US President Donald Trump listed his administration's achievements during his second State of the Union address. Sputnik has discussed the speech with Meena Bose, Professor of Political Science and Executive Dean of Hofstra University’s Peter S. Kalikow Centre for the Study of the American Presidency.
Sputnik: As an expert in the American presidency, what is your impression now of this particular State of the Union Address? What is your take on Trump's considerate tone? I mean I have spoken to a few of the experts on his speech last night. A lot of the commentators say it was well received. What is your take on that?
Meena Bose: Well, I think the expectations for this speech were so uncertain. It was not clear whether there would be an open conflict with the Speaker of the House sitting right behind him, open verbal conflict whether what kind of what would be said. And so in that sense, the White House had said that the president would adopt the tone of unity and that was certainly there at the outset. I think there were obviously some clear disagreements when it came to his reference to the investigations that were going on and suggesting that that would distract from American politics and policymaking.
That is kind of a conflict of interests obviously for the president but nevertheless, that was raised. But I think the real question now is how do these words translate into a policy agreement to keep the government running beyond February 15. That is the immediate concern in Washington and in the United States. And I don't think the speech made clear how the two branches of government, Congress and the White House, how the two political parties that are governing in the White House and Congress reach an agreement.
Sputnik: Now, Mr Trump confirmed he will be meeting with Kim Jong-un at the end of this month. Could we expect any breakthrough? I mean it has been amazing, there have been so larger strides given the rhetoric of a year or so ago. What is your expectation, what is the expectation in the US with regard to the relationship with Kim Jong-un moving forward now?
Meena Bose: Well, I think that this meeting that will take place in Vietnam between the United States and North Korea, between the President and Kim Jong-un, [February 27 to 28], may certainly beak verbally constructive. I think that the question of substance is a real one and the president said in the speech that North Korea has conducted no testing. There is still I think there was a concern in 2018 about the president moving forward to a summit meeting without the traditional preparation between the two sides. And I think that same concern will apply here, that the verifiable information on what North Korea is doing as far as its nuclear programme is lacking. And so that is where the summit meeting may be more of a verbal discussion than a substantive agreement, in some ways kind of like the State of the Union Address frankly.
Sputnik: This is moving along to the current political event that is causing a lot of comments — Venezuela. This speech comes amid the turmoil in Venezuela and Trump's recent interview, I think it was CNN if I am correct, in which he said he was not ruling out a military option in dealing with the Latin American country. How much of that particular statement and sentiment is supported by both parties in terms of that drastic or radical manoeuvring? What's your take? Is that supported by both parties?
Meena Bose: Well, no, I mean what he said in the CBS interview really raises I think some questions about what the US role in the world will be. And the president did say that sending the military is an option. I suppose you could argue that that is often the case but as a number of strategists have written, including former military commanders for the region in South America — former US military commanders — that there is a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela as well as a political crisis. And the United States needs to work with its allies in the region to assist in this political transition, moving forward for the Venezuelan government. The United States, of course, has a long history of intervention in the Caribbean that has not always been well received and so.
I think again in this, you know [it] dates back into the early 20th century. And I think that a lot of US foreign policy experts are saying this is not in the US interests. So then bringing that into the political world, again you don't really see bipartisan support. And I would say even within the president's party there is some concern, particularly about the mixed message between pulling, trying to pull US Forces out of Syria and Iraq, missions that are underway, and then suggesting a different intervention at this time. There appears to be some inconsistency. So I think it is raising concern among experts as well as politicians in the president's party, and certainly, from his political opponents.
The views expressed in this article are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
The fact of registration and authorization of users on Sputnik websites via users’ account or accounts on social networks indicates acceptance of these rules.
Users are obliged abide by national and international laws. Users are obliged to speak respectfully to the other participants in the discussion, readers and individuals referenced in the posts.
The websites’ administration has the right to delete comments made in languages other than the language of the majority of the websites’ content.
In all language versions of the sputniknews.com websites any comments posted can be edited.
A user comment will be deleted if it:
does not correspond with the subject of the post;
promotes hatred and discrimination on racial, ethnic, sexual, religious or social basis or violates the rights of minorities;
violates the rights of minors, causing them harm in any form, including moral damage;
contains ideas of extremist nature or calls for other illegal activities;
contains insults, threats to other users, individuals or specific organizations, denigrates dignity or undermines business reputations;
contains insults or messages expressing disrespect to Sputnik;
violates privacy, distributes personal data of third parties without their consent or violates privacy of correspondence;
describes or references scenes of violence, cruelty to animals;
contains information about methods of suicide, incites to commit suicide;
pursues commercial objectives, contains improper advertising, unlawful political advertisement or links to other online resources containing such information;
promotes products or services of third parties without proper authorization;
contains offensive language or profanity and its derivatives, as well as hints of the use of lexical items falling within this definition;
contains spam, advertises spamming, mass mailing services and promotes get-rich-quick schemes;
promotes the use of narcotic / psychotropic substances, provides information on their production and use;
contains links to viruses and malicious software;
is part of an organized action involving large volumes of comments with identical or similar content ("flash mob");
“floods” the discussion thread with a large number of incoherent or irrelevant messages;
violates etiquette, exhibiting any form of aggressive, humiliating or abusive behavior ("trolling");
doesn’t follow standard rules of the English language, for example, is typed fully or mostly in capital letters or isn’t broken down into sentences.
The administration has the right to block a user’s access to the page or delete a user’s account without notice if the user is in violation of these rules or if behavior indicating said violation is detected.