US President-elect, Donald Trump Donald Trump will become the 45th US president after a stunning victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton as he prepares to take over the White House after Barack Obama.
Defying polls that consistently showed him trailing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and that also suggested he was more strongly disliked than any other major-party nominee before him, the New York businessman and reality-television personality became president-elect of the United States after the hard earned victory
During his speech in New York Hilton, after his victory, Trump acknowledged that Hillary Clinton put up a spirited competition against him in the race to White House
“The political surface is nasty and tough, but I thank my family (for standing by me throughout the period of campaigns),” Trump said.
Trump has vowed to unify the United States populace, comprising different rac-es, religion and people of separate economic classes.
“America will no longer settle for anything less than the best,” Mr. Trump pro-claimed in an uncharacteristically restrained concession speech , in which he vowed to “bind the wounds of division” after a deeply bitter campaign, and reas-sured an international community fearful of his aggressive campaign posturing that he will seek “common ground, not hostility.”
Mr Trump pledged that he would be “president for all Americans” in his New York victory speech.
He said he was “reaching out” to the people who had not supported him to “uni-fy the country”.
“Now it’s time to bind the wounds of division. I say to Democrats and Republi-cans it is time come together as one united people,” he said.
“I pledge to be president for all Americans,” he said, adding: “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.”
He said it was not a campaign but a movement that had won him the White House, comprised of “all people of different backgrounds and beliefs”.
He said victory had been “tough”. “This political stuff is nasty and it’s tough,” he said, while thanking his family.
Mr Trump offered generous words for his vanquished opponent, saying she had worked hard for many years and was owed a “deep debt of gratitude”.
The crowd was respectful at the mention of Mrs Clinton.
In a conciliatory speech Mr Trump added: “We will get along with all other nations willing to get along with us. We will deal fairly with everyone. We will seek common ground, partnership not conflict.
“America will no longer settle for anything less than the best. We must reclaim our destiny.”
But Mr. Trump carried almost every battleground state in which he was seen to have a chance – including Ohio, Florida and North Carolina – and some, such as Wisconsin, where he was given almost no chance at all.
Mr. Trump overcame his almost complete lack of support from his country’s rap-idly growing minority populations, as well as strong distaste for his candidacy among college-educated white voters, by uniquely tapping into disgruntlement with the political establishment among people who feel their country’s changing economy and shifting demographics are leaving them behind.
Despite an unending string of controversies that would have been fatal to most candidates’ ambitions – including the release of a videotape in which Mr. Trump seemingly boasted about sexually assaulting women – his white, working-class base was joined by enough more traditional Republicans, who set aside their reservations to put him over the top.
However, Mr. Trump will face very little of the political gridlock that Barack Obama has had to contend with, and an open path to implement his policies, because Republicans are poised to keep control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. And he will be able to turn the Supreme Court in conservatives’ favour by filling the vacancy that currently has the Court dead-locked between the two sides of the ideological spectrum.
But as reflected by international markets plunging as his victory unfolded on Wednesday he will face both massive challenges and severe doubts about his ability to meet them. And he will enter office with an agenda that is at once load-ed with controversial promises, and less defined than that of any other presi-dent-elect.
He has promised to build a wall along the southern U.S. border, temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country, renegotiate or tear up free-trade deals, intro-duce large across-the-board income-tax cuts while dramatically raising taxes and tariffs on imports and adopt an isolationist “America First” foreign policy. At points of the election campaign, he threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO, repeatedly hinted at curtailing press freedoms and expressed admiration for Rus-sian President Vladimir Putin.
He will also battle to restore Russian diplomats that Obama sacked from Ameri-ca due to allegations that President Putin interfered during American election to give Trum victory.
Known for a lack of interest in policy specifics, however, he has been remarka-bly vague on how he will fix a country he has portrayed as being in a state of disaster. While attacking current U.S. strategy for fighting the Islamic State, he has refused to divulge his own, claiming he wants to maintain the element of surprise. Domestically, he has promised to complement his tax cuts with large increases in spending, saying sky-high economic growth will make for balanced budgets. Even his signature policy to build the wall is predicated on the premise that Mexico will somehow be made to pay for it.
Just as ambiguous is how Mr. Trump’s temperament will cause him to handle the unforeseen policy challenges and crises that constantly cross a president’s desk. Notoriously thin-skinned, he consistently showed a ten
dency during the campaign to escalate confrontations. And despite lacking any experience in public office, the oldest person ever to be elected to a first term in the White House keeps his own counsel more than most politicians, and is said to have extremely limited patience for policy briefings.
But for all the uncertainty around what his presidency will look like, what is clear is that in the 17 months since he launched his candidacy, he has demolished received wisdom about how to win the presidency – and about the United States itself – by ushering in a political revolution that none of the country’s political elites saw coming.
When he launched his bid for the Republican nomination on June 16, 2015 by showily descending the escalator at midtown Manhattan’s Trump Tower (and delivering a speech that tested out themes he would keep hitting on, including an assessment that Mexico sent “rapists” across the border), his candidacy was widely dismissed as a vanity project aimed at enhancing his business interests.
He had supported both parties at points in the past, and rarely displayed strong or consistent policy views. He had flirted with running in the previous election, and instead settled for self-promotion in the form of leading the discredited “birther” movement against Mr. Obama.
Mr. Trump himself seemed surprised as his campaign gained steam, and by any normal standard was woefully ill-prepared to run a modern campaign.
Foreign policy challenges are always a complicated and daunting part of the portfolio for a new commander-in-chief. But in this 2017 President Donald Trump will have to deal with perhaps the most sensitive array of crises faced by any American president in decades.
Challenges will include the American response to multiple ongoing conflicts around the world, the franchising of terror attacks, an aggressive Russia, nucle-ar weapons stockpiles and a rumbustious North Korea, an emboldened China, handling complicated trade and environmental negotiations and keeping a frag-ile piece with Iran – to name but a few.
Russia and Syria
What began in 2011 as a peaceful uprising against a dictatorial regime in Syria has morphed into entrenched civil war. Five years since it began, more than 400,000 people have been killed and half of the country’s population has been displaced.
The war has given rise to a refugee crises that has reached Europe’s shores. Amid a failing peace process, foreign countries have moved to secure their in-terests, transforming Syria into the setting of a proxy war.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Israel have each backed a myriad of different, of-ten warring, militias. And most dangerously, Russia and the United States have found themselves on opposing sides of the frontline. Moscow’s unwavering support for Bashar al-Assad, and bombardment of rebel held areas has put it odds with Washington.
The animosity between the two superpowers is worsened by the crisis in Ukraine. There the countries clashed over Vladimir Putin’s annexing of Crimea.
In the final months of the US election, the Obama administration took the un-precedented step of publicly accusing Russia of orchestrating a series of cyberattacks “intended to interfere” with the presidential race.
Amid a vacuum of power in Syria, extremist groups have thrived. Even as Al-Qaeda secures a foothold in the country, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), has spread beyond the countries borders, creating footholds in Iraq and Libya, and promoting terror attacks in the West.
Isil’s propaganda wing has called for all believers to attack the “kaffirs” – infidels – by whatever means, whether a homemade bomb, or a kitchen knife. The call has prompted radicalised individuals to launch attacks in countries including France, Germany, Turkey and the United States.
The new president will inherit Mr Obama’s mission to “degrade and destroy” Isil. They will be forced to make tough military decisions. US airstrikes in Syria and in Iraq have been slowly breaking down the jihadist group’s power centres in the Middle East, but have done little to weaken the spread of the ideology.
They will also have to devise ways to tackle Isil’s propagandists and address rad-icalisation of citizens on home soil. The group’s tactic of essentially outsourcing attacks to willing volunteers around the world, rather than organising them from Syria or Iraq, has made their efforts harder to stop.
In centralised planning for large scale attacks, security experts say, the perpetra-tors often leave clues that can be used to thwart the plot.
But smaller attacks, such as a one man rampage with a gun, are harder to pre-vent. “The time between when people become radicalised and then execute their attack is the best chance law enforcement officers have of detecting the threat,” said Ali Soufan, a former FBI Special Agent heralded as one of the few men in US intelligence agencies who foresaw the threat of al-Qaeda before the September 11 attacks. “But now the time period between these two phases is becoming shorter and shorter.”
Brexit and global trade
The Brexit referendum sent shockwaves through the financial system that were felt as far as the United States.
As Britain begins the complicated process of extricating itself from the European Union, the next American president will have to navigate the delicate task of es-tablishing new economic arrangements with its historical ally, whilst seeking to maintain beneficial trade deals with the EU.
Britain continues to punch above its size in economic terms; In 2014 the country was the single largest foreign investor in the US. But the EU is America’s big-gest trading partner.
When President Obama visited London before the referendum, he warned that Britain would have to go to “ the back of the queue “for future trade deals if they left the EU.
Now that the leave campaign has won, the next president will have to try to find a more accommodating position. The task of navigating Brexit will only be part of a wider struggle to remain connected in a globalised world, whilst responding to fears from citizens that power and wealth is draining away.
For generations the prevailing doctrine of Western economists was that global trade expands national wealth by lowering the price of goods, increasing wages and promoting growth. The post-World War Two era promoted globalisation as the solution to preventing future conflict.
But these gains from globalization are not distributed equally . Income inequality has soared and blue-collar labours have largely suffered the consequences of a more integrated world. They have watched their jobs flee overseas.
Donald Trump based his presidential campaign on denunciations against Chi-na and Mexico, and a promise to revert to a protectionist economy. He spoke of raising import tariff and penalising American countries that took jobs overseas.
But, experts warn, a retreat from a globalised world, may only lead to greater in-stability. The less interconnected nations are, the more the chance for competi-tion, disagreement, and possibly war.
The decision to leave the EU may be a case in point American and Russian analysts predicted immediately after the referendum for example, that Britain’s exit might make it more difficult to maintain a transatlantic agreement on sanc-tions against Russia over Ukraine.
By John Okeke of Authority Newspapers