Foreign Diplomat Says What No Other Politician Has Dared To Say Out Loud About Trump

Donald Trump

“Words like ‘clumsy’ or ‘ineffective’ simply won’t do. We cannot measure [Trump’s] policy against a scale of good or bad, effective or not. We have to ask: is it actually treasonous?” ~Scott Gilmore

Scott Gilmore has an extensive resume working as a diplomat, having served as a political officer for Global Affairs Canada, for the United Nations’ Office of the National Security Advisor, and as the Deputy Director for Asia for Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.



Most recently, Gilmore works as a social entrepreneur and writer and is best known for founding the charity Building Markets and as an advocate for reform in the international development and charity sectors. [1]

Writing for McLean’s Magazine, Gilmore reported on Trump’s foreign policy blunders, asserting that: “Russia to the TPP and now Iran, Trump’s foreign policy moves have hurt U.S. influence in return for no benefit. It is beyond bad.”

His article began with a stern condemnation of Trump’s errors:

Trump’s foreign policy has included so many self-inflicted wounds, it transcends the descriptions we would normally use. Words like “clumsy” or “ineffective” simply won’t do. Those are terms you could have used for previous presidents… But Trump’s choices on Russia, Paris, TPP and now Iran, are so damaging to traditional American interests they must be measured by a new scale: are his actions treasonous or not?



Stating that “reducing American influence, in return for no objective benefit, is a common theme in Trump’s foreign policy,” Gilmore provided four specific instances of Trump’s foreign policy failures.

  1. His decision to withdraw from the Paris Treaty;
  2. His decision to walk away from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP);
  3. His attitude towards Moscow (Russia); and
  4. His decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

In the instance of the Paris Treaty, Gilmore wrote:

Choosing to ignore the findings of the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and every other government agency that has identified climate change as a critical threat can be seen as simple malpractice. But choosing to leave the Paris Treaty actively harmed American interests. There was literally no benefit to Washington—the treaty was not even binding. Making the U.S. the only country in the world outside of the agreement simply eliminated Washington’s voice from all discussions regarding how the planet will grapple with the issue. As a result of Trump’s decision, America’s influence, on an issue that every other major power considers to be paramount, dropped almost to zero.



Regarding the TPP, Gilmore stated:

When the president chose to walk away from the Trans Pacific Partnership, the rest of the member countries simply carried on without him. The result was reduced tariffs and improved investment conditions for all the major Pacific Rim economies, except the United States. Trump could have chosen to stay in the TPP and renegotiate the terms, thus keeping a seat at what is now one of the most important trade tables in the world, but instead he simply gave Beijing and Tokyo more influence at the expense of Washington.

Turning his attention to Russia, he wrote:

Trump has avoided almost any criticism of the western alliance’s greatest rival. He has disagreed with his own intelligence agencies when they accuse Moscow of cyber-attacks and election meddling. He has revealed classified information during meetings with Russian officials. And when Moscow released nerve agents in the streets of a NATO ally, Trump was reportedly furious to discover the State Department expelled more Russian spies than anyone else. It is not an exaggeration to state almost all of Trump’s foreign policy decisions have been to Moscow’s benefit and Washington’s expense.

Last but not least, he addressed Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iranian Nuclear agreement:

Killing the deal only unshackles Tehran to relaunch its nuclear weapons program. His decision not only provides no benefits to the United States, it creates new threats that did not exist yesterday. Tellingly, Trump’s announcement that he was pulling out of the deal was met with news that Tehran and the European signatories intended to continue honouring the agreement, with or without Washington. This is good news for everyone involved, but it is also a stark sign that America’s international importance has diminished so sharply that it is no longer indispensable. In fact, it is no longer even needed at the table.

Gilmore concluded his piece, writing that

[Trump’s] foreign policy decisions (and many others) have several things in common. They defied the advice of his own government officials, and most of America’s foreign policy establishment. They have objectively reduced America’s stature and influence in the world. And, in many cases, they have directly increased the power of its rivals in Beijing or Moscow.

In the legal world, one of the factors that is considered when determining the guilt of an accused is cui bono: who benefits. When this question is asked of Trump’s many inexplicable foreign policy decisions, the answer is rarely America. If Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping could have dictated Trump’s actions over the last 18 months, would they have chosen anything different? It is unlikely. And that brings me back to the assertion that we cannot measure his foreign policy against a scale of good or bad, effective or not. We have to ask: is it actually treasonous?

Liberals Unite reported over the weekend that Gilmore has also been outspoken regarding Trump’s handling of foreign trade, writing that his policies are geared towards personal benefit to himself and members of his family and inner circle with no regard for what is in the best interest of America.

As Gilmore reported in a separate article for McLean’s Magazine:

As I’ve pointed out before, the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

For the most part, the western allies understand that if we want the U.S. to do something we must negotiate with the man himself. What we have not grasped yet is, as strange as it sounds, the President of the United States is more concerned about promoting his interests than defending America’s.

Gilmore elaborated on this idea in, yet another article, writing that:

Trump practices a hybrid form of transactional foreign affairs. Typically, quid pro quo diplomacy involves states trading favours—one country gets a tariff cut, for example, in return for hosting a military base. But Trump has modified this approach. Traditionally, international relations are conducted state-to-state. Now, they are state-to-Trump.

How did Duterte [Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines] get his invitation to the White House? By appointing one of Trump’s business partners to be his official liaison in Washington. Moscow’s secret? Among other things, Russian oligarchs have been channeling millions of dollars in investment into Trump-owned businesses for several years. The most recent instalment being a $1 million consulting fee to Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.

Less than a week before Trump’s sudden desire to help Beijing, a Chinese state-owned construction company finalized a deal to help one of his investments in Indonesia. And White House support for the Saudi pivot against Qatar came right after the presidential son-in-law asked Riyadh to invest in one of his struggling Manhattan office towers.

Gilmore concluded, writing:

Leaders around the world have figured out how to deal with the United States—negotiate with the man, not the country… [focus] on what Trump wants, personally.

Investments, for example, are always welcome. A Russian oligarch linked to Putin once gave Trump $50 million more than the asking price for a property he had been unable to sell. Maybe we could move the Canadian embassy in Washington into his Old Post Office hotel.

FOOTNOTE 1: For those unfamiliar with the term, social entrepreneurs work with start-up companies and other entrepreneurs to develop, fund and implement solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues. PBS reported that “A social entrepreneur, in our view, is a person or entity that takes a business approach to effectively solving a social problem… [They] act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss in order to improve systems, invent and disseminate new approaches and advance sustainable solutions that create social value.”

(Visited 2,914 times, 1 visits today)

Follow Me

Samuel Warde

Samuel is a writer, social and political activist, and all-around troublemaker.
Follow Me