What A Bad Day for America At the UN!! An Avalanche of Contradictions By Donald Trump and of Laughter At Him

In his second annual appearance before the U.N. General Assembly, Donald Trump lived up to universal expectation. By making as little sense as possible before the presidents and prime ministers of 193 member states. An avalanche of contradictions, gushing out of the mouth of a man who doesn't like to read. Supplemented by much laughter at him.

So before an organization devoted to international cooperation for peace and prosperity, the Donald gleefully announced:

• American withdrawal from membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council;
• Reduction of American contributions to UN peace-keeping operations to 25% of the required budget;
• The readiness of America to use its economic might to force other nations into submission to American barriers created to the disadvantage of the freedom of trade (tariff, taxes.. etc.)
• Accused China of violating the terms of its entry into the World Trade Organization, while thanking it for its role in ameliorating the tensions between America and North Korea; and
• The primacy of national sovereignty which he favors over globalization intended to harmonize between cross-border relationship and national interest.

It was last year that Trump from the UN GA rostrum that he threatened to wipe North Korea off the map. But this year, his old threats turned to utter praise for the North Korea president. Trump's floating hostility turned this year to Iran and Venezuela. In defiance of plain truth, the unhinged American President states that the Iran nuclear deal was a embarrassment to the US and that Venezuela needed a new leadership.

Lying through his teeth, he insinuated that many countries supported his unilateral opting out of the six-party Iran nuclear deal. Not so by any means. The International Atomic Energy Agency, through its inspectors, supported Iran's assertion of living up to the terms of that deal. And France, Germany, the UK, China and Russia have manifested their incredulity about the American claims. Breaking international deals is not the kind of action to be lauded at the UN GA annual summit.

It was impossible to square the Trump's call for respect of national sovereignty and the emphasis on self defense, with his declared threats against Venezuela and its leadership. Trump had no regard for the right of Venezuela to choose "socialism" over capitalism. His disparaging remarks flew in the face of the UN Charter emphasis on non-intervention in internal affairs.

Trump's message was a blatant return to gunboat diplomacy through the advocacy of a reborn Monroe doctrine (Monroeism) under which South America had been regarded as an American protectorate. Obviously he did not take account the fact that the president of this 73rd session of the General Assembly was a fine lady diplomat from Ecuador.

More of Trump's contradictions before the world body:

• His false claim that Germany shall soon by over-dependent upon Russian national gas for its energy needs. This is while the American President has, since inauguration, done his best to avoid criticizing Russia for anything, including its alleged intervention in the 2016 American election. Thus his untoward remarks about German dependency hit in 3 ways: German purported weakness; Russian politicization of its exports; and infringement of domestic affairs of two sovereign States.
• Trump's call on States to pay for the cost of their own defense, while proclaiming that America's might shall also serve the needs of its "friends and allies." No allusion to who are his or America's "friends and allies," in view of his "America First" policy.
• Trump's implied disparagement of the administration of his predecessors through his claims that America has never before seen such rates of economic growth as compared to the pre-Trump era. He has ignored the historic fact that President Obama has, in 2008, inherited an economic mess which threatened even the car industry.

Trump's emphasis on going it alone overlooks the historic fact that America, since 1945 and without allies has not won any wars: not in Korea, not in Vietnam, not in Afghanistan. Denigrating NATO, the shield that had held western Europe safe from Soviet encroachment, has been Trump's signature European policy.

And his call for observance of the right of peoples to sovereignty and prosperity flies in the face of his dealing with the Palestinian people's plight under Israeli occupation, including his recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.

His claims to respect of the Rule of aw could not be supported by his own disregard for the US Constitution, nor by his denigration of the US Department of Justice, nor by his executive orders relating to the Muslim bans regarding immigration to the US, nor of the first Amendment of the US Constitution in regard to the freedom of expression. For in a fascist vein, he has described the US media and even journalists as "Enemy of the People."

It was a bad day for America at the UN -a forum which was largely created by the US. The UN Charter compares in many ways to the principles and values enunciated by or implicit in the US Constitution. 

The world laughed aloud at America, as represented by Trump. That occurred when he said: "In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of my country." Trump's nemesis, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani seemed to have the last laugh as he pointed out another contradiction: "It is ironic that the United States government does not even conceal its plan for overthrowing the same government it invites to talk."

Trump is nothing but a reality terminator. As the UN laughed at him, he confessed from the General Assembly rostrum that that laughter was not the reaction which he expected. But the following day, the reality terminator had a different interpretation. "They were laughing with me." Really? If so, why was there no applause?! Trump's brain seems to process realities as if to shield himself from reality.

In an op ed article in the New York Times of September 28, 2018, Susan Rice, former US Ambassador to the UN during the Obama presidency, said: "In these troubling times, up is down, black is white, and America stands alone, reckless ridiculed, among the nations of the world."

A SUNSGLOW Occasion Enriching the Global Debate on Immigration

A raging debate on immigration denotes global interest. Such global interest has a sizeable legal perspective. And for an organization like SUNSGLOW, whose central mission since 1999 has been Global Training in the Rule of Law, it was obvious that it should contribute to that debate.

Hence the decision to assemble a high-level panel to deal with this topic under the title of "Immigration As a Global Challenge." Implementation took place at the SUNSGLOW historical venue, namely, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, New York City, whose President, Dr. Miguel Martinez-Saenz, is a SUNSGLOW Trustee.

On August 9, the College reserved for that event the Founders Hall Auditorium (from 6:00 to 8:00 pm) where Vice President Jennifer Lancaster, who is also Academic Dean, was deputized to welcome the panelists and the select audience.

This is perhaps the first time for the SUNSGLOW management to report to our Board (Trustees, International Advisors, and Associates) through the wider medium of this blog posting.

The panel consisted of Carolina Maluje, Esq. (Miami, Florida) as the first speaker. She was followed by Dean Elizabeth F. Defeis, Seton Hall University School of Law and Advisor to the Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations. The third speaker was SUNSGLOW Vice President, Dr. Zahra Hend Shnayen. Followed by me, as the last speaker.

The entire event was moderated by the Honorable Judge Elizabeth S. Stong, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York City. Thanking her for her astute running of this event, I wrote: "No one could have run our event as exquisitely as our distinguished judge and dear friend the Honorable Stong."

And in thanking Dean Jennifer Lancaster of St. Francis College for her launching the panel, I wrote: "If the Brooklyn Bridge is a St. Francis College symbol of connectedness, SUNSGLOW is one of your bridges to the UN and beyond. For it was during the tenure of my friend, the late Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, that a formal statement by him in 1999, declared: "SUNSGLOW is a UN Partner."

Now to a selection of excerpts from what the panelists said on August 9.

Ms. Maluje reminded her audience of her immigrant background. She said:

"I also was attracted to immigration law because I come from a long line of immigrants. It seems that our family emigrates every generation, or so it appears. My father's family came from Syria (my grandparents) and my mother's family from Spain (my great grandparents). I know what it is to be an immigrant and see it firsthand. I adjusted under Reagan's law amnesty and I was fortunate to benefit from it, as well as my parents."

Then she delved into a depiction of the sorrowful portrayal of immigration laws during the present Trump administration. She said:

"Current changes during this new administration have been noticeable. Asylum law has taken a big blow in terms of protecting women from domestic violence and their relationships. Matter of A-B was a case that Attorney General Sessions referred to himself, and reversed protections for women in abusive relationships."

As to Dean Defeis, she addressed the outlook of His Holiness Pope Francis on today's suffering by the millions of immigrants in these words:

"Addressing immigration has become a centerpiece of the papacy of Pope Francis. In his first trip outside of Rome after his election as Pope in 2013, Francis chose to visit the Sicilian Island of Lampedusa, called by some, the "Ellis Island of Italy." At the time of his visit, more than 20,000 persons had died , fleeing hardship and persecution in hopes of a better life in Europe.   As he spoke about those deaths, Pope Francis said it was "a thorn in my heart."  The sad situation of so many migrants and refugees has been called by Pope Francis “a sign of the times."

The contrast between Canada's acceptance of its responsibilities towards today's immigration issues and that of the US was crystallized by Dr. Zahra Hend Shnayen:

"In 2016, there was an influx of refugees, due to the willingness of the Canadian administration to rescue those whose lives were in danger. In response, I joined other friends to form The Canadian Organization For The Integration of Newcomers. Through that organization, we were able to help those new Canadians in many ways, big and small. From helping them to cope with their past ordeal and present loneliness , to assisting them to become contributors to their new society. So we taught them how to look for employment; how to craft jewelry using local material; how to use the libraries."

She went on to cite the upward mobility of Canadian immigrants to top positions. These were her concluding words:

"Suffice it to note that several Canadian Prime Ministers were not Canadian born. These include Canada's second Prime Minister, Alexander Mackenzie."

Moving on to conclude the deliberations of that panel regarding immigration, I began by citing the UN Global Compact on Immigration. That instrument was announced on July 13, 2019. In this respect, I began by saying:

"On July 13, UN member States finalized the first agreement on international migration. Its title is "The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration." It should come to nobody's surprise that the two countries which facilitated that Compact (meaning a Covenant arrived at by common consent) were Mexico and Switzerland."

On the legal context of that Compact, I informed the audience as follows:

Note that that Compact deals with whatever is not at the US/Mexico border. That border, in history, shall always stand for non-safe, extremely disorderly and the apex of irregularity. These are the results of the genocidal acts and acts of war, committed by the present American Administration. Ambassadors Camacho of Mexico and Ambassador Lauber of Switzerland, said to the world from the glass house of the UN the following:

• Article 10 of that Compact informs us that it is "the product of an unprecedented review of evidence and data gathered during an open, transparent and inclusive  process... We learned that migration is a defining feature of our globalized world...;"
• The Compact rests on, among other things, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the Slavery Convention.

The paralysis in American decision-making on immigration was the centerpiece of my statement. Here I said:

"Our dilemma in America is that we have a Congress whose Senate, with a Republican majority, does not act to pass a sane immigration law. And an Executive, who prides itself on saying that our Constitution is archaic. And a judiciary whose 5-4 decisions by the Supreme Court shall go on forever with a conservative tilt, if Brett Kavanugh is confirmed to the seat vacated by justice Kennedy."

So the flow of migrants, hundreds of whom have died from drowning in rickety boats overloaded by the pirates of the Mediterranean, and the flow of immigrants from Central America, whose lives have been put in danger by the US "zero tolerance" draconian policies, are twin companion flaws.

Thus we concluded that SUNSGLOW event regarding one of today's hottest issues dividing our world community. And it shall not be the last.

Since 1882, The Rise of Egyptian Democracy Found Its Main Protector: The Egyptian Armed Forces

In Tahrir Square, in January 2011, the Egyptian Revolution I against Mubarak, was shielded by SCAF (The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces). And in June 2013, Revolution II against the Muslim Brotherhood was protected by the same armed forces. In the two uprisings, history has repeated itself in continuation of the events of 1882.

The armed forces, led by Ahmed Orabi, in support of the young Egyptian democracy of 1880, had performed the same role. Though overwhelmed by non-Egyptian factors, the oath of loyalty to Egypt administered to the officers by Sheikh Mohamed Abdo in May 1882 continued to operate for the past 136 years. It is the glue of fidelity to honor and country which still held in Tahrir for all these decades.

This blog is in celebration of that continuity which separates Egypt from a Syria, a Yemen, or a Libya, where chaos prevails, foreign interference is rampant, and bloodshed has tragically become the news of the day -every day.

Putting a date on that cohesion between civil and military in Egypt, I choose a dark date, an Egyptian Black September, namely September 14, 1882. Why? For against all odds, when the British occupation of Egypt began in July of that year, the head of state in Egypt, Khedewi Tewfik, accompanied the British army of occupation into Cairo on that Black September day.

What legitimacy could one attribute to that ruler reviewing in Abdeen Square, Cairo, a foreign army of occupation? A review which took place in front of Egypt's equivalent of the White House -namely, Abdeen Palace? Tewfik was then 30 years of age (he died in 1892 at the age of 40) fully deserving of the accusation by Orabi, then Egypt's War Minister, of "high treason."

Though the Orabi Revolution and Resistance faltered in 1882, the accolades bestowed on Orabi by his army and countrymen as "The Defender of the Land of Egypt." That honor was more than merited by the events of that time. Those events of the late 19th Century continue to reflect till today their larger meaning for an Egyptian rising democracy whose main protector is Egypt's armed forces.

The line from Orabi to Naguib and Nasser, to Sadat, to Tantawi, to El-Sisi remain unbroken, un-challenged, and permanently embedded in the psyche of that 7000-year old nation. Same nationalistic genes, same commitments, same inclination to keep on rising after every misstep.

A celebratory review of the events of 1880-1882 is in order, providing evidence of the deep roots which have historically bound a nation to its armed forces.

As foreign influence and interference in internal affairs in Egypt grew as of the 1840s, so has the resentment towards these phenomena by Egyptian society. Such nationalist fervor was spread by landowners, the educated classes and the armed forces. Following the inauguration of the Suez Canal in 1869 by Khedewi Ismail, Tewfik's father, the appetite of England and France for control of Egypt increased. Thus enhancing the national reaction in opposition, especially when it came to matters of representation, economy, or national defense.

With Egypt's first constitution of 1879, promulgated by Prime Minister Sherif Pasha towards the end of the reign of Khedewi Ismail in place, that document acquired a haloed status for all those who called Egypt their historic home. The terms Sherif Pasha, the Constitution and the House of representation stood, with a luminous circle around them, in the developing struggle for the very existence of an independent Egypt.

On the opposition side, stood Tewfik, foreign consuls, British designs over Egypt, and foreign lenders who managed to over-lend to an Egypt searching, at the time of Khedewi Ismail, to be as modern as Europe. The result was the establishment, for the first time in Egyptian political history of "The Nationalist Party" (Al-Hezb Al-Watani) in 1879 in Helwan, south of Cairo.

Crystallizing national demands, the first manifesto of The National Party was a true reflection of what the Orabi movement (the military) stood for. These included the total divestiture of the royal family of its land, the abolishment of directing the revenue from the Egyptian Rail Roads for foreign debt payment, and the capping of the interest on foreign debts at 4%.

To Khedewi Tewfik and his foreign backers, especially England, those demands were viewed as treason. The names of the party's membership were hotly sought after for banishment to the Sudan. Not only that these efforts failed. Another nationalist party was formed in Alexandria under the name of "Young Egypt" (Misr Al-Fatah).

With these developments, the tempo of confrontation between the Khedive, backed by an array of foreign powers and interests, and the Egyptian nationalists fronted by Orabi's armed forces was accelerating:

• In January 1881, the Officers Corp convened at Orabi's residence;
• There they issued a petition to Khedive Tewfik calling for replacing the Turkish War Minister, Osman Rifqi, by an Egyptian;
• Tewfik's decision was to court martial Orabi and two of his senior lieutenants. In response, the army attacked the military court, causing its members to flee, then marched upon Abdeen Palace forcing Tewfik to replace the Turkish War Minister by an Orabi loyalist, Mahmoud Sami Al-Baroudi.
• That was in February 1881. By May 1881, the armed forces and the leadership of the nationalist popular movement coalesced against the Palace and the various foreign actors.
• The people and army alliance demanded the increase of the army to 18,000, the fortification of the ports, the establishment of a lower house of parliament, and cabinet accountability before that parliament.

Such demands turned into an outright rebellion against Tewfik:

• The Orabi army refused to heed any military orders by Tewfik, including his orders to march on the Sudan to put down the Mehdi rebellion; ignored his orders to have the army dig up canals for fear of surrendering their weapons.

And when a European driving his car fatally killed an Egyptian soldier in Alexandria, resulting in a demonstration at Tewfik's Alexandria Palace (Ras El-Teen), Tewfik ordered participating army officers to be exiled in the Sudan. On September 9, 1881, Orabi marched his troops on Abdeen Palace.

Seemingly giving in to these army-people demands, parliamentary elections were held, and a House of Representatives was inaugurated in December 1881.

That was the tipping point for direct intervention by England and France: 

• A joint Anglo-French memorandum was issued in January 1882 declaring extreme displeasure at the emergence of a parliamentary system in Egypt;
• It also dissembled fear for the future of Khedive Tewfik;
• The Anglo-French memorandum called, in the meantime, that the new-Egyptian Parliament should not deal with the State's budget (which included extortionist provisions for payments of debt and interest);

In defiance, a nationalist cabinet was formed, headed by Al-Baroudi, which included Orabi as War Minister. A new Constitution was promulgated in February 1882, and the rights of Parliament to debate and decide on the budget was affirmed. And in April 1882, a Turkish plot to assassinate Orabi and 40 other officers was unmasked. The Khedive, true to his colors, refused to punish the accomplices.

By May 1882, British and French naval vessels appeared at the port of Alexandria. But the French units later departed. And on July 11, the British navy bombarded Alexandria. And when the Egyptian army besieged the Khedewi Palace, Tewfik called the British for rescue.

The Egyptian drama of British occupation and the defeat of the Orabi army and the nationalist movement ended by the British entry of Cairo on September 14, 1882 escorted by Tewfik who relished reviewing them at Abdeen Palace. Thus began an occupation which lasted for 72 years.

Historically, the Egyptian nationalist movement had the solid backing of the Armed Forces.

Today, September 14, I bow my head in prayer for Ahmed Orabi in whose village in the province of Sharkia I was born. There I was also taught that love of country and community is part of faith.

We Shall Need MAGA After the EXIT of President Gaga!!

This is in honor of John McCain -who lived and died truthful to high principle. The highest of these principles is love of country for which sacrificing is but a pay back for its having been there for him and millions others!!

With this as an introduction, I find in MAGA (Make America Great Again) an insult by Trump to all those who strove to construct the USA. The founding fathers recognized that the Union needs constant improvement -the periodic search for accommodating changing circumstances. So when Trump calls for MAGA, he turns his back on the difference between evolution and destroying what we have.

And for what purpose? To rebuild America in his own image. But what image? His is never fixed. This president stands for an America which never was. For that reason alone, Donald J. Trump is no more than a Gaga, a senile, doddering, which in French, means "an old fool."

Yet that fool, and those who stand by him, or in awe of him, has given us MAGA as a mantra which should be our tool for repairing the damage inflicted by him on this great human experiment called America.

Trump's sordid record begins with his being oblivious of what governing the US, a complex entity of 50 sovereignties (the 50 States) is all about. He has demonstrated total ignorance of the separation of powers. The US President, under our Constitution, is no Chairman of the Board. Country and company are two different entities: The former is the vehicle; the latter is a mere dependency governed and regulated by the former.

But President Gaga does not see it that way. "I can run the country and my company at the same time," he fulminated. And "I alone can fix it," he uttered at his rallies, bamboozling his captive audience. Those poor souls have been hoodwinked by The Donald deliberate methods of deceit. Trump, a bamboozler par excellence, has explained his ignorance of the US Constitution as, if I correctly recall, "archaic; an inconvenience." 

To my mind, this can only mean that "We the People of the United States...," words by which the Constitution begins, have now been abbreviated by President Gaga as "We, Donald J. Trump." Article II of the Constitution which provides for "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," seems to be interpreted by Donald the Narcissist as a power overwhelming all others under the Constitution.

• A president who regards the Department of Justice as if it were created as a law firm whose task is to "protect" him, is a president who believes that defending the U.S. should not be allowed unless it justifies his actions regardless of their dubious legality;
• A president who uses his power of pardon as a backdoor exit for those regarded as law breakers is himself a law breaker;
• A president whose call for an "America First," yet applies it as "America is for the whites only" is a president who abets racism and thus is an agent for civil strife.
• A president who ignores George Washington's call for "no entangling alliances" is a president whose thought mechanism is incapable of comprehending that that was not a call for no alliances.

President Gaga has built walls around America, not only at the southern borders. He has isolated this great country from Canada to the north; Mexico to the south; Europe except for Russia to the east; and alienated the pacific region to the west, except for North Korea.

A president who believes American adversary, Russia, and attacks the credibility of 17 American intelligence agencies, is an executive who is courting impeachment.

A president who sees in the rise of the extreme right in Europe a vindication of his own espousal of fascism is an executive who has been unfaithful to his own oath of office. That oath is specified in Article II, Section I of the Constitution in these words: "I do solemnly swear ... that I will faithfully execute the Office of President..." In essence, President Gaga, by ignoring that he is leading a country based on the Rule of Law, has destroyed his own legitimacy to occupy the Oval Office.

As for this obsequious Congress, I shall leave that assessment to David Leonhardt, the author of an op-ed column in the New York Times of September 3. Disparaging the leaders of Congress who attended McCain's funeral services at Washington's National Cathedral, he said:

"They have refused to defend America's national security in the face of Russian attacks. They have refused to defend the rule of law against Trump's attacks. They have refused to defend the F.B.I., the Justice Department and the First Amendment. They have refused to defend the basic civil rights that Trump seeks to deny to dark-skinned American citizens, including the right to vote and the right to hold a passport."

That column closed by "They were there for show, faced with a choice, they have rejected McCain's America for Trump's."

Yes, we need MAGA to repair the daily damage, inflicted on it by Trump through his raving mania through which he sees himself as a great president. A president who believes that one day, his utterances shall be regarded by history as being at par with Lincoln's Gettysburg address!! Yet a great America shall assert itself again through reclaiming the values on which it was established 240 years ago.

Trump's exclusion from attendance at the McCain funeral services was a dignified response to Trump's autocratic governance. It was also a response to Trump's denial of McCain's heroism in the service of America. A hero is a person noted for tests of courage or nobility of purpose. None of these qualities has ever fit President Gaga.

His statement that McCain was considered a hero because he was captured is so telling about the distance between Trump and the noble zone of sacrifice. Capturing a hero is the unhappy sequence of sacrifice for principle. For all his 72 years of life, Donald Trump had experienced neither principle nor sacrifice.

So go on, Donald: In this dark period of American history stick to tweeting. It is the only language by which birds can communicate with other creatures of feather. That is until our real MAGA would cleanse the Office of the President from the stigma attached to it by President Gaga!!

Yet the most cruel joke of the Trump mal-administration is the attempt to politicize the Supreme Court. This dreary process began with denying Judge Mark Garland, an Obama nominee, even the mere courtesy of a Senate hearing. So when Justice Kennedy stepped down, the Trump ultra-right machine went into an over-drive by nominating Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh's record shows a commitment to the controversial principle that a sitting US president cannot be investigated, or prosecuted or indicted. In sum, a president is above the law, except through impeachment. But impeachment through the Senate is at present impossible due to the spineless Republican majority. If confirmed, the Supreme Court of the US shall suffer a dangerous tilt to the Right which shall last for decades to come.

This tampering with the Rule of Law in the US is by a President who wishes that the US public would tolerate his role-playing of a dictator. This charade shall reach its end in a humiliating collapse. Only then shall the three branches of government reclaim their soul in the system of checks and balances -the essence of US democracy.