Trump’s Asia trip was a tour of important political contrasts.

In Malaysia, Japan and South Korea he was treated with obsequious knee-bending accommodations. As his helicopter Marine One flew past the landmark Tokyo Tower was lit up with red, white and blue, AND, the final touch, topped with Trumpian gold.

But it was the South Koreans who won the toadying prize. President Trump was greeted with a 21-gun salute, a band that played “Hail to the Chief” followed by his campaign rally theme song, “YMCA”.

But it didn’t stop there. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung presented Trump with his country’s highest medal and a replica of an ancient Korean royal crown. Then, at the state dinner, the South Koreans served a “Peacemaker’s Dessert” which consisted of brownies topped with edible gold.

Finally, the South Koreans agreed to invest $20 billion a year for the next ten years in the American companies that Trump chose. The kowtowing worked. Trump reduced US tariffs on South Korean products from 25 percent to 15 percent

Then, Trump met his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. There were no bands, no red carpets, and no Trumpian gold. The venue was a non-descript military building on the edge of Busan International Airport. Both men looked tense when they shook hands for the cameras.

It was clear that the two men were meeting as equals and Trump was ill at east. At meeting’s end, Trump—in typical hyperbolic overstatement—called the get-together with XI “amazing” and gave it a score of “12 out of ten.”

It was not amazing. Both sides met because they had looked into the abyss created by Trump’s tariffs and Chinese refusal to concede a Trump victory in a trade war with the US.

China is the only country with the economic strength and political will to challenge Trump’s tariffs. It did so by cutting off American access to essential Chinese rare earth minerals. The meeting in South Korea eased American tariffs and allowed renewed access to the minerals. But it did little to reduce tensions between the two countries.

There was no sign of the obsequiousness that Trump enjoyed everywhere else in Asia. There was no talk about Chinese support for Russia in Ukraine; or a renewal of meetings of military leaders or cooperation on climate change or talks on the development of artificial intelligence. The world needs improved relations between Beijing and Washington and there was no sign of it in Busan. This meeting dealt with only one aspect of bilateral relations between the two super powers– trade. At best it was a start and should receive a score of five out of ten.

Qatar is a top contender for the next Nobel Peace Prize. Forget Donald Trump. He is good at making a lot of noise about peace deals. Qatar just goes about quietly doing the job of international conciliator.

In fact, the country’s 2003 constitution says that its foreign policy is “based on the principles of strengthening international peace and security by means of encouraging the peaceful resolution of international disputes.”

It is this constitutional determination that has turned Qatar into the Switzerland of the Middle East. During the war in Afghanistan, it became the safe haven headquarters of the Taliban leadership. As a result, it was also where negotiations were held to end the war.

But that is not all, in September Qatari diplomats helped negotiate the release of Elizabeth Tsurkov, an Israeli-Russian researcher held captive for two years by Iraqi militia. They also brokered talks between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which culminated in a peace deal in June.

Qatari’s peace-making efforts are not confined to the Middle East and Africa. They are also mediating between the Colombian government and the drug gang Clan del Golfo. So, Trump, look out, Qatar is coming up fast on the inside track.

Which is more outrageous? The fact that Trump has capped the number of refugees allowed into America at 7,500 a year (down from 115,000 in 2024) or that he has given priority to White Afrikaner “refugees” on the grounds that it is “justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”

I am going with the latter because I think it has little to do with South Africa or refugees as a whole. Rather, it is a gesture towards America’s White nationalist/supremacist community and a move towards dismantling the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

Let’s start by making it clear that there are no White Afrikaner refugees fleeing discrimination in South Africa. The two largest organisations representing the Afrikaner community—Afriforum and The Afrikaner Trade Union Solidarity—have vehemently denied Trump’s claim that Afrikaners are being discriminated against by the government and fleeing the country. Trump is considered a dangerous joke in South Africa. .

Dangerous because Trump has simply ignored South African voices and insisted that he is right and they—the Afrikaners who live in South Africa—are wrong. He has cut off most aid to South Africa and instructed US consulates in South Africa to fast-track travel and residence visas for South African Whites seeking “refuge” in America.

The result? 59 South Africans have arrived in America. But that is not all, at the end of 2024 there was a total of 70 South Africans living in America who arrived claiming refugee status. That is not 70 arrivals in 2024. That is a total of 70 since records began, and most of them are Black.

Trump doesn’t really care about White South Africans. He is an America First guy and is using the imagined plight of Afrikaners to highlight discrimination against White Americans. He sincerely believes that American White people are discriminated against. During the 2024 campaign he told Time magazine: “There is an absolute bias against White people and that is a problem.”

Trump’s dismantling of the DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programmes is aimed largely at Black people. So is the firing of all the federal employees responsible for implementing the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

Trump is also backing a case currently before the Supreme Court which would allow southern states to gerrymander congressional districts to exclude Black representation in Congress.

It should be made clear, however, that in attacking civil rights legislation, Trump is reflecting the views of his all-important base. A recent Pew Research survey showed that 55 percent of White Americans say they face discrimination. Another Pew Research Survey—at about the same time and of Afro-Americans—said that 74 percent of America’s Blacks face discrimination “a lot of the time.”

Victorious Dutch politician Rob Jetten declared this week: “We’ve shown not only the Netherlands but also the world that it is possible to beat populist and extreme right movements.”

Jetten is leader of the Netherlands D66 centrist party which jumped from nine seats in the last election to 26 in this week’s poll. As leader of the largest party in the parliament 36-year-old Jetten gets first shot at forming a coalition government.

He should find it easier task then the winner of the last Dutch election—Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right anti-Islamic Party for Freedom (PVV). It took six months for Wilders to form a right-wing coalition and then – because he was so toxic—the other parties refused to join the coalition unless he agreed to forego the premiership.

Wilders was denied a ministerial position but still held the greatest number of coalition seats and regularly threatened to pull out if the other parties refused to agree to his far-right anti-Islamic agenda. The result was months of back-biting and political instability.

In the end, Wilders made good on his threat to collapse the coalition. This week he was punished at the polls as his party dropped 18 seats to come in second in the election.

Another big winner of the night was the conservative Christian Democrats. They jumped from five to 18 seats. Their leader, Henri Botenbal, said: “The Netherlands is gasping for new politics. Respectful and on-topic.” The Christian Democrats campaign slogan was “A Decent Country.”

Although Wilders party lost big this week, it came in second and therefore remains a major force in Dutch politics. Wilders was humility itself in his concession speech. He described the result as “a heavy setback.” But he then added: “Buckle up. We’re only getting started.”

…

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”