Author: Staff Reporter

By Richard Wike, Bruce Stokes, Jacob Poushter, Laura Silver, Janell Fetterolf and Kat Devlin

America’s global image plummeted following the election of President Donald Trump, amid widespread opposition to his administration’s policies and a widely shared lack of confidence in his leadership. Now, as the second anniversary of Trump’s election approaches, a new 25-nation Pew Research Center survey finds that Trump’s international image remains poor, while ratings for the United States are much lower than during Barack Obama’s presidency.

The poll also finds that international publics express significant concerns about America’s role in world affairs. Large majorities say the U.S. doesn’t take into account the interests of countries like theirs when making foreign policy decisions. Many believe the U.S. is doing less to help solve major global challenges than it used to. And there are signs that American soft power is waning as well, including the fact that, while the U.S. maintains its reputation for respecting individual liberty, fewer believe this than a decade ago.

Even though America’s image has declined since Trump’s election, on balance the U.S. still receives positive marks – across the 25 nations polled, a median of 50% have a favorable opinion of the U.S., while 43% offer an unfavorable rating. However, a median of only 27% say they have confidence in President Trump to do the right thing in world affairs; 70% lack confidence in him.

Frustrations with the U.S. in the Trump era are particularly common among some of America’s closest allies and partners. In Germany, where just 10% have confidence in Trump, three-in-four people say the U.S. is doing less these days to address global problems, and the share of the public who believe the U.S. respects personal freedoms is down 35 percentage points since 2008. In France, only 9% have confidence in Trump, while 81% think the U.S. doesn’t consider the interests of countries like France when making foreign policy decisions.

Critical views are also widespread among America’s closest neighbors. Only 25% of Canadians rate Trump positively, more than six-in-ten (63%) say the U.S. is doing less than in the past to address global problems, and 82% think the U.S. ignores Canada’s interests when making policy. Meanwhile, Trump’s lowest ratings on the survey are found in Mexico, where just 6% express confidence in his leadership.

One exception to this pattern is Israel. After a year in which the Trump administration generated international controversy by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, his positive rating jumped to 69%, up from 56% in 2017.

Around the world, publics are divided about the direction of American power: Across the 25 nations surveyed, a median of 31% say the U.S. plays a more important role in the world today than it did ten years ago; 25% say it plays a less important role; and 35% believe the U.S. is as important as it was a decade ago.

In contrast, views about Chinese power are clear: A median of 70% say China’s role on the world stage has grown over the past 10 years. Still, by a slim margin, more people name the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power (a median of 39% say the U.S., 34% say China).

And despite the unease many feel about the U.S. at the moment, the idea of a U.S.-led world order is still attractive to most. When asked which would be better for the world, having China or the U.S. as the top global power, people in nearly every country tend to select the U.S., and this is particularly common among some of China’s Asia-Pacific neighbors, such as Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia.

These are among the major findings from a new Pew Research Center survey conducted among 26,112 respondents in 25 countries from May 20 to Aug. 12, 2018. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 use additional data from a Pew Research Center survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted from May 14 to June 15, 2018.

U.S. receives some of its most negative ratings in Europe

Although perceptions of the U.S. are on balance positive, they vary considerably among the nations surveyed. Ten of the 25 countries in this year’s survey are European Union member states, and across these EU nations a median of just 43% offer a favorable opinion of the U.S. Meanwhile, majorities in four of the five Asia-Pacific nations polled give the U.S. a positive rating, including 83% in the Philippines, one of the highest ratings in the survey. The U.S. also gets high marks in South Korea, where 80% have a positive view of the U.S. and confidence in President Trump has increased over the past year from 17% to 44%.

As has largely been the case since Pew Research Center’s first Global Attitudes survey in 2002, attitudes toward the U.S. in sub-Saharan Africa are largely positive, with Kenyans, Nigerians and South Africans expressing mostly favorable opinions in this year’s poll. The three Latin American nations polled offer differing views about the U.S., with Brazilians voicing mostly favorable reviews, while Argentines and Mexicans are mostly negative. And the two Middle Eastern nations in the study – Israel and Tunisia – offer strikingly different assessments.

The country giving the U.S. its lowest rating in the survey, and the place where the biggest drop in U.S. favorability has taken place over the past year, is Russia. Just 26% of Russians have a favorable opinion of the U.S., compared with 41% in 2017. A 55% majority of Russians say relations have gotten worse in the past year, and the share of the public with a positive view of Trump has dropped from 53% to 19%.

Good reviews for Merkel and Macron, poor marks for Xi, Putin, Trump

The survey examined attitudes toward five world leaders, and overall Donald Trump receives the most negative ratings among the five. A median of 70% across the 25 nations polled lack confidence in the American leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping also receive mostly negative reviews.

In contrast, opinions about German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron are generally positive. Both leaders are mostly popular in the EU, although there are regional divides within Europe, with Merkel and Macron receiving favorable ratings in the Northern European nations surveyed and less stellar reviews in Eastern and Southern Europe.

European attitudes toward Trump are strikingly negative, especially when compared with the ratings his predecessor received while in office. Looking at four European nations Pew Research Center has surveyed consistently since 2003 reveals a clear pattern regarding perceptions of American presidents. George W. Bush, whose foreign policies were broadly unpopular in Europe, got low ratings during his presidency, while the opposite was true for Barack Obama, who enjoyed strong approval in these four nations during his time in office. Following the 2016 election, confidence in the president plunged, with Trump’s ratings resembling what Bush received near the end of his second term (although Trump’s numbers are up slightly in the United Kingdom this year).

In several European nations, Trump receives higher ratings from supporters of right-wing populist parties. For example, among people in the UK who have a favorable view of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), 53% express confidence in Trump, compared with only 21% among those with an unfavorable view of UKIP. Similar divides exist among supporters and detractors of right-wing populist parties in Sweden, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. However, it is worth noting that, other than in the UK, there is no European country in which more than half of right-wing populist party supporters say they have confidence in Trump.

Few think the U.S. takes their interests into account

A common criticism about American foreign policy over the past decade and a half has been that the U.S. only looks after its own interests in world affairs, ignoring the interests of other nations. As Pew Research Center surveys showed, this belief was especially prevalent during George W. Bush’s presidency, when many around the world thought the U.S. was pursuing unilateralist, and unpopular, policies. Strong opposition to the Iraq War and other elements of Bush’s foreign policy led to rising complaints about the U.S. acting alone and ignoring the interests and concerns of other nations.

Opinions shifted following Barack Obama’s election, with more people saying the U.S. considers their country’s interest, although even during the Obama years the prevailing global sentiment was that the U.S. doesn’t necessarily consider other countries. Now, the Trump presidency has brought an increase in the number of people in many nations saying the U.S. essentially doesn’t listen to countries like theirs when making foreign policy.

This pattern is especially pronounced among some of America’s top allies and partners. For instance, while the share of the French public who believe the U.S. considers their national interest has not been very high at any point over the past decade and a half, it reached a low point near the end of Bush’s second term (11% in 2007), rose somewhat during Obama’s presidency (35% in 2013) and has declined once more under Trump. Today, just 18% in France say the U.S. considers the interests of countries like theirs when making policy.

Fewer, especially in Europe, say U.S. respects individual liberty

America’s reputation as a defender of individual liberty has generally been strong in Pew Research Center surveys since we first started asking about it in 2008. The prevailing view among the publics surveyed has typically been that the U.S. government respects the personal liberties of its people, and that is true again in this year’s poll. However, this opinion has become less common over time, and the decline has been particularly sharp among key U.S. partners in Europe, North America and Asia.

The decline began during the Obama administration following revelations about the National Security Agency’s electronic eavesdropping on communications around the world, and it has continued during the first two years of the Trump presidency. The drop is especially prominent in Western Europe, where the share of the public saying Washington respects personal freedom has declined sharply since 2013.

The same pattern is found among several other U.S. allies as well, including Canada, where the percentage saying the U.S. respects individual freedom has dropped from 75% to 38% since 2013, and Australia, where it has gone from 72% to 45%.

China seen as a rising power

Respondents to the survey were read a list of seven major nations, and for each one, were asked whether they think it is playing a more important, less important, or as important of a role in the world compared with 10 years ago. Among the seven countries tested, China stands apart: A median of 70% across the nations polled say Beijing plays a more important role today than a decade ago. Half or more in 23 of 25 countries express this view.

Many also say this about Russia. A median of 41% believe Moscow’s role on the world stage has grown over the past decade, and majorities hold this view in Greece, Israel, Tunisia and Russia itself. Overall, people are split on whether Germany’s role is greater than it was 10 years ago or about the same, but many in Europe see Germany’s role as more influential. On the other hand, Europeans are particularly likely to think the UK is less important now.

There is no real consensus in views of America’s prominence in world affairs. A median of 35% believe it is as important as it was 10 years ago, while 31% say it is more important and 25% say less. Japan is the only country with a majority saying that Washington plays a less important role. Meanwhile, Israelis, Nigerians and Kenyans are particularly likely to think the U.S. is more important than it used to be.

Most still want U.S., not China, as top power

In addition to being asked about whether major powers are rising, falling or staying about the same, respondents were asked the following question about whether they would prefer the U.S. or China to be the top global power: “Thinking about the future, if you had to choose, which of the following scenarios would be better for the world: the U.S. is the world’s leading power or China is the world’s leading power?” Results show that the U.S. is overwhelmingly the top choice.

The U.S. is named more often than China in every country surveyed except three: Argentina, Tunisia and Russia, although in many nations significant numbers volunteer that it would be good for the world if both or neither were the leading power.

Some of America’s allies in Asia and elsewhere are particularly likely to prefer a future in which the U.S. is the top global power. Two-thirds or more hold this opinion in Japan, the Philippines, Sweden, South Korea, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK.

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in Saturday as US Supreme Court justice following the closest Senate confirmation vote in more than a century, marking a major win for President Donald Trump’s drive to move the country’s political institutions to the right.

The Senate voted 50-48 to approve Kavanaugh as protesters rallied across the country against a nominee who has been plagued by allegations of sexual misconduct as a young man and had questions raised over his candor and partisan rhetoric.

The prolonged nomination battle has roiled American politics and passions — the vote was disrupted on several occasions by angry protests from the gallery — but handed Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency.

It drew the line under a bruising nomination process defined by harrowing testimony from a woman who says Kavanaugh tried to rape her when they were teenagers — and by his fiery rebuttal.

The two-vote margin of victory made it the closest Supreme Court confirmation vote since 1881 — and by far the most contentious since Clarence Thomas in 1991.

As Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Kavanaugh during a private Supreme Court ceremony, protesters demonstrated loudly outside, at one point rushing the steps of the court and banging on its ornate bronze doors while some sat on a Lady Justice statue.

The confirmation means Trump has succeeded in having his two picks seated on the court — tilting it decidedly to the right in a major coup for the Republican leader less than halfway through his term.

During an evening rally in Topeka, Kansas, Trump was greeted by prolonged cheers on what he called a “truly historic night.”

“I stand before you today on the heels of a tremendous victory for our nation, our people and our beloved Constitution,” he told supporters after signing Kavanaugh’s commission aboard Air Force One.

A separate, public swearing-in ceremony is planned for 7:00 pm (2300 GMT) Monday in the White House’s East Room.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has railed against Kavanaugh’s critics, said he was “proud” of his colleagues while Vice President Mike Pence, who presided in the Senate during the vote, called it a “historic day for our country.”

It reflects a high water mark of the Trump presidency: Republican control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the judiciary’s top court.

But the Kavanaugh spectacle, fueled by extraordinary accusations and counter-claims in nationally televised hearings, and tense battles over an 11th-hour FBI investigation to address the assault allegations, has inflamed political passions.

‘Shame!’

Hours before the vote, scores of protesters broke through barricades and staged a raucous sit-in protest on the US Capitol steps.

As protesters chanted “Shame!” and “November is coming!” police took several dozen demonstrators down the steps and put them in plastic flex-cuffs.

With tensions simmering, Pence got an earful from activists who booed and chanted “Vote them out!” as he walked to his motorcade.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation process has laid bare the partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill and the political polarization of America just a month before midterm elections.

“You don’t hand matches to an arsonist, and you don’t give power to an angry left-wing mob. That’s what they have become. The democrats have become too extreme and too dangerous to govern,” Trump said.

“Republicans are the party of law and order and justice. And we really have become even more so than ever before the party of opportunity and wealth.”

Democratic senators, who had battled hard to block the 53-year-old judge, insisted the caustic battle over Kavanaugh would galvanize Democrats at the polls.

“It is a sad day, but the recourse will have to be on election day,” Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar told reporters.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation had already been all but sealed Friday, when he won the support of key Senate Republican Susan Collins and conservative Democrat Joe Manchin.

‘Presumption of innocence’

The choice of Kavanaugh to replace retired justice Anthony Kennedy was controversial from the start — but the initial focus was solely on the conservative views held by the married father of two.

His ascent to the Supreme Court was thrown into doubt last week after university research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford testified that he had sexually assaulted her at a Washington area gathering in the early 1980s.

The brutal hearing sparked a supplemental FBI dive into Kavanaugh’s background and a weeklong delay of the Senate vote.

While many Republicans said they were satisfied with the FBI probe, Democrats and Blasey Ford’s lawyers called the investigation insufficient.

‘Praying for the country’

Kavanaugh’s nomination seals a conservative majority on the nine-seat high court, possibly for decades to come.

Hundreds of protesters were arrested on Capitol Hill this week — including several dozen in the hours leading to the final vote.

Authorities took the rare step of putting up low metal fencing around the Capitol, keeping the public some distance from the building. But protesters overran the barricades and defiantly claimed the Capitol steps.

After the confirmation, activists gathered in their hundreds on the steps of the Supreme Court, chanting slogans and banging on its closed front doors.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican to oppose Kavanaugh, said it was time for the Senate — and Americans — to “heal” after such a divisive few weeks.

She acknowledged the anguish of the protesters who interrupted the historic Senate vote, telling reporters afterward that “I was closing my eyes and praying. Praying for them, praying for us and praying for the country.”

Supporters of Republican and Democratic candidates in the upcoming congressional election are deeply divided over the government’s role in ensuring health care, the fairness of the nation’s economic system and views of racial equality in the United States.

And these disagreements extend to how the U.S. should approach allies and whether or not other countries “often take advantage of the United States.”

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 18-24 among 1,754 adults, including 1,439 registered voters, finds wide differences in the views of Republican and Democratic voters across 13 different issues and policy areas, though the size of the partisan gaps vary.

An overwhelming majority of registered voters who support Democratic candidates for Congress this November (85%) say that it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. In contrast, only a quarter of Republican voters (24%) say this is the government’s responsibility, while nearly three times as many (73%) say it is not. (For more on Americans’ views of the government’s role in providing health care, see “Most continue to say health care coverage is government’s responsibility”.)

The partisan gaps on many of these values and issues are in line with those seen in previous Pew Research Center reports, including in last year’s major report on trends in the public’s political values. That study found that the partisan gaps across a number of political values – especially on race and immigration – have widened over the past decade. In the new survey, 85% of Democratic voters say the country needs to continue to make changes to give blacks equal rights with whites, compared with 29% of Republican voters.

There also are significant gaps on views of whether abortion should be legal, the factors that make people rich and poor and the fairness of the U.S. economic system.

Two specific Trump-era policies – increased tariffs between the U.S. and its trading partners, and the 2017 tax bill – are viewed much more positively by GOP voters than by Democratic voters. Overall views of the tax law remain largely unchanged from early this year: In the new survey, 78% of voters who support the GOP candidate in their district approve of the tax law, compared with just 11% of Democrats.

And the partisan differences are about as wide in views of the Trump administration’s decision to increase tariffs on imported goods from a number of countries. Nearly three-quarters of GOP voters (72%) say increased tariffs will be good for the United States, about five times the share of Democratic voters who support higher tariffs (14%).

Looking at voters’ priorities for immigration policy, there is some common ground among partisans. When asked whether the policy priority should be “creating a way for immigrants already here illegally to become citizens if they meet certain requirements,” or “better border security and stronger enforcement of our immigration laws” – or whether both should be given equal priority – nearly half of Republican voters (48%) and about as many Democratic voters (45%) say both should be given equal priority.

Still, far more Democratic voters (49%) than Republican voters (11%) say the priority should be on creating a way for those in the U.S. illegally to become citizens if they meet certain conditions. By contrast, far more Republican voters (39%) than Democratic voters (5%) say the focus should be on better border security and enforcement.

(For more on how voters view the importance of immigration, health care, taxes, trade and other issues, see “Voter Enthusiasm at Record High in Nationalized Midterm Environment.”)

Shifting priorities for dealing with illegal immigration

Since 2016, the share of adults in the general public who say border security should take priority over creating a way for those in the country illegally to become citizens has decreased. Two years ago, about a quarter (24%) said stronger law enforcement should be the priority for dealing with illegal immigration. Today, about two-in-ten (19%) say this.

During that same period, the share who prioritize creating a pathway for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship has increased modestly – from 29% in 2016 to 33%.

A plurality (46%) continue to say that both of these should be given equal priority.

Today, significantly more Republicans say both border security and legal pathway should be given equal priority (48%) than say the priority should be border security (38%), a shift from recent years.

About half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (51%) now say creating a way for immigrants who are currently here illegally to become citizens should be prioritized – the largest share saying this since the question was first asked in August 2010; 43% say border security and a pathway to citizenship should be given equal priority. Just 5% say border security should take the higher priority.

There are large demographic differences within the general public on priorities in dealing with illegal immigration.

Women are much more likely to prioritize a legal pathway to citizenship than men (40% to 27%).

Though a plurality of whites say both should be equally prioritized, whites (23%) are far more likely than blacks (6%) and Hispanics (9%) to say better border security should take priority.

About half of Hispanics (47%) say a pathway for legal citizenship should be the priority, while 43% say both should be equally prioritized. Among blacks, 53% say both should be equal priorities, while 37% say the priority should be creating a way for those in the country illegally to become citizens.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to prioritize stronger law enforcement, while Democrats are more likely to prioritize a path to citizenship for those currently in the U.S. illegally.

Americans’ views of relationships with other nations

A majority of Americans (55%) continue to say that the U.S. should take into account the interests of its allies in foreign policy, even if it means making compromises with them. Fewer say the U.S. should follow its own national interests, even when its allies strongly disagree (38%).

Since 2017, the public has become slightly less likely to say compromising with allies is preferable (59% then, 55% now). This downtick is also more in line with opinions measured in years prior to 2017.

As was true a year ago, Republican and Democratic views differ. Currently, a 38-percentage-point gap separates partisans on whether the U.S. should take into account the interests of allies – one of the largest partisan gaps measured in the past 15 years.

On balance, more adults say that other countries often take unfair advantage of the U.S. (51%) than say that other countries treat the U.S. about as fairly as we treat them (42%). In the 1990s, Americans were much more likely to view other countries’ treatment of the U.S. as unfair than they are today.

When the question was last asked nearly two decades ago, 70% said that other countries take advantage of the U.S. while just 24% said that other countries treat the U.S. with mutual fairness.

These changes are largely attributable to a shift in views among Democrats and Democratic leaners. In 1999, about two-thirds of Democrats (68%) said other countries often take unfair advantage of the U.S.; just 28% say that today. By comparison, 80% of Republicans now say that other countries take unfair advantage (up from 73% in September 1999). As a result, today there is a wide divide between Republicans and Democrats in these views, when there had been little partisan difference in the 1990s.

Among both parties, there are ideological divisions in these views. Conservative Republicans are more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to say there is unfair treatment (85% to 67%, respectively). Liberal Democrats are more likely than conservative or moderate Democrats to say other countries treat the U.S. fairly (75% vs. 57%).

Opinions on tariffs, tax bill little changed

Overall, the public continues to say that increased tariffs between the U.S. and its trading partners – first imposed by the Trump administration earlier this year – will be bad for the country.

In July, roughly half of the public said they thought increased tariffs would be bad for the U.S. Today, a similar share also says this (53%).

Partisans continue to hold opposing views on this policy; 70% of Republicans say they think tariffs will be good for the U.S. Conversely, nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (79%) say they will be bad for the U.S.

Nine months after passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, views of the sweeping tax law are little changed. More say they disapprove (46%) rather than approve (36%) of the law; about two-in-ten adults (18%) do not offer an opinion either way.

Americans with family incomes of $75,000 or continue to more offer more positive views of the law than those with lower incomes. Among Americans with annual family incomes of less than $75,000, the balance of opinion is negative (48% disapprove, 31% approve), while views of those with higher incomes are more divided (49% approve, 41% disapprove).

Partisan views of the bill are also similar to those measured just after its passage: 72% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they approve of the tax legislation, compared with just 12% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Republicans are somewhat divided along ideological lines. A 79% majority of conservative Republicans say they approve of the bill, while a narrower majority (61%) of moderate or liberal Republicans say the same. Among Democrats, there are no significant differences in these views by ideology.

The unpredictable Donald Trump, described by some as a human wrecking ball, will be walking down his own path of self-inflicted destruction when he visits the United Nations next week.

The volatile American president’s unorthodox and reckless foreign policy has already reverberated throughout the United Nations: a $300 million reduction in funding to the UN Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) aiding Palestinians and a $69 million cut in funding, since last year, for the UN Population Agency (UNFPA), advancing reproductive health.

And there is widespread speculation that the United States will also initiate a General Assembly resolution later this year to reduce its assessed contributions to the world body – currently at 22 percent of the annual budget.

But that resolution may be adopted by the 193-member General Assembly if the US resorts to strong-arm tactics — as US Ambassador Nikki Haley once threatened to “take down names” and cut American aid to countries that voted for a resolution condemning US recognition of Jerusalem as the new Israeli capital.

Making his second visit to the United Nations on September 25 to address the 73rd session of the General Assembly and later to preside over a Security Council meeting, Trump is known to hold the UN in contempt ever since he called for the renegotiation of the 2015 Climate Change agreement which has been signed by 195 countries and ratified by 180.

In May, Trump also withdrew from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)– while all other signatories, including France, UK, Russia and China, (four of the five permanent members of the Security Council), plus Germany and the European Union (EU), refused to follow his destructive path.

And he once denounced the UN as just another “social club” – a remark made through sheer ignorance than a well-thought-out diplomatic pronouncement.

The world body is expecting more upheavals from an erratic political leader who has kept the international community guessing – not excluding the United Nations.

Norman Solomon, Executive Director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy, told IPS: “The world is too large, too diverse and too wondrous to have the foremost world body held hostage by the United States government. Trump’s jingoistic arrogance has dragged powerful discourse to new lows at the United Nations”.

The madness of Donald Trump, he pointed out, is shocking on a daily basis, but his administration is an extreme manifestation of what the UN has all too often tolerated in previous times, in more “moderate” forms from Washington.

“The time has come — the time is overdue — for the United Nations to clearly distinguish its operational missions from destructive agendas of the U.S. government,” said Solomon, Co-Founder and Coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org, which has 1.4 million active online members.

Meanwhile, as part of his contempt for the international trading system, Trump has threatened to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva as he continues to break trade agreements and impose unilateral tariffs.

Still, he has his adherents out there in Washington DC.

Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has proposed that Trump should receive the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics, since the much-coveted Nobel Peace Prize is far beyond his reach.

Writing in Investor’s Business Daily last week, Moore said Trump’s economic achievements have been overshadowed by reports regarding his erratic and “dangerous” behavior.

As his foreign policy runs wild, Trump also broke political ranks with the rest of the world when he decided to unilaterally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in open violation of a Security Council resolution calling for the warring parties to decide on the future of the disputed city.

Trump triggered a global backlash last year when he singled out Haiti and African nations as “shithole countries” eliciting protests from the 55-member African Union (AU).

Trump has also come under fire for his insulting statements that “all Haitians have AIDS” and Nigerians who visit the US “would never go back to their huts.”

But running notoriously true to form, he has reversed himself again and again — and denied making any of these statements, despite credible evidence.

Mouin Rabbani, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington DC told IPS that speculating on what issues President Trump will address at the United Nations, and how he will conduct himself, is a difficult task.

“Virtually the only thing that can be said with certainty is that he will once again put on a display of breathtaking vulgarity, will spew falsehoods with abandon (in many cases, it must be said, without having a clue that he is doing so), and will for these reasons be celebrated for unprecedented acts of heroism by his American and Israeli supporters,” he added

If Trump sticks to the script drafted by his handlers, which he may or may not do, the United States is expected to focus on its attempts to isolate Iran, he noted.

“It’s an interesting choice, given that the JCPOA is an international treaty that has been ratified by the UN Security Council, that Iran has repeatedly been judged to be in compliance with its JCPOA obligations, and that the United States in unilaterally renouncing its obligations under this treaty stands in open, willful violation of both international law and its obligations to the world body,” he pointed out.

Last week National Security Adviser John Bolton told the Federalist Society in Washington DC the Trump administration will push hard against any investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of US citizens (read: American soldiers accused of war crimes in Afghanistan) or allies (read: Israel accused of war crimes by the Palestinians) from “unjust prosecution by an illegitimate court.”

Meanwhile, Haley has already held out a threat on US funding for the UN when she said “We will remember it (the voting against the US) when we are called upon once again to make the world’s largest contribution (22 percent of the regular budget) to the United Nations”.

Solomon told IPS the U.S. government’s contempt for international law, humanitarian priorities and the United Nations as an institution has reached new overt heights during the Trump presidency.

“The destructive arrogance of Washington’s current policies, represented at the UN by Ambassador Nikki Haley, must be condemned and opposed.”

But governments should do more than directly push back against the dangerous militarism and implicit racism of the current U.S. administration. Members of the UN should also assess — and fundamentally change — the trajectory of the world body’s subservience to the U.S. government and its long-term consequences he noted.

During the last few decades, while several different individuals have been in the White House, the U.S. government has engaged in de facto bribery, blackmail and other devious methods to manipulate member states — sometimes using very heavy-handed tactics to induce members of the Security Council to endorse or at least not oppose the USA’s aggressive military actions and ongoing wars, said Solomon.

Most permanent and rotating members of the Security Council have too often served as silent partners, rubber stamps or outright complicit assistants to the U.S. government’s flagrant, destabilizing and deadly violations of international law.

Yet the undue efforts to go along with Washington’s policies during the last several decades have disfigured the noble ideals of the United Nations — all too often twisting them into rationalizations for enabling the United States to claim the UN’s acquiescence, he declared.

Rabbani told IPS “Perhaps more interesting than Trump’s ramblings at the General Assembly will be his presiding over a session of the UNSC, over which the US holds the presidency this month.”

Watching Trump preside over a UN Security Council session, which includes an obligation to respect its procedures etc. will be a sight to behold. It’s entirely possible that he will open the session with an offer to remodel the building on the basis of one of his special discounts, and request that his fellow UNSC members adopt a resolution to dismiss Special Counsel Robert Mueller, said Rabbani.

If he does stick to script, and insists on pursuing the Iran agenda, one can think of a number of UNSC members that will provide pointed responses to the US position, and these may include US allies as well.

There appears to be a growing realisation that the US agenda is not limited to individual objectives such as the destruction of the JCPOA or ensuring permanent Israeli supremacy over the Palestinian people, but rather has a core objective the dismantling of international institutions, particularly those concerned with international law, and replacing these with naked power, primarily US and Israeli, as the arbiter of international affairs.

This agenda, he said, also helps further explain recent funding decisions taken by Washington vis-a-vis UN institutions such as UNRWA, though there are clear ideological factors at play as well.

“If Trump does come in for serious criticism at the UN, and particularly the UNSC, we should expect Washington to take further measures to seek to marginalise, de-fund, and render impotent the world body and its various agencies.”

“What we recently witnessed with respect to UNRWA and the ICC may prove to be just a precursor to what is coming,” warned Rabbani. The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org