn des Bauvorhabens ausreichen.

Bei der Demontage von Obamacare sieht es nicht besser aus. Ohne eine Gesetzesänderung kann Trump Mittel für die Subventionierung von Obamacare einfrieren; auch kann seine Regierung Ausnahmeregelungen für die Versicherungspflicht großzügiger auslegen. Beides könnte den Versicherungsmarkt durcheinanderwirbeln. Ohne ein neues Gesetz kann Trump die Reform aber nicht komplett rückgängig machen.

So hat der neue US-Präsident mit seinen Anordnungen in der ersten Amtswoche zwar wirksam vorgeführt, dass es ihm mit seinen Wahlkampfversprechen ernst war. Um Amerika vollkommen umzukrempeln, reichen jedoch ein paar Federstriche nicht. Nicht einmal aus dem Weißen Haus von Donald Trump.

Schau doch mal wer an diesem Deal verliert:

- Die Öl und Gas Industrie, weil der Iran den Preis drückt

...Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.

Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
By Rosalind S. Helderman January 28 at 6:35 PM

The seven nations targeted for new visitation restrictions by President Trump on Friday all have something in common: They are places he does not appear to have any business interests.
...
Trump’s order makes no mention of Turkey, which has faced several terrorist attacks in recent months. On Wednesday, the State Department updated a travel warning for Americans visiting Turkey, noting that “an increase in anti-American rhetoric has the potential to inspire independent actors to carry out acts of violence against US citizens.”

Trump has licensed his name to two luxury towers in Istanbul. A Turkish company also manufactures a line of Trump-branded home furnishings. Trump’s most recent financial disclosure, filed in May when he was a presidential candidate, showed that he had earned as much as $6 million in the previous year from the deals.
...
The executive order makes no mention of Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Trump Organization had incorporated several limited liability companies in preparation for an attempt to build a hotel in Saudi Arabia, showing an interest in expansion in the country. The company canceled those incorporations in December, indicating that no project is moving forward.

Excluded as well is Indonesia, the world’s largest majority-Muslim nation, where there are two large Trump-branded resorts underway, built in partnership with powerful local interests.
...
Also untouched by Friday’s ­executive order is the United Arab Emirates, a powerful Muslim ally with whom the United States ­nevertheless has complicated ­relations. Trump has licensed his name to a Dubai golf resort, as well as a luxury home ­development and spa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...m=.8dab05e942e8

Trump plappert hier ganz ungeniert Original-Kreml-Propaganda nach. Ein pathologischer Narzisst.

[...]

(6) Finally, I want to highlight a story that many people haven’t noticed. On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

Conclusive? No. But it raises some very interesting questions for journalists to investigate.

[...]

Oh dear, die Einschläge kommen näher...

Trial Balloon for a Coup? - Analyzing the news of the past 24 hours

[...]

Und es gibt noch so manch anderes Schmankerl in dem Artikel zu finden.