This has been quite a week for the United States at the United Nations. First, the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution that basically sought to nullify the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Fourteen ‘yes’ votes and one ‘no’, being cast by the U.S. Like the cheese in the old nursery rhyme, the U.S. stands alone.

Then on December 21, the General Assembly voted on what was, in essence, the same resolution. But in the General Assembly, the U.S. has no veto power.

The outcome of this vote, however, wasn’t surprising: 128 nations voting in favor of justice, human rights and international law, nine voting against, and 35 abstaining. Canada is in the latter group, doing a precarious balancing act in trying not to displease Trump (Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have now taken the role of the Yankee Poodle, which previously belonged to then British Prime Minister Tony Blair a decade ago), and also not alienating the heads of several Arab nations that could scuttle Canada’s quest to gain a seat on the Security Council. Unconditional support for Israel during the Stephen Harper years prevented Canada from gaining that coveted spot at that time.

But the lack of a veto didn’t mean that the mighty U.S. wouldn’t try everything in its power to prevent passage of the resolution. First, the embarrassing and incompetent U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, sent a letter to Assembly members, saying that the U.S. would be closely watching their vote, and any opposition would be taken personally by Trump.  Then, to attempt to tighten the screws, Trump himself threatened to withhold financial assistance from any country that dared to oppose it at the U.N. Blackmail and intimidation are now the rule of the day in U.S. ‘diplomatic’ circles.

The vote doesn’t change anything on the ground, but it serves to highlight and emphasize the U.S.’s growing isolation from the global community, and the contempt that much of the world has for the U.S. and its extremely unpopular president. Only nine countries stood with the U.S., and these included such ‘powerhouses’ as Nauru (population 13, 049), Palau (population 21,503), and the Marshall Islands (population 53,066)

During her rant, Haley said that the U.S. is a major financial sponsor of the U.N. and expects a good return on its investment. She seems completely oblivious to such concepts as philanthropy, the giving to a good cause without any expectation of a return. The United Nations is such a cause. It’s website says this:

Due to the powers vested in its Charter and its unique international character, the United Nations can take action on the issues confronting humanity in the 21st century, such as peace and security, climate change, sustainable development, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, humanitarian and health emergencies, gender equality, governance, food production, and more.

These are all issues that the global community should address, and the U.N., despite its many imperfections, is a means by which to do so. One nation doesn’t ‘invest’ in it, looking for a ‘return’, as if finding a promising stock, purchasing shares and hoping to make a handsome profit. It is more akin to contributing to the American Cancer Society, Heart Association or Diabetes Foundation. Individuals give money to those organizations, with the hope and expectation that by doing so, some suffering will be alleviated. This writer contributes to the Heart Association. He, himself, does not have heart problems; his parents lived long lives without ever experiencing such problems; his siblings and son don’t have them. Yet he is aware that many people die of heart disease, and he hopes that his small contributions will help to reduce those numbers. The money he gives does not benefit him directly.

Similarly, nations are part of, and financially sustain, the United Nations, with the hope that it will assist in alleviating suffering around the world. Even those nations that are criticized by the U.N. and its various component parts should realize that they are contributing funds for the greater good of humanity.

But not the U.S., and certainly not Trump. Haley, like an investment counselor watching to assure that her client’s stocks are in an upward trajectory, demands an adequate return. The U.N. cannot criticize the U.S. when it violates international law, and supports other nations in such violations. What about all the money the U.S. gives it? The U.N., in return, should grant the U.S. a pass on such things as human rights violations and defying international law.

Trump upped the ante by actually threatening to stop financial aid to countries that voted for this resolution. Afghanistan is a nation to which the U.S. gives billions, as it systematically works to destroy it. This is one of the 128 countries that defied the U.S. on Thursday at the U.N. It is unlikely that the U.S. will reduce the amount of aid it gives Afghanistan.

Egypt is another such country. Its leaders support Israel, and assist in the brutal oppression of the Palestinians, so Trump’s threat seems empty there, too.

Let Haley take her list to her Big Orange Boss; he will rant and rave, and ‘Tweet’ out endless threats and criticisms, all to the effect of further alienating the U.S.

But what is any of that? His rabid, right-wing, racist base is eating this all up; its members hate the U.N., believe the U.S. is the infallible judge, jury and executioner of the entire planet, believe that all Muslims are terrorists and that God is a real estate agent who is apparently getting a fine commission on his sale of Palestine to Jews from New York. Who needs the rest of the world?

The mighty U.S. will take on any problem, overthrow any democratically-elected government if it appears to lean too far to the left, support the most unspeakable human rights violations if the lobbyists from the countries committing them continue signing campaign checks, all the while proclaiming that it is a beacon of peace and freedom around the world.

Domestically, the U.S. police force will continue to murder unarmed Blacks, as the judiciary slaps the wrists of corporate criminals. The very people who still, incredibly, support Trump, will see their taxes increase as their medical care opportunities evaporate.

But their hero can proclaim that he is a Washington outsider, not attending to the political correctness of the D.C. establishment, defying international law, fomenting racial difficulties, and further making the U.S. a global pariah.

This is the U.S. and the world, as 2017, the first year of the Trump presidency, draws to a close. What the new year will bring is anyone’s guess.

Viewed one way, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan looks unassailable: He weathered last year’s coup attempt, jailed more than 50,000 opponents, fired more than 100,000 civil servants, beheaded the once powerful Turkish military, eviscerated much of his parliamentary opposition, dismissed almost half of the county’s elected officials, and rammed through a constitutional referendum that will make him an all-powerful executive following the 2019 election. In the meantime, a seemingly never-ending state of emergency allows him to rule by decree.

So why is the man running scared?

Because the very tools that Erdogan has used to make himself into a sort of modern day Ottoman sultan are backfiring. The state of emergency is scaring off foreign investment, which is central to the way the Turkish economy functions. The loss of experienced government workers has put an enormous strain on the functioning of the bureaucracy. And the promises he made to the electorate in order to get his referendum passed are coming due with very little in the till to fulfill them.

Part of the problem is Erdogan himself. In that sense he is a bit like US President Donald Trump, who has also alienated allies with a combination of bombast and cluelessness. The Turkish President is in a war with Washington over a corruption trial, at loggerheads with Germany (and most of the European Union) over his growing authoritarianism and, with the exception of Russia, China, Qatar and Iran, seems to be quarreling with everyone these days. It is certainly a far cry from a decade ago when the foreign policy of Ankara was “Zero problems with the neighbors.” As one Turkish commentator put it, it’s now “No neighbors without problems.”

What has thrown a scare into Erdogan, however, is not so much the country’s growing diplomatic isolation, but the economy and how that might affect the outcome of presidential elections in 2019.

In the run up to the constitutional referendum last year, the government handed out loans and goodies to the average Turk. Growth accelerated, unemployment fell, and the poverty rate was reduced. But the cost of priming that pump has come due at the very moment that international energy prices are on the rise. Turkey imports virtually all of its energy, but when the price of oil was down to a little more than $30 a barrel, the budget could handle it.

The price of oil in December, however, was close to $60 a barrel, and a recent agreement between the two largest producers—Saudi Arabia and Russia—to curb production will drive that price even higher in the future. Rate hikes for gasoline and heating will be up sharply in the coming months.

Turkish unemployment is over 13 percent, inflation is close to 12 percent, and the Turkish lira has fallen 12 percent against the dollar. With energy costs rising and currency value declining, Turkey is struggling through an economic double whammy.

Economist Timur Kuran of Duke University says the Turkish economy is in serious trouble. “The AKP (Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party) is doing massive long-term damage to the Turkish economy. Corruption is up, the quality of education has fallen, the courts are massively politicized, and the people are afraid to speak honestly.”  Kuran argues that any growth is based on short-term investments, so–called “hot money,” drawn in by high interest rates. “This is not a sustainable strategy. It makes Turkey highly vulnerable to a shock that might cause an outflow of resources.”

Under Erdogan Corruption does seem to be increasing. In 2013 Transparency International ranked Turkey 53ed out of 175 countries on its Corruption Perception Index. By 2016 the country had risen to 75^th out of 176 countries.

Turkey’s economy is highly dependent on foreign money, but the continuing state of emergency and rule by decree is scaring off investors. Figures by the Central Bank show that Turkey is losing $1 billion a week in foreign investments. Britain, a major investor in Turkey, has reduced its investments by 20% since the declaration of the state of emergency.

The uncertainly has spread as well to Turkish citizens, who are putting their money into foreign investments in order to preserve their savings. From the end of 2016 to this November, Turks moved $17.2 billion to foreign firms.

Erdogan is blaming Turkish banks—in particular the Central Bank—for rising interest rates and the downturn in the economy. But Kemel Kilicdaroglu, leader of the centrist and secular opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) argues that “The real reason why foreign investments other than real estate purchases are decreasing is that [foreign investors] feel insecure in a country where law, justice and press freedom are non-existent.”

The state of emergency allows the government to suppress trade union strikes, but it has been less successful in damping down what was once a AKP strong suit: rural farmers.

One of Erdogan’s economic “reforms” was to open Turkish markets to foreign competition, which has resulted in losses for the country’s live stock and agricultural growers. Meat producers are up in arms over an agreement with Serbia to import 5,000 tons of red meat, and tea, grape, tobacco and apricot growers have been hard hit by falling prices and foreign competition. Hazelnut growers were so incensed at the government’s base price for their produce that they organized a large march under the banner of “Justice for Hazelnuts.”

A study found that foreign imports had reduced the number of families involved in growing tobacco from 405,882 families in 2002 to 56,000 in 2015.

It is not so much the marches that worry Erdogan, but the fact that some 20 million rural Turks are up in arms against the government, anger that might translate into votes in 2019. In the April 2017 referendum, rural votes solidly supported the AKP, while urban centers—particularly their youth—voted no. Losing cities like Ankara and Istanbul—the city where Erdogan began his political career—was a shock for the AKP, but losses in rural areas would be a political train wreck.

While Erdogan strains to keep the economic lid on long enough to get through 2019, there are fissures opening within his own party. A wing of the AKP is not happy with Erdogan’s foreign policy disputes and the impact that they are having on the economy.

On his right, former interior minister Meral Aksener has formed the Iyi Parti or “Good Party” and says she plans to challenge Erdogan for the presidency. Aksener appeals to the more nationalist currents in the AKP and hopes to attract support from the extreme right wing National Action Party (MHP). She is currently polling around 16 percent.

Polls indicate that the “Good Party” is cutting into the AKP’s support, which has dropped to 38 percent. Erdogan needs at least 51 percent, the figure that he claims he got in the referendum (outside observers called the election deeply flawed, however). Aksener could split Erdogan’s support within the AKP and the MHP, thus denying him a majority.

Nor has the CHP thrown in the towel, Besides organizing marches by angry rural residents, Party leader Kilicdaroglu pulled off a 25-day, 280-mile “Justice March” last summer that may have involved as many as a million people.

The Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), Turkey’s leftist party closely tied to its Kurdish population, has been decimated by arrests and seizure of its assets, but it is still the third largest party in parliament. “It may appear that injustice has won, but this will not last,” HDP parliament member Meral Danis Bestas told Al-Monitor. “Turkey’s future truly lies in democracy, rights and freedom.”

Erdogan has enormous power and has out muscled and out maneuvered his opponents for the past 20 years. But Turks are growing weary of his rule and, if the economy stumbles, he may be vulnerable.

That’s why he is running scared.