It would seem that Islamic jihadists and wild Latinos are unmatchable evils but they are now mixed up together and presented as different aspects of the same war, writes Valdai Club programme director Oleg Barabanov.

       We think that on Friday, July 28, US President Donald Trump made one of his most remarkable speeches. When a collection of them is published (probably in the “Beware of Populism” series), this particular one will be included in it on a par with his Gettysburg Address, the Inauguration Speech and the recent speech in Poland (“America loves Poland”). However, as distinct from all of his previous statements, the subject of this one is far from decent and hence has caused few comments from the world at large.

       On this day Trump spoke to the New York Police Department on the need to crack down on Latin American gangs, such as MS-13 and others that are more or less openly operating throughout American cities, regularly carrying out brutal murders, sexual assaults and also robberies. The President said that over a period of the past half a year (that is, after his inauguration) these gangs had killed dozens of people on Long Island alone. These figures are comparable to official losses of US troops in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan in a timeframe of six months.

       This is a vicious circle, when at the moment the United States is fighting terrorism all over the world (results do not matter in this case) and carrying the torch of freedom to Poland, it suddenly transpires that the government of the world’s strongest country cannot protect even the life of its citizens at home, not to mention ensure their security. The United States is again returning to its old image of a country where street violence rates are some of the worst in the world.

       It seems that this topic was becoming a thing of the past in the United States. Huge strides were taken when it came to the struggle against street violence conducted by Rudolf Giuliani and mayors of other major US cities, more efficient police operations took place in this respect and the general atmosphere of increased vigilance after the 9/11 attacks seemed to make US cities calmer and safer places to be in. The politically motivated race violence (Black Panthers in the suburbs of San Francisco, somewhat canonic self-destruction of Detroit’s urban environment and a series of racial riots after the murder of Martin Luther King) disappeared. The utter despair of racial ghettoes (recall the stereotypes of Harlem, Brooklyn, Bronx and Tenderloin) and the absence of any social expectations for their residents, which were generating street crime throughout the 1970s-1990s seemed to be receding into the past as well. The renovation and gentrification gradually came to these districts as well (for instance, Bill Clinton’s projects in Harlem and Twitter’s HQ in San Francisco’s Tenderloin).

       Finally, the White Flight came to an end as well. This was an American urban phenomenon (not entirely politically correct) that implied the exodus of the white middle class from violence-ridden inner-city neighborhoods to more prosperous suburbs. All those who wanted and could afford to move did so during previous decades. As a result, the social and, alas, racial stratification of the average US city under the Decaying CBD (Central Business District) vs Gated Communities in Suburbia also passed its peak of excesses and became fairly stable. If you live in relatively trouble-free suburbs and do not visit inferior areas, you will be safe. This is partially what was happening before and street violence in US cities began to subside.

       Furthermore, counter-cultural tensions that had been feeding street violence in the past were also gradually disappearing. In terms of the ideological slogans of that time, the Summer of Love (Hippies of the 1960s) was replaced by the Winter of Hate (Punks) a decade later. However, this tradition of counter-cultural violence was also becoming less pronounced. Punks became history long ago while the current informal traditions of the alt-right movement have become less violent and are primarily known by their politically incorrect language clashes than appeals to street anarchy.

       Moreover, the appearance of new excesses of street violence in other countries in the 1990s made the United States look a safer place. Thus, self-destruction of the urban environment in Johannesburg after the fall of apartheid became much more powerful and rapid than in Detroit. South African cities left the United States far behind in terms of street crime and violence for a long time. Latin American cities– from Mexico to Brazil –- were also rapidly moving along the same lines.

       To repeat, these factors created the impression that the fight against street crime was producing results in the United States. Such expectations were particularly high when Barack Obama was elected president. His election slogan “Yes, we can!,” his “Audacity of Hope” and his example of success gave grounds to hope that race stratification in the United States and street crime as its consequence would start to decrease and that the social expectations that gave the residents from racial ghettos a chance to get out and head towards a better life would eventually be established and commence to function.

       But, alas, the reality proved to be much more complicated. The events in Ferguson showed the depth of the racial split and mistrust in the United States. At this point let us ignore the rumors that an Afro-American teenager killed by a white policeman was really robbing a store and given the clarity of US norms on the use of arms by the police, got what he deserved. The wave of protests triggered off by this incident in Ferguson and other cities too revealed many complicated and insoluble issues. The first thing was clear: It would be good if white policemen do not shoot at black guys. But the second issue was more complicated and politically incorrect: It would be good if Afro-Americans refrained from stealing and committing violent crimes, and if this was the case the police wouldn’t have to shoot at them. The third topic became a real challenge for Obama: Whom will the first non-white US President side with: the killed Afro-American teenager or the white policeman who shot him? Since the protests in Ferguson were suppressed on a broad scale with the involvement of the federal forces, the local radicals brought what was probably the most insulting (and politically incorrect) accusation against him – that having turned into a puppet of the white establishment, he became a traitor of his own race. As for any social expectations in Ferguson, they still haven’t appeared.

       Against this background Trump spoke about fighting street violence only in a broad sense. The gist of his campaign, reflected in the ideology of his Gettysburg Address was in protectionism, reindustrialization and the creation of new jobs. He urged once again for the construction of his famous wall along the border with Mexico not so much for security but for protecting jobs for US citizens. Now just when people were starting to forget about the wall, he decides to hold a large scale meeting with the police at which he declares war on the MS-13 gang.

       This speech is indeed unusual for a president. Declaring war on ISIS (as Trump did in Riyadh) is a logical step for an American president. Speaking about personal contract with electors in Gettysburg sounds like populism but also fits into the logic of the election race. Declaration of love for Poland is absolutely clear as well – even Zbigniew Brzezinski could not have done it better. But an American president is too important a person to declare war on some street gang in Long Island (yes, old, huge, ramified as a Mafiosi network, cruel and dangerous) but still just a gang. This is really beneath him. The police know themselves what to do or he could have made at least additional instructions. But making a whole speech and launching a vendetta on this gang may be dangerous for his image. What if he ends up not being able to cope with this particular task? If the struggle against ISIS fails or Poland lets him down, his image would not be seriously damaged because they are far away and not a big concern for the electors. But if the gang on Long Island continues killing people (which, regrettably, is fairly likely) Trump may be directly accused of failure, which will give additional leverage to his already numerous opponents.

       Yet Trump decided to do this and declared personal war on the Latin American gangsters from MS-13. The PR job was truly great. On the same day U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions flew to El Salvador that has become one of the main bases for recruiting gangsters into МS-13. Over a hundred suspects had been demonstratively arrested there by the time he arrived. At the same time, and not by accident, a rumor was spread that ISIS has allegedly displayed interest in the MS-13 network and ways of getting illegally into the United States from Latin America and suggested that the gang is used for planting ISIS militants on US territory.

       This rumor is again an ace for PR. It would seem that Islamic jihadists and wild Latinos are unmatchable evils but they are now mixed up together and presented as different aspects of the same war. Second, the vendetta against MS-13 will allow Trump to give another dimension to the notorious wall along the Mexican border. On top of all this, the obvious emphasis on the Latin American origin of the gang will make it possible to escalate anti-Mexican and generally anti-Hispanic attitudes in US society.

       For all the race-related character of street violence in the United States, the Afro-Americans are primarily accused of it by way of a stereotype. The examples in this article – from Detroit to Ferguson -- also mostly apply to the Afro-American community. Latinos had a somewhat different image in the US criminal world. Yes, cocaine supplies, prostitution, human trafficking and illegal migration but street violence was hardly their cup of tea although many people living in the US admit privately that in the past few years meeting a Latino in a dark street has become much more dangerous than meeting an Afro-American.

       Now President Trump goes on record as saying that the main domestic enemy of the United States is a Latino gang that kills and robs its citizens. Trump has overtly brushed aside yet another trite politically correct cliché that a criminal has no ethnic origin. Now the most dangerous US domestic enemy’s ethnic origin is commonly known – these are Latinos. The future will show how this admission will affect the destinies of Trumpism and the racial divide in the United States.

       Oleg Barabanov is Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.