Trump's Sovereignty, Hard-line Conservative New Empire Breaks International Agreements 'Withdrawal of US Forces from Korea'

 

Trump's Sovereignty, Hard-line Conservative New Empire Breaks International Agreements 'Withdrawal of US Forces from Korea'

 

The Trump regime's new imperialism through withdrawal from international agreements is 'sovereignty', a hard-line conservative form of America's long-standing conservatism, diagnosed by a professor of American history.

Jennifer Mittelstadt, a professor of military and political movements at Rutgers University, wrote in the New York Times that the withdrawal from the World Health Organization and the recapture of control of the Panama Canal, which were revealed in the early days of the Trump regime, are the 'sovereignist' mindset of the United States, which seeks to seize foreign territories as its historical roots.

She is a professor of American history at Rutgers University, and studies the state, military, and political movements. Her column was published on the 2nd under the title, "Isolationist? Nationalist? No, Trump is a completely different person." The most conservative ‘sovereignty’ is the form of ‘sovereign politics’ that opposed the birth of the League of Nations in the United States in 1919, and in the moment of serious international crisis and possibility in 1919, the world ‘revolted against the implementation of a referendum’ on the ‘surge of globalization’ before World War I.

Sovereignty opposed internationalism and despised the idea of ​​‘international standards for crisis resolution’, and Professor Jennifer Mittelstadt diagnosed that the origins of the American sovereignty movement and its modern successors lie here, and Trump is its restorer.

 

In 1919, when the ‘31st Independence Movement’ took place in Korea, conservative politicians in the United States formed a group of senators known as the “irreconcilables” who prevented the United States from joining the League of Nations. They were supported by a grassroots movement of patriotic groups, veterans’ groups, and Protestant fundamentalists who argued and believed that the League of Nations was “aimed at usurping American rule.”

Their argument at the time was that the proposed treaty would replace the Constitution with a “world government,” diminish America’s unique history and culture, and give uncivilized, non-white, non-Christian states power over their citizens.

Lewis Coolidge, an ally of League critic Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, defined “sovereignty” as “the welfare of nations has been subordinated to internationalism,” and “our creed is to keep alive the flame of national identity.”

American conservatives are broadly categorized into three main groups: anti-communists, defense hawks, and neoconservative nation-builders, but now the hard-line conservatives are making a comeback in America’s longstanding “sovereignty politics” under the Trump administration. The hard-line conservatism of the Trump regime has been a first-term fixture in the three categories of American conservatism, and Professor Mittelstadt said, “It fit awkwardly with the first-term Trump, but it gestured toward his essence but failed to capture his essence.”

 

Trump routinely called his enemies “communists” in his first term, and embraced and later rejected North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

Trump boasted about America’s military power in particular, but was seen as “deferring submission” to Russia and President Putin, and actually claimed that he “wanted to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan,” but failed to make a decisive move.

 

He showed a tendency to favor personal and transactional politics on the outside, and often appeared “unclassifiable” due to his intentional unpredictability, but in essence, he was revealed as a hard-line conservative who opposed the League of Nations and advocated American-style “sovereignty politics.” The repeated offensive of ‘withdrawal of US troops from Korea’ in the first and second terms of the Trump administration seems to have relied on ‘sovereignty,’ a long-standing American conservatism.

Professor Mittastat stated that American sovereignty politics continued and evolved as the characteristics and scope of liberalism and left internationalism took on new forms.

 

In the 1930s, sovereignty contributed to leading the America First movement, a political movement that opposed participation in World War II, on the side of the Allies, and made a spectacular comeback with Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA).

 

In particular, sovereigntyists openly advocated fascist anti-internationalism, far from isolationism, and revealed pro-Nazi tendencies.

In Spain, they supported General Francisco Franco’s nationalist rebellion, and tolerated and even cheered the regimes of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy sticking their noses into the collapsing League of Nations. Trump and his first wife, Ivana, married the pastor Norman Vincent Peale, who was involved in the sovereigntist movement early on.

After World War II, sovereigntists began a long war against the United Nations. In the 1950s, during Trump’s youth, that battle gave birth to a number of new organizations and leaders who began to engage in anti-internationalist politics, many of which are still familiar to Americans today, such as the John Birch Society.

They refused to allow the United States to participate in the international court, calling it a “world court” and referring to it negatively.

Sovereigntists saw the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the predecessor of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GAT), all of which they viewed as threats to American rule. According to sovereigntists, the UN’s charters and institutions undermined the civilized authority of white Christian nations by providing membership and influence to communists, Asians, and Africans.

Professor Mittelstadt said, “Many [sovereigntists] fought against international sanctions against the ‘brave little nation’ of Rhodesia, whose struggle to maintain white rule was likened by the right-wing lawyer and radio host Clarence Mannion to the American struggle for independence.” He added, “Sovereigntists led the protests against the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.”

The law, which Trump is targeting with a massive deportation of illegal immigrants, was initially the first law to ease immigration in 40 years of American democracy, but sovereigntists strongly opposed it when it was enacted, saying it “embodied the ultimate internationalist conspiracy to eliminate borders.”

Professor Mittastat explains why Trump has been on the offensive from the beginning over the Panama Canal: “In the 1950s and 1960s, the Panamanians began challenging American authority over the canal by invoking the UN Charter and the rules of the International Court of Justice in the disputed area, and began to seek UN support for transferring the canal to Panama.

American sovereignists called this a plot to steal American territory, while the Patrick Henry League in New York claimed American ownership of the Panama Canal, saying, ‘It’s as much ours as the dome of the Capitol and our country.’” In the late 1950s and 1960s, groups such as the Committee on Pan American Policy and the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies focused their criticisms on Presidents Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson for making modest concessions on the Panama Canal. In response, in 1973, Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos convened a UN Security Council meeting in Panama.

Sovereigntists denounced this as a “coup d’état” and “a hearing on a colony in the heart of our country,” and significant protests took place locally, leading to increased pressure in US politics to “negotiate a treaty giving the US full control of Panama.”

Democratic President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty in 1977, handing over the Panama Canal, angering sovereigntists and drawing new conservatives under the Reagan presidency, a decades-old “sovereigntist savior’s political agenda.”

Under Reagan, the sovereigntist movement continued in the 1980s with the “defense of South Africa” against UN sanctions.

At the time, President Reagan successfully pressured South Africa to withdraw from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which promotes peace and human rights through culture and education.

 The sovereignist political movement expanded its “crusade” as the Cold War system collapsed in Germany in 1988, and the new internationalism of the Republican Party briefly deviated from the “new world order” game with President George H.W. Bush’s war in Iraq.

 At the time, conservatism saw the United States push for multilateral trade agreements, build a new neoliberal consensus, and deploy troops to international peacekeeping efforts in Somalia and later the Balkans. 

This attempt at a “new world order” by the Republican Party was precisely what sovereignists had always feared, and their resistance was a broad populist backlash against globalization that helped drive Trump’s popularity, Mittelstadt diagnosed.

Professor Mittelstadt writes of the intimate conflict between American conservatism and sovereignty: “From the perspective of the recurring battle between those who embrace international governance as a tool for projecting American power and those who fear it as a humiliating surrender of American autonomy, Trump’s threat to retake the Panama Canal shows how sovereignty politics is stifling a rejuvenated right wing today.” 

In Trump’s presidency, the sovereignty movement has found its most influential champion. Long before Trump announced that the United States would take over the canal, his revival of the sovereignty agenda was evident. 

Professor Mittelstadt said, “During Trump’s first term and the last four years of his presidency, sovereignty politics were featured in his attacks on the United Nations, NATO, and international agreements on trade and climate. They fueled his restrictionist passion to protect borders against immigration and fueled his honeymoon with other skeptics of international institutions, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni.” 

Regarding Trump’s second term, Professor Mittelstadt said, “Foreign policy is impossible to predict,” and “The influence of the sovereignty movement could recede in the face of a volatile and distracting president and those who do not share a purely sovereignty perspective, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio.”

 

On the other hand, Professor Mittelstadt pointed to Project 2025, which was released by the Heritage Foundation as a strategy for Trump’s second term, saying, “But sovereignists will certainly double down.”

Project 2025 states, “International organizations and agreements that undermine our Constitution, rule of law, and sovereignty of the people should not be revised,” and “They should be abandoned.”

The Heritage Foundation is the strongest supporter and strategic supporter of the Yoon Seok-yeol regime, and the Lee Jae-myung regime has taken control of the Democratic Party with ‘party member-centeredness’ under the Yoon Seok-yeol regime.

Professor Mittelstadt said, “The most ardent sovereignists openly say that they will seek to withdraw from the UN if necessary,” and “They are already opposing many proposed treaties and agreements, including the UN’s future treaty on climate change and inequality.”

 

The Trump administration has announced its intention to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) and implemented deportations as its first act in office, a measure that almost completely bans immigration. Now, it is likely to weaken the European Union (EU), weaken NATO, oppose multilateral trade agreements such as a revised NAFTA, and at the same time regain a kind of “Monroe Doctrine-era” control over the Western Hemisphere, regardless of what happens to the Panama Canal, Professor Mittelstadt diagnosed.

The Trump regime’s embrace of sovereign politics will only embolden similar conservative regimes around the world.

The Brexit vote, led by the Conservative Party in the UK, was already a harbinger of a sovereignist hardline, and the support of all right-wing parties across Europe, led by Tesla CEO Musk, gave them a chance to take power.

Professor Mittelstadt said, “I hope that other countries with right-wing regimes, encouraged by Trump’s contempt, will put the brakes on internationalism and instead build new, separate relationships with each other,” and added, “What we are left with is a period of unruliness in international relations, a period less centralized and less controlled by the shared principles and operating methods that lasted until just a few years ago after the end of World War II.”

It seems that the Yoon Seok-yeol regime has distorted Trump’s ‘sovereignty’ into ‘the 31st Movement spreading liberalism, spreading freedom to North Korea, and eliminating anti-states within the country,’ and the Lee Jae-myung regime has distorted it into ‘party member sovereignty.’

The Yoon Regime demonstrated a ‘free coup’ in December of last year in support of Trump’s reelection, and this regime revealed in an interview with ‘Economics’ on the 22nd of last month that it is ‘Japan-dependent sovereignty with a trilateral alliance structure between Korea, the US, and Japan’.

Park Sun-won, a member of the National Assembly (former Vice Director of the National Intelligence Service), who was nominated by the Lee Jae-myung regime as a member-sovereignty system, nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in late January, just before the interview.

The Korean Constitution is an external sovereignty system of 'popular sovereignty' in a 'democratic republic', and the Yoon regime showed a coup d'état to seize the national policy in the transition to 'free Korea', and the Lee Jae-myung regime established a representative sole power system regarding the 'Korea is a member of the liberal democratic camp, so the Korea-US-Japan trilateral cooperation system continues', and limited and isolated it as a 'people-centered pure democracy' that 'limits national sovereignty to the domestic area'. 

<Report on US Republican ‘Return to Power’ ‘Totalitarian’ Yoon Seok-yeol ‘Eliminates Communist Totalitarianism’, September 18, 2023>

<Yoon Seok-yeol’s March 1st ‘Freedom of North Korean Residents’ Lee Jae-myung’s ‘Republican Solidarity’ Last Year’s ‘Constitutional Denial’ Turnaround, March 1, 2024>

<Heritage Foundation’s Hardline Conservative Strategy to President-elect Yoon ‘Strengthening Executive Orders’, May 4, 2022>

<Yoon Seok-yeol’s Far-Right System ‘Failures’ in Imitating the Hereditary System of the Trump-Musk System, January 1, 2025>

<Democratic Party’s ‘Right Party Members’ Collective Intelligence Sovereignty’ Supports National Treasury Lee Jae-myung as Nazi Party System, May 23, 2024>

<Lee Jae-myung’s ‘Party Member Sovereignty’ Violates the Constitution, Future and Democracy ‘Irrelevant’ IDEA Report, <April 15, 2024>

<Heritage Foundation, ‘Political Violence Left-Wing Axis’ Republican Revolution ‘Right-Wing Opposition Civil Servants Expulsion’, July 19, 2024>

<Special Envoy for North Korea Approaches Withdrawal of US Forces in Korea through Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, April 3, 2028>

<Full Story of Secret Deal and Media Manipulation for Reduction of US Forces in Korea, May 5, 2018>

 

 

Pure democracy, Hardline Conservative, Party Member Sovereignty, New Empire, Yoon Seok-yeol Regime, Lee Jae-myung Regime, Sovereignty, Withdrawal of US Forces in Korea, Trump,Heritage Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize Recommendation, Park Seon-won