#stating his intentions to withdraw from the tpp | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

agentxthirteen · 8 years ago

Text

Thinking Liberally Newsletter 1/23/17

Party like it's 1984:

If you have twitter, check whom you follow. Some people were following Trump, Melania, Pence, or Spicer without their knowledge. Twitter claimed it was a bug from when Obama moved to @BarackObama, but there are reports that people who never followed the @POTUS, @FLOTUS, etc accounts are now following them. (By the way, Obama's tweets as president are archived at @POTUS44.)

Did you notice how Trump got an unusual amount of applause at his first press conference? The press attested that Trump had employees in the wings to clap and laugh at his jokes. The same thing happened when he gave a speech at the CIA - in front of the Memorial Wall, no less. For which Trump is drawing a bit of fire. BTW, correlation is not causation, but morale at the CIA is allegedly at an all-time low. Oh, and look. Here's an article confirming that Trump brought a cheering section to his speech, and that relations between Trump and US intelligence agencies are now worse than before.

Also, beware: When the National Parks Service tweeted comparative photos of Trump and Obama's inaugurations, they were barred from tweeting again - even if it was only about weather updates.

After obvious lies - or, as Kellyanne Conway says, "alternate facts" - one quote to keep in mind is from George Orwell: "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." (By the way, Sean Spicer is getting flack from other press secretaries - including Hillary Clinton's press secretary, Brian Fallon. Of course, the press knows the Spicer is a liar and has been for a long time.) Some have noted that the administration is aware that everyone knows they're lying - their constant lies are a way of saying they don't care. The best way to combat it? Keep demanding the truth - if nothing else, they'll have to waste time lying or convincing people that no one cares about the lies. I particularly love this tweet pointing out one of the lies. Keep it up, media!

Oh, and some people have noticed that Facebook posts critical of Trump have had privacy settings changed- these people have noticed that their posts can now only be seen by themselves.

The press was banned from Trump's DC hotel during the inauguration week.

Now might be a good time to point out you can download the Labor Department's Women's Bureau's resources in case they disappear in the future.

The Trumps evidently ignore the press and the press's requests for comments until it's time for a retraction.

Companies are already careful of what announcements they make, even recycling old press releases, to avoid pissing off the Don.

Links to inform and terrify:

As you can imagine, it's been an INCREDIBLY busy week for news. First, the terrifying stuff:

Day One of Trump's administration, he:

Signed an executive order to "ease the burdens of Obamacare." Also in the article: He signed paperwork to elevate James Mattis and John Kelly to his defense secretary and homeland security secretary, respectively.

Reversed Obama's mortgage fee cuts, leading to this bit of regret from a Trump supporter...

Trump caused a lot of concern when he scrubbed the info on the White House site, including policies to on healthcare, civil rights, and LGBTQ sections. This is normal for administrations. Two things caused concern when material appeared on the site again: the promotions for Melania's jewelry line and Trump's "America First" action plan.

Stated, through his administration, that environmental regulations should be cut back to increase American wages. Pretty sure it 1) doesn't work like that, and 2) those figures he used to justify getting rid of regulations on clean water, etc, are wrong. The Atlantic actually focused on whether or not regulations kill jobs in this piece.

A new budget proposes no funding whatsoever for National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities and ending federal appropriations for the Corporation of Private Broadcasting. There's still a chance Trump won't see it through, but so far, he's shown a higher regard for the Heritage Foundation's opinion than the American people's. And unfortunately, he's using the Heritage Foundation's dream budget as a template.

He also may cut funding to Violence Against Women Programs, based on that same Heritage Foundation dream template. This seems like a good idea to point out that Trump has nominated more men accused of sexual assault to his cabinet than he has women.

In terrifying things that you may regret watching, here's Trump blowing a kiss to FBI Director James Comey. You may remember that Comey is supposed to be investigating Trump. He was much more enthusiastic about investigating the Clintons - and has been since 2001. Maybe if Bill had blown him a kiss...

The lawsuits against Trump begin. One from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to stop Trump from profiting from foreign businesses, and another from the ACLU.

After trying to help boost Trump's support among black voters, Kanye West is deemed not "traditionally American" enough to perform at the inauguration.

We have Betsy Devos's ethics report, and the vote to confirm her has been postponed. Rex Tillerson, though, is inching closer, so get your activists hats on!

Yeah, Trump's inaugural cake was a copy of Obama's. On purpose!

Only 28 of 690 appointments nominated so far. The thought of what will happen this week is terrifying. And, that's only the appointments. As for everyone else... Actually, the outgoing administration has no idea if anyone in the Trump administration has even read the briefing reports Obama's crew put together.

Trump's DOJ has determined that hiring his son-in-law is not against anti-nepotism laws.

Anti-vaxxer Dr. Andy Wakefield attended Trump's inaugural ball. I'm afraid to offer the odd on him soon being offered a cabinet position...

That inaugural speech that Trump wrote himself (in the Mar-A-Lago hallway, no less)? Yeah, not so much. (Also, sharpies? Really? After the unmarked filing folders at the press conference, I can safely say this administration has a prop problem.) And in case you were curious where the phrase "America First" came from and why it was so predominant, here. Warning for if you don't like Nazis and the KKK, that link has a lot about them. Given who wrote the speech, I suppose that goes without saying. (And no, Donald Trump isn't writing the new @POTUS tweets - those are from a "former" fake news promoter.)

The administration is so organized that Corey Lewandowski had trouble getting into the inauguration.

The inauguration parade could have been so much worse. The sparsely-attended event could have included military tanks. (My favorite review of the parade: "It's almost like a funeral.")

Trump has yet to resign from his businesses.

Trump's political career got started with the birther lie. Bill Moyers and four historians discuss the reasoning behind the lie and how it was allowed to fester.

Meet Norman Vincent Peale, Trump's spiritual guide behind Trump's self-confidence. (Or as some could argue, delusion. If only he hadn't won!)

Say hello to Steve Mnuchin, the man who "forgot" to disclose $100 million in assets. He might soon be our Treasury Secretary! Speaking of people Trump is working with, meet Stephen Miller, one of the people helping write Trump's speeches. And we can't forget John Gore, who defended discriminatory laws in North Carolina. He's on his way to the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice!

DC contractors for Trump's DC hotel say they're owed millions.

Donald Trump has a Secretary of Agriculture in mind. Surprise, he's an old white guy, who is also Georgia's first Republican governor since Reconstruction. Sonny Purdue! You might remember him from the time he led a prayer on the Capitol steps for rain. (Is this a good time to point out it started raining as soon as Trump began his inaugural speech? No? Warning: autoplay in the link.)

The Endangered Species Act is also at risk.

This Washington Post article about Trump and accessibility is an interesting read.

Some notes on what mammograms and IUDs would cost in each state if we lose the ACA.

And now, some high notes:

Not only is Trump the least popular incoming president we've had in living memory, but protesting him is now one of the most popular things to do! It wasn't a local phenomenon, either - in addition to at least 633 cities in the US (the folks in Mentone, AL were not included in that number), there were Women's March protests all over the world. Crowd scientists report that there were three times as many people attending protests than Trump's inauguration, and that was just in DC! (The viewing numbers for the inauguration are in, and Trump also got lower ratings than Obama, Reagan, and Jimmy Carter. He is, naturally, upset about this and thinks everyone - i.e., the media - is lying.)

Some signs from marches (warning: autoplay, so don't watch at work)

Some pictures from marches around the world - including Antarctica!

Video of march from DC rooftop (warning: video!)

More photos from around the world - gorgeous!

More photos from around the world. You really get the two impressions from this set - 1) Trump is unpopular, if not outright hated, worldwide, and 2) Bush's place in history has officially improved.

Carrie Fisher's legacy lives on! (The link includes a speech by Trump you'll WANT to see!)

Charlie Brotman might not have kept his job as the inaugural announcer thanks to the 45th president, but he certainly had plans on the 21st!

READ. THIS.

The Women's March is still getting final numbers in, but is already one of the largest protests in US history!

A lot of media outlets have other things to focus on, so I'd like to draw your attention to the Sikhs handing out water bottles and food at the protests.

Fan of the march? They already have some action topics for Monday. Trump will likely try to avoid seeing pictures, but Congress can't ignore so many demands to save ACA and stop Jeff Sessions! (I don't think us leaving the UN is a viable threat right now, but the first two definitely are!)

Yes, the marches got noticed - by the media, at least.

Oh, by the way - there was an anti-gay protest outside Comet Ping Pong - they were soon drowned out by pro-LGBTQ protesters! Anti-protests included a dance party! (Dance party protests seem to be popular at the moment, actually...)

No arrests, despite millions of protesters across the nation!

Someone who allegedly knew Richard Spencer in school shares some character insight that might cheer you up!

Trump's transition to settling in at the @POTUS account is sad - if you're a fan of his, at least. Everyone else, have fun reading about it!

Despite Trump and Kellyanne insisting that no one cares about Trump's taxes, the official White House petition for Trump to release his tax returns has surpassed the threshold required for an official response!

There's already a creature named after Donald Trump. Neopalpa donaldtrumpi has a golden head and small genetalia.

Every book Obama recommended during his Presidency. And speaking of Obama, he's not done.

In conclusion, Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." This country and its citizens' allies around the world have shown that they're going to do something. The American people have always had a stubborn streak when it came to being told what to do, and at this point in time, we have more people interested in resistance than we ever had. Even in the American Revolution, only roughly a third of the country supported independence. Only around 20% of the population voted for Trump, and many of those voters are coming to regret it as he keeps up his Trumpness.

So take heart. Yes, there's a long, hard, bumpy road ahead of us, but we are not walking it alone, and we won't stop walking until we get our country back. As others have noted, it isn't enough just to protest Trump, we must defy him. At least we know we won't be doing it alone.

#politics #donald trump #united states #we're so screwed #call everyone you can #since i got this together trump signed executive orders #banning us funds for abortion or birth control outside of the us #putting a federal hiring freeze on non-military personnel #stating his intentions to withdraw from the tpp #and we have no idea what else #because the white house won't tell anyone #yet #so that's not scary at all

2 notes · View notes

alexsmitposts · 5 years ago

Photo

Will a Response follow Washington’s Attempts to Undermine International Institutions? After Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, his desire to pursue the America First strategy by not only reshaping the internal political landscape but also changing the existing world order in line with US interests became readily apparent. The US leader began to show that his view of what US national interests were differed completely from that of his predecessors. He decisively severed ties with numerous intergovernmental organizations, established with the aid of the United States, and rejected the very principles of multilateralism. Instead of employing a multilateral approach and championing democratic values, the White House chose to use the upper hand it had gained after the collapse of the USSR to its advantage and to ignore UN demands whenever they did not align with US national interests, thus showing a tendency to behave in an openly authoritarian manner on the domestic as well as international fronts. Donald Trump’s approach to running the government started to resemble that prevalent in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century, when proponent of liberal internationalism Woodrow Wilson was no longer President (starting in 1921) and Washington began to pursue isolationist policies that took into account only US interests until the start of the Second World War. Earlier, before Donald Trump came to power, the White House had essentially relied on appointing individuals loyal to the US administration to key positions in various international organizations to ensure they pursued policies favorable to Washington by, for instance, attacking opponents of American democracy. Bribery, corrupt practices and Washington’s puppet NGOs were also actively used by the United States as tools to apply pressure on leaders of certain international organizations and to influence these institutions. In fact, recently, a study by the European Center for Law and Justice in Strasbourg revealed that nearly a quarter of the 100 judges who had “served on the bench of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the period 2009-2019” had “strong links to George Soros’ Open Society Foundations or to NGOs like Amnesty International and others” funded by it. However, not all the individuals, hand-picked by Washington, always followed instructions from the White House diligently. As a result, Donald Trump chose to radically change the approach towards certain international organizations by severing ties with institutions that essentially refused to bow down to US pressure. Very soon after Donald Trump became US President, the United States withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed trade agreement among 12 countries in the Asia Pacific region. He also halted negotiations on establishing an analogous economic union between the United States and the EU, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In October 2017, the Department of State notified UNESCO of the US decision to leave the organization. The same year, the United States announced its withdrawal from the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, adopted earlier by the United Nations General Assembly. On June 19, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and US Permanent Representative to the United Nations Nikki Haley stated that the USA would withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council. The United States also abandoned a number of international agreements, including the Paris Agreement (a landmark accord on climate change) and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (i.e. the Iran nuclear deal). Recently, Washington announced to the world that it was severing ties with the World Health Organization (WHO). The USA then imposed unilateral sanctions (which resembled an ultimatum) against the International Criminal Court (ICC) staff over their investigation into war crimes committed by the US-led forces in Afghanistan since 2003. Operating more like a businessman concerned with making money rather than a politician, Donald Trump has introduced into the world of politics an approach to business, which can even be described as utilitarian, that essentially neglects the interests of anyone who goes against it. In fact, as far back as 2017, President of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Richard N. Haass described the 45th President’s foreign policy approach as an “adhocracy” (a decentralized, improvisational administration). On the domestic front, such a utilitarian and nationalistic strategy has yielded some positive results, as anticipated by Donald Trump. After all, Americans, and not the French or Germans, will go to the polls to vote for the next President of the United States. It is, therefore, not surprising that Donald Trump’s approval ratings remain relatively high even today. However, outside of the United States, the White House’s America First strategy has become increasingly unpopular. And even ardent US supporters, including numerous foreign politicians as well as high-ranking officials from international organizations, have begun to realize that the purely business-minded approach, used by the 45th President of the United States, may mean that, in the nearest future, Washington could demand payment for its support but there is, in fact, little to pay them with. Still, even the United States finds itself in an unenviable position nowadays, with its national debt reaching record levels of about $26 trillion. Hence, Washington also does not have enough money to pay the world, which is why the White House has been cutting its spending on numerous international organizations and military alliances. At present, it is no longer a secret that the US decisions to suspend financial contributions to WHO and a number of other UN affiliated organizations as well as to impose unilateral economic sanctions against ICC staff are not only direct proof of US intentions to undermine or even destroy international institutions that defy Washington, but also of its openly authoritarian stance, which could, in the nearest future, be accompanied by a show of force. That is why, in its attempts to rein in the ICC and the European Court of Human Rights, Washington is already demanding a blanket immunity from prosecution by international courts for its soldiers, which means they can only be tried for any war crimes, such as deaths of civilians, in the United States. However, the international community and relatives of innocents who died ought to oppose such moves, otherwise the world will become an unbearable place to live in. And global communities should not be alone in their disapproval of United States’ policies of this nature, international judges, who are independent from Washington, ought to join their ranks. After all, the main objective of these judges is to ensure justice prevails and the guilty are punished! Hence, the investigation into numerous war crimes committed by the US armed forces and their allies has to continue until a verdict is reached by the international court.

1 note · View note

ericfruits · 6 years ago

Text

Donald Trump is strong-arming Congress into accepting the new NAFTA

FOR YEARS President Donald Trump has been itching to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a trade deal between America, Canada and Mexico. But as long as negotiations about a revamp continued, he held off. The day after signing a new deal on November 30th, rebranded the USMCA, he announced that he would “shortly” indulge himself and terminate the original deal after all. That would force Congress to choose between the USMCA and a NAFTA-less world.

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.

“If Trump’s new NAFTAis so great, why does he need to resort to brinkmanship to ram it through Congress?” asked Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator. The answer is that many do not think the new deal is so great. The AFL-CIO, a union of unions, calls it incomplete. Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in Congress and probably the next speaker, says it is a “work in progress”. Some Republicans express misgivings. Mr Trump wants to silence such voices.

If this plan fails, and the Democrat-dominated House votes down the USMCA next year, it may be in part to deny Mr Trump a foreign-policy success. But Democrats also have substantive complaints. The biggest is that, though the labour standards in the new pact are tougher than in the old version (or than in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which was negotiated under Barack Obama and dumped by Mr Trump), many regard the enforcement provisions as too weak.

Older trade deals involving America allow any member that thinks another is breaking the terms to launch an official dispute. Once various procedural hoops have been jumped through, the parties pick five from a roster of judges, who decide whether there has been wrongdoing. But in NAFTA that process has been broken for years. After Mexico launched a dispute against America over sugar in 2000, America refused to fill vacancies on the roster, in effect blocking the dispute’s resolution. There have been no state-to-state disputes within NAFTA since.

Over time, other problems with this template have emerged, including the possibility for defending countries to slow down procedures. A dispute over labour standards between America and Guatemala under a different trade deal, for example, was delayed temporarily when Guatemala claimed that the two had not agreed on the meaning of choosing the final panellist “by lot”, and demanded meetings before a panel could be picked.

The concern is that the USMCA does not fix those problems, and that this was intentional on the part of American negotiators. (There were attempts to fix them in the TPP.) Since NAFTA’s enforcement mechanism broke down, disputes that should fall under it have been taken to the World Trade Organisation instead. But the Trump administration is undermining that, too.

Tough rules are painful when wielded against you, but useful when holding others to account. The Trump administration may think it can get the best of both worlds, by retaining its ability to block panels in case Mexico or Canada sue, and by using the same bullying tactics as it has with China when it has a problem of its own. But bypassing the judges attached to the USMCA risks delegitimising American complaints about unfair trade practices.

By threatening a choice between the USMCA and the chaos of a lapsed NAFTA, Mr Trump wants to convince critics to ignore their worries that the new deal lacks teeth. But if he terminates NAFTA he will face legal challenges from the private sector, in particular over his authority to withdraw from a trade deal without the approval of Congress. Who would win is uncertain. What is clear is that the fight over North American trade is not over.

This article appeared in the Finance and economics section of the print edition under the headline "Foul play"

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes

feelingbluepolitics · 6 years ago

Link

"In recent years, some Chinese manufacturers had already started to relocate some of their capacity to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia, due to high operating costs at home. The trade war is now pushing more to follow suit, especially makers of low-tech and low-value goods.

"Though international criticism of Myanmar’s handling of the Rohingya crisis has crimped Western investment, the Southeast Asian nation has become the choice destination for some Chinese firms, drawn to its cheap and abundant labor.

"The former British colony, located on China’s southwestern border, exports some 5,000 products to the United States duty-free under a U.S. trade program for developing nations - another big plus.

..."In the 12 months through April, approved Chinese projects increased by $585 million, the latest data from Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration shows.

..."The infusion of Chinese capital has helped fuel expansion in Myanmar’s fledging industrial sector.

..."As trade pressures intensify, analysts say China will loosen policy further in months ahead to shore up economic growth.

..."And though costs and labor may be cheaper, some Chinese firms with experience of offshoring say there are downsides too.

"Factory manager Jiang complained about lower worker productivity in Myanmar compared with China, flooded roads during the rainy season, and power cuts of eight to nine hours every day.

"'If there is no trade war between China and the U.S., we definitely would not have come to Myanmar to open our factory,' he said."

It's got to qualify as ironic. It is not only the case that trump's nationalist, isolationist policies, combined with his tariffs, are harming Americans.

"Withdrawing from the TPP, threatening a trade war with China, demanding a renegotiation of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement, – these actions go beyond [t]rump’s 'America First' ideology. They go beyond unilateralism. Combined with the forced renegotiation of NAFTA, the abandonment of Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union, trying to eviscerate the WTO, and [t]rump’s disdain for multilateral trade agreements, they approach the kind of isolationism unseen seen since the Great Depression."

But also, he appears to have freshly jump-started significant patterns of globalization.

C'mon. Admit that's funny.

23 notes · View notes

mrsenglishteacher · 8 years ago

Text

Why I Can’t “Just Give Him A Chance”

I am not opposed to change. I like it.

I am not a crazed nutcase. I have always been guilty of intense deep thinking and research into all sides of situations -- personal, social and national.

I get that Donald Trump is President.

So, why do I protest?

I protest because he has achieved the highest level of power in MY country and i deeply fear and oppose what he stands for. Not everything, mind you, but much of his declared focus and action in the first 100 Days -- published by DT himself.

Term limits, a hiring freeze to reduce the size of government employees, bans on politicos lobbying, foreign fund raising for our elections -- all of these ideas hold merit and deserve serious consideration.

Then we get to destroying trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP. Wild and reactive measures such as these scare me because the consequences can backfire on his intentions to boost American businesses and employment. Besides, announcing intentions to renegotiate, to withdraw, directing the Secretary of the Treasury to name call China, directing the Secretary of Commerce to name-call China, lifting restrictions, and cancelling billions of dollars in payments to the UN on climate change programs -- REALLY?

Mr. Trump needs a lesson in civics. No President has this kind of unilateral power. Not only do I shiver at the aggressiveness and hostility of these proclamations, I am angered by the egotistical mind thinking he is entitled to command these changes.

Then he gets rather immature, saying he will cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama. Really? First, President Obama didn’t make unconstitutional actions, and second, this sounds so adolescent and ninner ninner-ish. We are to be led by a man who publicly needs to get even?

Regrettably, he will win on the Supreme Court nominee. This makes me sad, because the themes and beliefs he espouses disturb my sense of right and wrong, and he will place a representative of these ideologies on our highest court.

Remove more than two million criminal illegal immigrants and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back. Please think a bit about this. Look at the words “criminal illegal immigrants.” What kind of criminal? Driving violations? Only those already incarcerated in our prisons? Those, at least, would be easy to locate. How and who will do the locating of these persons? Raids? Door to door searches? Carding, frisking, challenging people on public transportation, on the streets and highways? Sounds so much like Nazi Germany searching out Jews, homosexuals and other “undesirables” that I feel sick.

Suspending immigration from terror prone areas -- people seeking respite from terror prone areas are deeply in need of sanctuary. Oh, and the WALL. I cannot and will not ever support tax money going towards a wall between Mexico and the United States. Walls don’t work, anyway, and the symbolic similarity to other historic wall attempts which signaled totalitarian, militaristic oppression strikes terror in my heart.

Repealing Obamacare will leave thousands of Americans without health insurance, because the proposed plan will raise premiums, raise co-pays, and not require participation, which will mean people will seek out insurance after they get sick, raising the costs to insurers and, of course, to individuals.

As a former teacher and administrator in Santa Ana, CA, a large city populated by many Hispanics, both legal and undocumented, I am deeply moved by the need for quality public schools to bring children of poverty and illiteracy into mainstream America where they can contribute to our economy and our society. Financially and philosophically undermining the institution of public education will backfire into high levels of racial tension and unrest.

So, I cannot “Give Him A Chance.” I must be vigilant and energized to help protect the children, the uninsured, the businesses, the environment, and the country from the knee-jerk, frightening plans of our new President.

2 notes · View notes

whittlebaggett8 · 6 years ago

Text

How Trump and Xi Will Shape US-China Relations

When the early 21st century has witnessed important change in global relations, possibly the most fascinating relationship to observe in coming many years will be that among the United States and China. It depends upon the distinctive personal character of each individual nation’s president – a single who has properly altered his country’s constitution to make certain his rule outside of two consecutive terms, the other who has confidently mentioned that when it arrives to his country’s international relations, “I’m the only one particular that matters.”

Any calculation of the class of U.S.-China relations over the upcoming number of a long time ought to factor in the character of Xi Jinping and Donald Trump, both as men and women and as prospective allies or rivals. Each individual leader considers himself a maverick inside of his have system, guiding their respective nations by a time of historical significance. A person is new to politics and diplomacy however oversees the globe’s established electricity nation. The other is a savvy political operator (both equally nationally and internationally) however oversees a rising ability nation. How these men interact is important, specifically thinking about the shared individual traits that will shape their nation’s objectives and resolve.

Initial, the two have a potent need to distinguish them selves from their predecessors and decide on their personal route. Even though former President Barack Obama continued George W. Bush’s regional technique and ongoing consultative strategy with the Condition Division, Trump prefers to go his own way and seek out his own counsel. In fact, he normally takes apparent pride in doing things as otherwise as achievable to preceding presidents. Meanwhile, in sharp distinction to two many years of reputable Communist Occasion management – specifically Hu Jintao’s understated, outdated-faculty solution – Xi’s leadership has been marked by a feeling of self-assurance and simplicity, which has authorized him to glide very smoothly into the position of intercontinental statesman.

Having fun with this post? Click right here to subscribe for comprehensive entry. Just $5 a thirty day period.

This shared part is likely to provoke regard in both equally leaders, as each individual unique acknowledges this motivational drive in by themselves and the effects it can have on establishing a new chapter of ability politics in Asia. These types of sentiment harks back again to Trump’s reviews at a 2018 Pennsylvania political rally, on China’s sanctions in opposition to North Korea: “China has done much more for us than they have ever finished for any other [U.S.] president and I respect that.” Last 7 days, inspite of the present-day tensions developed by bilateral trade negotiations, Trump discovered the time to publicly accept “a beautiful letter” he gained from Xi.

Second, Trump and Xi share a perseverance for making their own mark by modifying the character of the institutions they guide. In only 6 years, Xi Jinping’s management has been punctuated by anti-corruption strategies, which have successfully taken out his rivals, and (most not too long ago) a legal update that could see him top the region and its military services for the indeterminate long run. Trump’s mere 27 months in the White Dwelling have revealed his penchant for staying unpredictable, unplanned, and (some would say) uninformed. He speedily voiced his absence of interest in current international plan protocols, this kind of as everyday intelligence updates and the use of briefing textbooks. He’s also designed it crystal clear that in phrases of political session, he enjoys conflict and discussion rather than consensus.

This shared appreciation for disruption has the prospective to become demanding, specially Trump’s “America First” technique to trade and tariffs, but ought to continue being a workable factor of the romantic relationship. The most modern proof came through Chinese Vice Leading (and main trade negotiator) Liu He’s visit to Washington and Trump’s opinions at a White Household press function reinforcing his partnership with Xi and their intention to speak immediately about trade negotiations.

Probably the biggest challenge emanating from Trump’s very own way of executing issues, from a overseas relations point of view, is his incapacity to use the specialist counsel of the State Division. Extensive delays in appointing ambassadors throughout the Asia Pacific (these kinds of as South Korea and Australia) have placed needless tension on mid-degree team and conveyed a deficiency of interest in the area. Trump’s incapacity to appoint excellent advisers that enjoy the context of regional politics, heritage, and society (particularly among nations around the world these as South Korea and Japan) will not be lost on Xi, who is savvy ample to exploit this weakness for all it is truly worth.

Third, each leaders truly feel the weight of historical national legacy and a nostalgia for a China or America of an additional time. For Xi, it is an period in which China’s final two imperial dynasties shaped the region’s trade and diplomacy through a effective tributary program and far-flung imperial navy. Trump is haunted by more the latest memories of the United States’ rosy past. When asked by the New York Times’ David Sanger when America’s protection footprint and trade were final “great,” his reply was “the late ‘40s and ‘50s [when] we were being revered by every person, we had just won a war.”

This attribute will existing the finest challenge for the two leaders, as they chase the spectres of the glory days in an period of globalized trade, inter-regional trade networks, and intricate multipolar strategies to overseas policy. In a entire world where multilateral buying and selling blocs these types of as NAFTA, the European Union, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership dominate world trade, the time has passed for behemoth nations that can manipulate international trade at no expense to on their own.

These 3 shared qualities will determine not only how the United States and China interact in coming several years but also how electricity politics will be done in a area that is now property to 60 percent of the world’s population and by 2050 is predicted to present 50 % the globe’s GDP.

Will their interactions throughout Asia be symmetrical or asymmetrical? Where by will they meet up with and in which will they diverge? The solutions lie in 3 vital regions of regional stress.

North Korea

Even though developments on the Korean Peninsula have supplied an possibility for the two leaders to collaborate, this difficulty raises numerous troubles for an inexperienced Trump administration. The U.S. president believes his unpredictability (some would get in touch with it a lack of policy) presents him an higher hand in negotiations as there is no playbook for his opponents to refer to.

On the other hand, in excess of time this design – alongside with his disinterest in analytically observing his opponents – will be anticipated. Some analysts, this sort of as Lisa Collins of the Middle for Strategic and Intercontinental Studies, say adversaries such as North Korea may perhaps presently be undertaking this by preparing to negotiate instantly with the world’s most influential country. Has Trump unwittingly granted North Korea’s extended-held would like to hold immediate talks with the United States and performed his most valuable bargaining chip much too early? Thinking of the fallout of the March stick to up meeting in Hanoi and North Korea’s the latest start of two brief-selection ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan, some would say certainly.

Regional Collaboration

Yet another symmetrical problem for the United States will be participating with the new economies of the location. Trump prefers bilateral negotiations wherever tariffs can be negotiated nation by state however, Asia is ever more becoming a location described by community alliances and networks. Even though equally the United States and China engage with ASEAN, it is China that has properly founded the region’s Asian Infrastructure Expense Lender.

In point, this is a curious facet of the relationship where by Trump and Xi’s shared resolve to make their possess mark, furthermore reinstate their nation’s legacy, may consequence in an massive transform in the standing quo. Xi’s vision of China entails regional leadership whilst Trump’s eyesight of America is to pull again from worldwide commitments. A number of the latest developments have roundly excluded the United States – most notably China’s cooperative regional safety architecture identified as the “Asian Safety Concept,” the TPP-11 trade pact (solid immediately after Trump withdrew from the authentic offer) and Beijing’s Belt and Highway Initiative (BRI) advancement technique.

Japan’s Position

A routinely missed part of regional rigidity is the transforming part of Japan in ability politics, notably as it struggles with the national and regional shifts relevant to its romantic relationship with the United States. Trump’s national vision of an The united states invested in the security of domestic manufacturing, as well as his regional vision of withdrawing from trade alliances these kinds of as the TPP, current massive difficulties.

The conundrum of Japan’s nationwide id and defense preparing proceeds to increase alarms equally within just and with out the region. In November 2017, extra than 40,000 persons attended national rallies to protest Primary Minister Shinzo Abe’s designs to revise Write-up 9 of the structure, regarded as the “pacifist article” for its renunciation of war. In May possibly, national and international media noted on the significantly vocal opposition of some Japanese citizens to the imperial loved ones, especially pursuing the modern succession ceremony in Tokyo.

Though America’s recent connection (and military existence) with Japan is positioned in international relations as a vital component of regional security, it began as an occupying drive. That truth is certainly not shed on Japan’s neighbors, 31 of which had been both bombed or occupied by the Japanese during Planet War II. It can be complicated for nations obsessed with Eurocentric historical past (commemorated annually with Oscar movie nominations) to respect Asia’s experience of WWII below the Japanese. The overall civilian reduction of lifetime, in China by yourself, is at the very least that professional by the previous Soviet Union. Some historians estimate it at double this figure.

These legacies of modern record, together with Trump’s incapacity to take pleasure in their effects on existing regional geopolitics and China’s response to changes in regional stability, present a person of the biggest spots of divergence. They may perhaps also be the crucial to Xi’s biggest opportunity for genuine regional collaboration and present the most intriguing conversation concerning two adult men whose particular qualities will outline bilateral relations for a long time to appear.

Katie Howe is a strategic expert primarily based in Canberra, Australia. Her 20-yr know-how features community affairs, governing administration relations, crisis communications, company communications and possibility administration help.

The post How Trump and Xi Will Shape US-China Relations appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/05/13/how-trump-and-xi-will-shape-us-china-relations/

#China and Donald Trump #China Power #Donald Trump #Trump China policy #Trump-Xi relations #U.S.-Chin

0 notes

empoprises · 6 years ago

Text

What is a leader?

In the text of a post-Mattis article entitled “No More Excuses: The resignation of James Mattis leaves Congress to face the truth about Trump,” author David Frum briefly references a speech given earlier this month.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Brussels on December 4 to insult the European Union on its home ground.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/578785/?__twitter_impression=true

So I clicked through to the speech, which was entitled “Restoring the Role of the Nation-State in the Liberal International Order.”

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2018/12/287770.htm

Secretary Pompeo’s arguments in the speech are as follows:

1. His predecessor, Secretary George C. Marshall, believed that “International organizations cannot take the place of national and personal effort or of local and individual imagination; international action cannot replace self-help.”

2. The world order is best served when the United States (or, in Pompeo’s words, “America”) leads the world.

3. Pompeo’s boss, Donald Trump, is leading the world just like George H.W. Bush did at the end of the Cold War. (Bush had just passed away at that time.)

4. Specifically, Trump is leading the world by pulling out of the Paris climate change accord, resisting the International Criminal Court, promoting worldwide use of SWIFT (except for Iran).

(There were other things in Pompeo’s speech that might have actually gotten him in trouble with his boss, including a condemnation of Russia’s meddling in Ukraine, and praise of the economic strength of the European Union and the military strength of NATO.)

I wouldn’t use the Atlantic’s word “insult” to characterize Pompeo’s speech. Perhaps “divorced from reality” would be a better term.

Why? Because to be a leader, you have to have followers.

I’ll grant that there were times when followers took a while to catch up to leaders - World War II preparations being a notable example. President Roosevelt’s efforts to prepare for war were not only hampered by Nazi sympathizers, but truly good people who were at the time concerned about intervention (Gerald Ford and Sargent Shriver among them). On the other side of the pond, Winston Churchill was banished to the back benches, in part because he wasn’t too keen on deals with Hitler.

So I’m sure that some will argue that Trump is a far-sighted individual, and that the rest of the world will catch up.

Well, it’s taking a long time to catch up. So far, only one country has announced its intent to withdraw from the Paris climate accords, and no other country has joined in this move. Pompeo didn’t mention the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which didn’t directly affect his European audience), or what happened after the US “demonstrated leadership” by refusing to sign it:

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), also known as TPP11 or TPP-11,[2][3][4][5] is a trade agreementbetween Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The eleven countries' combined economies represent 13.4 percent of the global gross domestic product, approximately US$13.5 trillion, making the CPTPP the third largest free trade area in the world by GDP after the North American Free Trade Agreement and European Single Market.[6]

The CPTPP incorporates most of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) provisions by reference, but suspended 22 provisions the United States favored that other countries opposed, and lowered the threshold for enactment so the participation of the U.S. is not required.[7] The TPP was signed on 4 February 2016, but never entered into force as a result of the withdrawal of the United States.[8]

All original TPP signatories, except the U.S., agreed in May 2017 to revive it[9][10] and reached agreement in January 2018 to conclude the CPTPP. The formal signing ceremony was held on 8 March 2018 in Santiago, Chile.[11][12]

The agreement specifies that its provisions enter into effect 60 days after ratification by at least 50% of the signatories (six of the eleven participating countries).[7]The sixth nation to ratify the deal was Australia on 31 October, with the agreement coming into force for the initial six ratifying countries on 30 December 2018.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership

This doesn’t seem like leadership on the part of the United States. And it’s not (Pompeo’s) bad hombres Russia, China, and Iran who are leading that particular move.

A couple of weeks after Pompeo’s speech, another member of Trump’s cabinet addressed the United States’ role in the world:

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions—to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/578785/?__twitter_impression=true

In some respects, Mattis and Pompeo are in agreement. In fact, it reminds me of the days when Pompeo’s predecessor, Rex Tillerson, would cross the globe with Mattis to reassure our allies.

But Tillerson, Mattis, and even Pompeo have often been overruled by their boss - a “leader” of fewer and fewer people. It’s nice to have Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity and Alex Jones backing you up, but things would be better off if you were backed up by Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron...and James Mattis.

#politics

0 notes

adambstingus · 6 years ago

Text

Democrats badly underestimated Trump

(CNN)Democrats have a history of underestimating Republican presidents.

His son George W. Bush, Democrats joked, was a nice guy who you might want to have a beer with but someone who didn’t know much about world or domestic affairs. Americans who saw the televised debates in 2000 can probably still hear the sound of Vice President Al Gore sighing after almost every remark.

In each case, however, the Democrats didn’t see what was coming.

Reagan went on to be a two-term president who vastly expanded military spending, slashed corporate and individual income taxes, lowered spending for much of the social safety net and negotiated a historic arms agreement with the Soviet Union.

Though he couldn’t win re-election in 1992, President George H.W. Bush led the nation into its first major military operation since Vietnam with Operation Desert Storm, reached a historic deficit reduction agreement with the Democratic Congress in 1990 and he presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Under President George W. Bush, who left Democrats shell-shocked when he won a second term in 2004, the nation saw the administration vastly expand the national security state after 9/11, launch two major military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq — the second disastrous — cut income taxes even further and withdraw from a major climate change accord, while pushing through Congress several major legislative initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug plan.

The last two weeks have been another a loud wake-up call for Democrats who have railed against President Donald Trump but who thought that this reality star commander-in-chief was so incompetent, corrupt and self-centered that it was only a matter of time before he went away.

In their view, the President who surrounded himself with third-rate advisers and who had no legislative skills to speak of would be hampered in how much damage that he could inflict before his term ended.

It’s looking very different right now.

The minute that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he was retiring, every Democrat who has been paying attention to the Court realized the implications. With the evangelical right cheering him on, President Trump now has the opportunity to push through a giddy Republican Senate a judicial nominee who will dramatically swing the majority of the Supreme Court much further to the right.

Trump’s sway

With Justice Kennedy’s announcement coming at the same time that the court announced that it was dealing a major blow to public employee unions and upholding the president’s controversial travel ban, the implications of Trump’s sway over the highest court in the land were immediately apparent.

Whoever is president after 2020 will be dealing with a Supreme Court majority that has much less tolerance for strong intervention by the federal government and will be less supportive of the rights-based policy gains that have vastly strengthened the social standing of African-Americans, gay Americans, women and others who have suffered marginalization for decades.

Policies such as abortion access, family planning, affirmative action and voting rights now hang in the balance.

If Democrats were thinking that President Trump’s blistering rhetoric about undocumented immigrants was just talk, they now know just how far the President is willing to go. He is very serious about closing the borders and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold his travel ban will embolden him.

Although he was pressured into backing down from his draconian policy of separating children from their parents at the border, Trump sent his message loud and clear. He is willing to go as far as he thinks is necessary to fight for stringent border policies. He is willing to inflict psychological damage on kids and subject border crossers to the toughest security measures possible until he convinces Congress to build the physical wall that he has been promising.

While he backed away from the policy of family separation, he is seeking congressional authority to detain entire families for longer than 20 days.

He has already dismantled President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, leaving hundreds of thousands of young people’s lives in America under a cloud. Their future depends on a Congress that is unable to reach agreement on any legislation dealing with immigration. Indeed, the president used his Twitter account to effectively torpedo an effort last week to pass compromise legislation on immigration that would have fixed the crisis he created with the Dreamers.

His sympathy remains with the hardline anti-immigration elements in the Freedom Caucus who will keep pushing for tighter and more restrictive policies on immigration — both undocumented and legal.

Last week’s Gallup polls and the results of Tuesday’s Republican primaries in South Carolina and New York are also strong indications that his political support remains much more substantial than Democrats had expected.

In the months that followed the inauguration, the conventional wisdom had been that as his national approval ratings kept falling, his political support within the GOP would follow. But we can see from the recent polling that Republican support for the President remains rock-solid and seems to be getting stronger.

Despite all of his chaotic and controversial decisions, his national approval ratings in some polls have even crept upward to the range of 45%. With a low rate of unemployment and a booming stock market, there is reason to believe that those numbers might hold fairly steady.

More of a destroyer than a builder

Trump is also demonstrating that the power of the President to tear things down is immense, especially if that President is not particularly interested in putting something different in its place. Interestingly enough, the real estate developer President has not turned out to be much of a builder. He prefers to take things apart and then walk away from the rubble without looking back.

Short of obtaining repeal and replace, he has severely weakened the Affordable Care Act by taking smaller steps like ending the individual mandate. He pulled out of TPP, pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord and pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. He has issued executive orders rolling back Obama-era regulations to curb climate change and constrain Wall Street.

While Congress and the courts have significant power when it comes to checking legislative initiatives from the Oval Office, a president who is intent on dismantling policies — such as stripping away regulations or withdrawing from international agreements — can get a lot done if he or she is determined. A president who wants to use the bully pulpit to undercut the public confidence in institutions, such as the news media or law enforcement, can do great harm if they don’t care about the long-term consequences.

As the dog days of summer begin, Democrats should be more concerned than ever before about the consequences of a Trump presidency. The possibility for President Trump to seriously transform American policy keeps growing and the potential for a two-term presidency can no longer be dismissed. This unstable, shallow television star is starting to demonstrate that he has some very real political muscle to keep pushing forward.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

The stakes of the 2018 midterm elections should be clear. If the national party does not figure out how to put forth an effective campaign that generates high turnout and excites the passions of their electorate, and if they don’t engage in the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation fight in a way that slows down the process and uses the President’s pick to awaken voters to the stakes of this struggle, President Trump could be looking at two more years of united government, with a GOP that will see him as an influential kingmaker, and the Congress will be more willing to start handing him legislative victories on the path to 2020.

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/democrats-badly-underestimated-trump/ from All of Beer https://allofbeercom.tumblr.com/post/178126925257

0 notes

samanthasroberts · 6 years ago

Text

Democrats badly underestimated Trump

(CNN)Democrats have a history of underestimating Republican presidents.

In each case, however, the Democrats didn’t see what was coming.

It’s looking very different right now.

Trump’s sway

Policies such as abortion access, family planning, affirmative action and voting rights now hang in the balance.

While he backed away from the policy of family separation, he is seeking congressional authority to detain entire families for longer than 20 days.

His sympathy remains with the hardline anti-immigration elements in the Freedom Caucus who will keep pushing for tighter and more restrictive policies on immigration — both undocumented and legal.

More of a destroyer than a builder

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

Source: http://allofbeer.com/democrats-badly-underestimated-trump/

from All of Beer https://allofbeer.wordpress.com/2018/09/16/democrats-badly-underestimated-trump/

0 notes

allofbeercom · 6 years ago

Text

Democrats badly underestimated Trump

(CNN)Democrats have a history of underestimating Republican presidents.

In each case, however, the Democrats didn’t see what was coming.

It’s looking very different right now.

Trump’s sway

Policies such as abortion access, family planning, affirmative action and voting rights now hang in the balance.

While he backed away from the policy of family separation, he is seeking congressional authority to detain entire families for longer than 20 days.

His sympathy remains with the hardline anti-immigration elements in the Freedom Caucus who will keep pushing for tighter and more restrictive policies on immigration — both undocumented and legal.

More of a destroyer than a builder

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/democrats-badly-underestimated-trump/

0 notes

whittlebaggett8 · 6 years ago

Text

US-Japan Trade Agreement Negotiations: Why Now?

In a two-day conference that started out on April 15, trade delegates from Japan and the United States held the to start with round of trade arrangement negotiations. The assembly is predicted to set the floor for a series of impending summits between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Donald Trump. Whilst the kick-off of the official trade talks could have begun substantially earlier, as the Trump administration already gave Congress its 90-day progress notification on October 16, 2018, the timing of the preliminary negotiation among Japanese Economic Revitalization Minister Toshimitsu Motegi and United States Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer appears to have been cautiously arranged by the Japanese aspect. Supplied the want on the two sides for a swift deal, the result will be a “skinny” deal at greatest, still the accomplishment could be a earn-earn for both leaders if it is materialized proficiently.

On the other hand, 1 may marvel why Japan is now prepared to give Trump a trade trophy, even nevertheless it is not necessary for the Japanese facet to capitulate straight away to his trade calls for.

A Very long Path to Bilateral Trade Negotiations — or Just Déjà Vu?

Experiencing this article? Simply click right here to subscribe for whole accessibility. Just $5 a month.

The Trump administration has utilized the “America First” strategy as their defining electoral and governing catchphrase. In economic phrases this means pertaining to trade surpluses as evidence of “winning” and deficits as “losing” the mentioned intention is for that reason forging bilateral specials to cut down America’s trade deficit with its crucial associates. Together with this, a lot more aggressive use of trade treatments and tackling perceived unfair practices have also been essential pillars of Trump’s trade coverage, such as the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and unilateral tariffs to amount trade imbalances. Having said that, it is not the initially time that the United States has relied on so-known as “aggressive unilateralism” in the history of the U.S.-Japan economic relationship.

Even though the connection among the United States and Japan is normally mentioned to be the most resilient bilateral in the environment, in contrast to the other critical U.S. allies in Asia-Pacific, they absence a free trade settlement (FTA), inspite of the Posting II of the US-Japan Protection Treaty committing the parties “to do away with conflict in their international economic procedures and will persuade financial collaboration.” The previous Obama administration had a historic joint accomplishment with Japan on trade, the TPP. Because the introduction of the Trump administration and its pull-out from the pact, Japan’s line has been rather linear: The United States ought to come back to the TPP. Certainly, this was the exact message that Abe recurring on a amount of events when he met with Trump.

In their initially joint statement in February 2017, on the just one hand, Japan verified that the United States would not oppose its salvaging the TPP-11 framework – which was successfully concluded and entered into force at the conclude of 2018. On the other hand, they proven the bilateral Financial Dialogue involving Deputy Primary Minister Taro Aso and Vice President Mike Pence, and a subordinate channel dubbed as the “Free, Reasonable and Reciprocal (FFR),” concerning Motegi and Lighthizer was later attached beneath it. Nonetheless, the acceleration of the bilateral channel had to hold out till the world’s major and third-premier economies resolved to commence their bilateral trade negotiations, largely due to the fact it could send out the wrong concept to the rest of the TPP associates.

Why has Japan eventually recognized the U.S. request to forge a bilateral trade agreement right after rejecting the notion for around a few many years? The bring about was two-fold. Initial, while hedging bilateral channels with the United States, Japan prioritized mega FTAs. Confronted with the progressively inward-seeking United States, Japan rushed to forge the two mega regional trade pacts, particularly the remolded Detailed and Progressive TPP (CPTPP) and the Financial Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (JEEPA). The 11 users of the CPTPP successfully signed the deal in March 2018 Japan and the EU signed their individual settlement in August 2018. For Japan, the commencement of talks on a bilateral offer with the United States could come only following these achievements. As these types of, they agreed to “enter into negotiations” in the seven-position joint statement issued in September 2018, a thirty day period immediately after the signing of the JEEPA.

Next, classes from knowledge mattered. The EU was predicted to start off bilateral trade negotiations with Washington prior to Japan. But the timing for U.S.-Japan trade arrangement talks was very carefully settled to dodge the U.S. bluff on rising tariffs on autos and vehicle sections, as Trump had threatened in the previous. Japan has currently skilled a U.S. tariff hike, in spite of its potent opposition. The Trump administration added Portion 232 tariffs on imports of metal and aluminium in the name of nationwide stability. With that context, the Japanese concern in excess of attainable tariff hike on vehicles – Japan’s prime export to the United States and a big source of the American trade deficit — seemed to be a result in in preparing the negotiation table. With the risk expiring in mid-May possibly, 90 days just after the submission of the investigation report in February, commencing negotiations appeared the safest way to stay away from a tariff hike since both sides experienced now verified to carry Part 232 penalties as lengthy as the negotiations ongoing.

The Trade Talks: Scope and Potential customers

Published in diplomatically ambiguous language, the joint assertion in September 2018 still left substantially area for interpretation. The third place of the joint assertion, for instance, refers to the scope of the deal as they enter into negotiations for a “United States-Japan Trade Settlement on merchandise, as well as on other key parts which includes providers, that can produce early achievements.”

For Japan, the trade talks are envisioned in two phases, and the Abe administration domestically points out that it is pursuing a Trade Settlement on Goods (TAG), not a total FTA. The Japanese facet understands the very first stage of the negotiations will offer with merchandise, as an location of early accomplishment. After that, equally parties “intend to have negotiations on other trade and investment decision goods adhering to the completion of the conversations,” as the fourth position of the joint assertion stipulates. Though Japan’s “FTA phobia” is not new (as they ordinarily get in touch with these offers “Economic Partnership Agreements” rather), as 2019 is an election year in – the two upper and decrease household elections are scheduled – the trade negotiations with the United States could be a highly delicate situation. For the United States, on the other hand, the key targets of what they contact the U.S.-Japan Trade Settlement (USJTA) are vehicles and agriculture. While they also absence “free trade” terminology, the Trump administration in the end expects a complete FTA, demanding that Japan harmony the trade deficit, which tallied $67.6 billion in products in 2018, and open market place accessibility in the agriculture sector to help American farmers still left disadvantaged in access to the Japanese market for the reason that of the mega FTAs. Consider the circumstance of TPP: the tariff on Japanese imported frozen beef for CPTPP customers decreased to 26.7 percent from the regular price of 38.5 per cent, whilst tariff on imports from the United States could rise to 50 % – nearly double, if volumes surpass sure concentrations beneath the current safeguard regulations.

The initially round of negotiation, therefore, was committed to a scoping work out to outline the agenda and the way to progress with negotiations. As a result, whilst they made a decision to fulfill all over again just in advance of the forthcoming leader’s summit in the next 7 days, both of those parties agreed to proceed the negotiations primarily based on the joint assertion past September, which suggests the trade talks will mostly concentration on a narrow array of topics these types of as goods and partial support trade, like digital trade, wherever the United States and Japan can jointly deal with the need to create higher specifications.

The U.S. facet keeps applying pressure to amount the trade deficit, whilst the Japanese aspect has insisted on numerous details. Very first, about market accessibility, the earlier EPAs (i.e. the CPTPP and JEEPA) represent the utmost degree of Japanese determination. Next, whilst the U.S. facet indicated the will need to offer currency manipulation, each events previously affirmed that the concern really should be talked over concerning finance ministers, which is expected to choose position on the sideline of the upcoming summit. 3rd and eventually, as “rule-based trade” is critical for Japan, any kinds of voluntary export limitations (VERs) and quotas are unacceptable mainly because it would breach WTO procedures. It is important for Japan to maintain absent these USMCA-fashion provisions as they would undermine the golden principles solid beneath the TPP.

What is apparent now is that the United States and Japan share the drive for a swift deal at the very least at the ministerial amount. The trade negotiations will be adopted by the future summit involving Abe and Trump in April, and the U.S. president is predicted to check out Japan two times in the coming months, at the time for a attainable state go to in May well and once again for the G-20 in June, in furtherance of the trade talks. As Lighthizer did not listing controversial difficulties that could lengthen talks — these types of as pharmaceutical pricing and currency manipulation — in the targets this time, this kind of tone towards negotiations implies that each events might be searching to seal anything in the quick operate. If the talks are successfully concluded inside of this calendar year – no matter of the diploma and depth — the two Abe and Trump can offer early achievements at dwelling to increase their electoral strategies.

Nonetheless, it is way too early to explain to the results, and there remain numerous hazards. Initially, nobody can be certain about Trump’s trade needs and at what point he would be happy. Because Japan now handed the primary TPP and related functions at the Diet regime, which did involve the United States, this precedent could be Japan’s negotiating card on controversial agricultural issues. Certainly, prior to the bilateral trade negotiations, the Japanese aspect did not desk any Diet program resolution this time, opposite to the circumstance in preparing for the tough trade discounts with other competitive agriculture exporters. One particular noteworthy case in point is the Diet program resolution in 2006, which set out the so-named “sacred items” this sort of as rice, wheat, and beef/pork, for negotiations with Australia. That was later copy-and-pasted in the Diet regime resolution for the TPP negotiations. As Motegi indicated, these precedents are Japan’s pink-line. To attain a reciprocal deal, Japan can also request a U.S. concession the moment agreed to in the TPP, these as an rapid tariff cut in auto components as nicely as sector accessibility for particular agriculture merchandise like Kobe beef.

2nd, if equally sides close up with a mere “skinny” deal, the world’s largest and third-greatest economies would not ship the ideal message at the G-20 leader’s summit in Osaka. As these, it is vital to jointly deal with an state-of-the-art place of rule-making such as electronic trade as part of the trade negotiations.

Last but not least, it is crucial for Japan to protected an everlasting exemption from any intense use of trade solutions. In contrast to other critical U.S. trade associates, Japan did not retaliate to Part 232 tariffs on imports of steel and aluminium. The the latest Toyota president’s “never leave” speech in Washington, D.C. adds gasoline for additional investment and occupation development in the United States. The sequence of these voluntary initiatives display Japan’s “strategic generosity” to give Trump at the very least a bronze trophy in the trade subject, if not a golden a single.

Yuma Osaki is a Ph.D. candidate at the Graduate College of Legislation, Doshisha College. His study pursuits are in intercontinental political financial system in the Asia-Pacific location, theoretical and empirical examine of regional integration, global trade governance, and international coverage in Japan and Australia.

The author appreciates the supports of Sojitz Foundation and the USJI Scholar software for this exploration.

The post US-Japan Trade Agreement Negotiations: Why Now? appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/04/20/us-japan-trade-agreement-negotiations-why-now/

#Donald Trump #Japan-U.S. relations #Robert Lighthizer #Shinzo Abe #Tokyo Report #Toshimitsu Motegi

0 notes

clusterassets · 7 years ago

Text

New world news from Time: President Trump Threatens to Stop U.S. Aid to Palestinians Unless They ‘Negotiate Peace’

(DAVOS, Switzerland) — President Donald Trump barreled into a global summit in the Swiss Alps on Thursday, threatening to stop U.S. aid to the Palestinians and dismissing as a “false rumor” the idea that there are tensions in the U.S. relationship with Britain.

Trump’s debut appearance at the glitzy World Economic Forum was hotly anticipated, with longtime attendees of the free-trade-focused event wondering how the “America First” president would fit in. Crowds clustered around Trump as he entered the modern conference hall, the president telling passers-by that he was bringing a message of “peace and prosperity.”

Trump framed his visit as a sign of positive things happening for the U.S. economy.

“When I decided to come to Davos, I didn’t think in terms of elitist or globalist, I thought in terms of lots of people that want to invest lots of money and they’re all coming back to the United States, they’re coming back to America,” the president told CNBC.

His meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a close ally, was their first since the president announced earlier this month that he would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S. embassy there. The declaration delighted Netanyahu and outraged Palestinians, who declared a new U.S.-led peace push dead and refused to meet with Vice President Mike Pence during his recent visit to the Mideast.

Trump took that as an affront.

“They disrespected us a week ago by not allowing our great vice president to see them and we give them hundred of millions of dollars in aid and support,” Trump said. “That money is not going to them unless they sit down and negotiate peace.”

Netanyahu was effusive in his praise for Trump, saying the president’s recent announcement on Jerusalem was a “historic decision that will be forever etched in the hearts of our people.” The Palestinians, in turn, said Trump’s “language of dictation is unacceptable,” in the words of spokesman Nabil Abu Rdeneh.

Past American presidents have expressed irritation with the Palestinian leadership but no previous administration has threatened to cut off assistance to the Palestinians unless they agreed to negotiate with Israel.

Washington has contributed over $5 billion in economic and security aid to the Palestinians since the mid-1990s. Annual economic aid since 2008 has averaged around $400 million, much of it devoted to development projects. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said all bilateral assistance to the Palestinians, including economic security aid, is at risk if the Palestinians don’t come to the negotiating table.

Trump, who has called an agreement to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the “ultimate deal,” said Thursday that he had taken Jerusalem— one of the thorniest issues — “off the table,” although U.S. officials have stressed repeatedly that the decision has no impact on negotiations over the borders or sovereignty of the holy city. Trump told Netanyahu that Israel had “won” on the matter but would have to make concessions to the Palestinians in any eventual talks.

Trump met separately with British Prime Minister Theresa May, batting away the idea that their relationship is strained after he canceled a recent visit to London and May criticized him for retweeting a U.K. far-right group’s anti-Muslim videos.

Trump declared it a “really great relationship.” May described it as a “really special relationship.”

But their meeting was more muted than Trump’s session with Netanyahu and they did not respond to shouted questions about the videos.

After the meeting, May’s office said the two leaders “concluded by asking officials to work together on finalizing the details of a visit by the President to the UK later this year.” White House officials said the visit would be a “working visit,” featuring less pomp than a full state visit. They said plans for an official state visit would come later.

Absent from the Davos scene: first lady Melania Trump. She was originally scheduled to attend the forum but later scrapped that plan, citing scheduling and logistics problems. The reversal came after reports emerged of an adult film star’s account of an alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2006.

Trump is the first sitting president to attend Davos since Bill Clinton in 2000. The protectionist-leaning president’s last-minute decision to attend the annual gathering for political and business elites was unexpected. Trump has criticized global pacts, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on trade, demanding changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement and announcing his intent to exit the Paris climate accord.

But he drew enthusiastic praise for his tax-cut law at a dinner that he hosted Thursday for more than a dozen business executives from Nokia, Adidas, SAP and other companies, with the business leaders praising his tax plan and pledging to invest more in the United States before their tucked into their beef tenderloin.

Trump called the assembled executives, all male, “some of the greatest business leaders in the world,” before asking them to go around the table and talk about how their businesses are doing in the U.S.

While the businesses praised Trump, another Davos takeaway was that, without Trump’s participation, other countries are still moving forward with trade deals.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau revealed at Davos this week that his country and the 10 remaining members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership have revised their trade deal following the U.S. withdrawal.

Trump said in an interview with CNBC that he would consider re-entering the TPP if it was a “better deal” for the U.S.

“The deal was terrible, the way it was structured was terrible,” he said.

Top Trump officials this week insisted that “America First” did not mean “America alone.” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the philosophy simply means that “President Trump is looking out for American workers and American interests, no different than he expects other leaders would look out for their own.”

Other administration officials had a clear message for critics.

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said Davos “should feel very flattered” by Trump’s attendance. She added: “Those that don’t want to listen, you can — they can — leave.”

January 26, 2018 at 07:15AM ClusterAssets Inc., https://ClusterAssets.wordpress.com

#Time #world #news #ClusterAssets #ClusterAsset #Cluster Asset Inc.#ClusterAssets Inc.

0 notes

wionews · 7 years ago

Text

Opinion: Does Trump's Asia Tour sidelines China?

Donald Trump’s Asia tour was his first overseas trip as the American president and also his longest. Also, it was the most anticipated as it happened at a time when Asia was passing through a politically volatile phase. In the context of belligerent war threats from North Korea, the intensification of geopolitical conflicts among dominant players and the ensuing power realignments, the visit was significant not only for Asian politics but for global peace and security.

While the jury is still out as to whether Trump succeeded in protecting America’s politico-economic interests in the region and assuaging the concerns of ‘allies’ like Japan and South Korea, the American President clearly signaled his intent to work towards initiating a ‘new security order’ in Asia by strengthening Washington-Tokyo-New Delhi partnership as a counter to the developing Beijing-Pyongyang-Islamabad axis.

It was significant that Trump decided to combine his visits to Japan, South Korea and Vietnam with three major regional summits - the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the East Asia and ASEAN Summits-that involved all the major powers around the Indo-Pacific.

Trump did not broach contentious issues like trade imbalances, human rights violations, and China’s control over the South China Sea or its support to North Korea’s nuclear program.

During his tour, contrary to expectations, Trump did not broach contentious issues like trade imbalances, human rights violations, and China’s control over the South China Sea or its support to North Korea’s nuclear program. Also, he failed to extract tangible commitments from China to intensify pressure on North Korea. Again, what was most noteworthy that at no point, either in his speeches or comments, he made any reference to the American leadership in the region.

It was a major departure as all the previous presidents had tried to push the U.S. into the driver’s seat as the guarantor of peace and stability in Asia. It might be construed as Trump’s strategy to put ‘America First’ in foreign policy that signifies a conscious attempt to disengage America from different global crises-gradually withdrawing from conflict zones-and focus primarily upon augmenting its own national power and security.

Trump’s rather moderate and conciliatory approach was quite apparent during his China visit where he received a grand welcome and described Chinese President Xi Jinping as ‘a very special man’. During his visits to Japan and South Korea, where the focus of meetings was on containing North Korea, his tone was on the whole measured and resolute than expected. In South Korea, Trump talked about strengthening bilateral partnership belying Seoul’s fears regarding any disruption in relations. There was a sense of relief that Trump made no further threats of unilateral strikes against North Korea and pointed towards the possibility of exploring diplomatic options to normalise the situation and establish peace.

Praising India’s role, the American President offered a “renewed partnership with America” to strengthen the cooperation, regionally and bilaterally, in the interest of Indo-Pacific.

Amidst all these, Trump did outline his broad vision for Asia as he floated a new framework for the region-the ‘Indo-Pacific’, in his speech on November 10 at APEC Summit at Danang in Vietnam. The idea, centered around the notion of a “free and open Indo-Pacific”, is considered as Trump’s alternative to Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy’, at least in form, if not completely in substance. Praising India’s role, the American President offered a “renewed partnership with America” to strengthen the cooperation, regionally and bilaterally, in the interest of Indo-Pacific.

For Donald Trump, the basis of this cooperation should be built on free and fair trading and commerce environment. What is important to note is that Trump’s repeated referral to Indo-Pacific was not merely rhetorical in nature, but rather was part of a grand strategy to forge the strategic coalition between the U.S. India, Japan and Australia that could counter growing power and influence of China in Asia. In this context, one of the most important strategic takeaways from Trump’s trip was the revival of the Quadrilateral Dialogue comprising the four countries, which met at the level of senior officials on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Manila almost after a decade.

The United States, of late, has enhanced its military operations both in the South China Sea and the Korean peninsula, emphasising freedom of navigations and resisting Chinese assertions. These issues were discussed throughout Trump’s Asia trip and are likely to remain on top of his Asia agenda for some time.

Trump’s speech castigating Asian nations for “chronic trade abuses” and strident stand against Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) did not help in creating confidence among his partners.

Still, doubt prevails over Trump’s sincerity in pushing this strategy as the American President neither devised any concrete roadmap for its implementation nor suggested what exactly would be America’s role in the proposed regional order. Also, Trump’s speech castigating Asian nations for “chronic trade abuses” and strident stand against Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) did not help in creating confidence among his partners. It is believed that Trump’s rigid stance on ‘economic unilateralism’, in the form of ‘America First’, would hamper its economy in long-term and also affect its standing in important multilateral forums.

Shunning America, the remaining eleven signatories of the TPP chose to carry forward the initiative and work towards mutually beneficial economic exchanges. The Danang Declaration reflected the mood as it referred to “importance of non-discriminatory, reciprocal and mutually advantageous trade and investment frameworks”.

Thus, there is more continuity than change in Trump administration’s approach towards Asia. Rhetoric is replaced by realism as America braces for a new world order where the American supremacy as a dominant player is fading away rapidly. Trump, much to the dismay of his supporters, is treading a cautious path on contentious issues without attempting any radical shift. This is quite apparent as he tones down his diatribe and tries to introduce a credible and coherent policy on Asia that would bear his unique stamp and at the same time protect American interests.

It is really difficult to predict as to whether the Trump Administration would push for a new security order in Asia by promoting the framework of ‘Indo-Pacific’ or would rather choose to strategically disengage itself from the regional quagmire engulfing the continent.

However, America’s determination to counter China’s growing assertions, both in economic and strategic spheres and the emergence of the ‘Quad’ as a dominant block might usher in new power equilibrium in Asia, changing the contours of existing power relationships. Trump’s Asia tour has signalled a new beginning or at least a step forward in that direction.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

]]>

0 notes

dippedanddripped · 7 years ago

Link

NAIROBI, Kenya — In Rwanda, it's chagua. In Kenya, mitumba. In Zambia, salaula — most African languages have a word for the piles of discarded garments that end up for sale across the African continent. Millions of people around the world donate clothes annually with the understanding that they will go to the needy or will be resold in secondhand stores.

However, while charities do financially benefit from some of the donated garments, many more enter a secondary marketplace governed by free market principles. A thriving and lucrative industry has emerged out of clothing outcasts that provide work for armies of resellers, distributors and market stall holders in developing markets like India or East Africa. But like any other business sector, there are winners and losers in this complex and booming trade.

The average American throws away 70 pounds of textile waste every year, according to the Council for Textile Recycling, so diverting clothing away from landfills and giving it a new life may seem like a good idea. But the mass influx of cheap hand-me-downs from Western countries has had a negative impact on local apparel industries and production in low-income countries.

Used clothing in good condition, which entered the supply chain as a donation, undercut new clothes produced locally. To this point, the governments of the East African Community (EAC) — the regional organisation that comprises of Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania, Burundi and Uganda — plans to outlaw all secondhand clothing imports by 2019, in a bid to boost domestic manufacturing.

Donating your used garments might be well-intentioned but they may be doing more harm than good.

“Donating your used garments might be well-intentioned but the situation on the ground means they may be doing more harm than good,” Dr Andrew Brooks, a lecturer in development geography at King’s College London, wrote in his book “Clothing Poverty: The Hidden World of Fast Fashion and Second-Hand Clothes.” While exact continent-wide figures are hard to come by, global used clothing exports from OECD countries stood at $1.9 billion in 2009, according to 2011 UN Comtrade data. Recent figures from the UN show that an estimated 80 percent of Africans wear secondhand clothing.

Interestingly, the US has recently hit back at the East African Community’s proposal to ban secondhand imports. Claiming that it would impose “significant hardship” on the US clothing industry and put 40,000 jobs in jeopardy, the US Trade Representative (USTR) has threatened to impose trade sanctions on African nations and launched a review of AGOA, a trade agreement that allows tariff-free access for thousands of goods from 38 African nations to the US.

Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda has already seen him withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), threaten to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and seek to renegotiate the US-South Korea free trade deal. It’s currently not clear whether the US will withdraw, suspend or limit AGOA before it expires in 2025 — all of which would have a significant impact on the EAC.

The trade deficit for many African countries is already stark. Imports from Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda to the US totalled $43 million in 2016, while US exports to the same countries amounted to $281 million, according to figures from the USTR. Currently, more than 66,000 jobs in Kenya are linked to AGOA, which earned the country 35.2 billion Kenyan Shillings (about $341 million) in textiles and apparel exports in 2016.

While they are popular with value-conscious consumers who get branded garments at low prices, discarded clothes are also a huge problem for India — the world’s biggest importer of secondhand clothing, according to 2013 UN Comtrade data — and many other developing countries, such as Poland, Pakistan, Ukraine, Chile and Guatemala.

Tracking the Journey

So, how exactly does discarded clothing end up in a Polish thrift store or a night market in Mumbai?

The journey begins when clothing is discarded and cannot be sold in a charity shop, such as Salvation Army or Oxfam, both which could not be reached for comment. Currently, only 20 percent of the clothing donated to charities actually get sold there, according to the Council of Textile Recycling. The rest goes into landfills — despite the fact that most textiles aren’t biodegradable, which means they can sit around for more than 200 years. Others are sold to textile merchants, who sort, grade and export the garments, converting what began as donations into tradable goods.

What clothing goes where depends on the type of garments. KCL’s Brooks found that white shirts frequently ended up in Pakistan, where there is a great demand among young professionals, while warmer coats often headed to Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, t-shirts and shorts go to India or Africa, where they can be sold for as little as $1.50 in street markets at Kanda, a seaport in the Gujarat state of India, or Gikomba in Nairobi, the biggest secondhand clothing market in East Africa.

Used clothing comes under two categories: wearable and mutilated. A government license is required for companies that want to import ‘wearable clothes.’ It also comes with the condition that they can be re-exported, as a precaution, so that undesired clothes don’t flood the market and hurt local businesses. But this is where the problem lies, says Bandana Tewari, editor-at-large at Vogue India.

“In India there is a massive business of smuggling. The real bulk of imports — about 60 percent — are mutilated clothes. But when the Indian government planned to increase the number of licenses, The Clothing Manufacturers Association Of India went up in arms saying that the market would be flooded with used clothes and put domestic manufacturers out of business.”

The Winners and Losers

While the secondhand clothing sector poses a major problem for those who work in conventional apparel industries, it is a lifeline for others. The Textile Recyling Association, which manages secondhand clothing recyclers and distributors in Kandla, employs some 3,000 people every year.

Meanwhile, Frip Thique, an Oxfam-run social enterprise in Senegal, enables workers — most of whom are women — to earn a decent living by sorting and selling clothes to local market traders. According to the charity, all profits go towards fighting poverty in the West African country. “Not only am I able to take care of more people, but also my parents and my sister who are in the village,” writes Dieynaba Coly, a staff association representative and clothes sorter, in a testimonial on Oxfam’s website.

Some used clothing can be recycled for good. “The influx of secondhand clothes has turned Panipat — a town about 90km from New Delhi — into Asia’s biggest textile recycling hub. One of the biggest companies in Panipat is Pal Woollen Industries, which creates 10,000 kilograms of yarn a day from 20 tonnes of used clothes. The yarn is then used for making blankets, school blazers and red-and-black check fabric that is popular among the Masai population of Tanzania and Kenya,” says Tewari. Goonj, a non-profit organisation in India, reuses cloth to make reusable sanitary pads for rural women. “In many parts of India, women still use newspapers, mud and ash during menstruation,” she adds.

Clothes are an essential item and if they become more costly, poor families will suffer the most.

But those benefitting the most are “the exporters in the US and UK, along with others involved in the trade, such as the wholesalers. This applies to [some of the] importing countries. It also includes consumers in developing countries, who can purchase good quality clothes for a fraction of their original price,” says Linda Calabrese, senior research officer of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), an independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues.

Calabrese argues that halting the trade of secondhand clothing isn’t the right approach and won’t enable the development of textile industries in developing countries alone. “The garment sector [in developing nations] needs more investment to expand production capacity. The sector is currently not receiving a lot of new investment to expand production capacity, and costs are outweighing profits. Transport is expensive, getting skilled workers is expensive, the energy supply is unreliable and costly compared to other regions, such as Southeast Asia.”

It could also have undesirable effects, like promoting illegal trade and smuggling in banned imports, if the population has to choose between buying new imported garments, or buying domestically produced second-rate goods. “Clothes are an essential item and if they become more costly, poor families will suffer the most,” says Calabrese, but adds: “To be fair, I think that East African governments already have a very good understanding of the existing challenges and are trying to address them.”

It’s possible that the proposed ban won’t pass. The thousands involved in the secondhand clothes trade in Africa will know their fate once EAC leaders meet for the November summit, during which the issue is expected to surface. Kenya is among the countries that have since withdrawn the ban, while governments in Uganda and Rwanda have raised taxes on used clothing by 12 percent and shoes by 15 percent.

But it remains to be seen if Africa can create or revive local manufacturing industries — which collectively could double from $500 billion in 2016 to $930 billion by 2025, while spending by African consumers and businesses could reach $5.6 trillion over the next decade, according to McKinsey & Co.

“I’m worried that the phase-out will send the wrong signal, encouraging investors to focus on the domestic market,” says Calabrese. “What is needed in East Africa is an increased focus on the export market [so that] more goods can be sold internationally. This is what much larger countries have done, including China and Bangladesh, who are global leaders in garment production.”

“At the end of the day, this is a big volume, low margin business. [Middlemen] are making millions of dollars for their own organisations or social projects, but not much impact is being made to help the really poor in third world countries, [especially] as the business is so unregulated and opaque,” says Tewari. “Once worn and torn by the poor, millions of clothes go into third world landfills, far from the affluent countries. Where is the accountability of first world countries dumping used goods on third world grounds?”

#africa #secondhand clothing #fashion blog

0 notes

djgblogger-blog · 7 years ago

Text

At an uncertain G20 summit, it may be Trump against the world

http://bit.ly/2vSp1Fl

youtube

Even by the standards of international summitry, the annual meeting of G20 leaders – scheduled for July 7 and 8 in the northern German port city of Hamburg – tends to be a bland, tightly-scripted affair.

Following two days of discussion and some last-minute bargaining, heads of state and government from developed and emerging economies issue a joint statement highlighting areas of consensus on issues ranging from financial regulation and taxation reform to economic development and international trade.

Leaders may or may not follow through on many of those commitments when they return home. But, at the G20, it’s often the perception of shared values that matters most.

Drama at the G20

Donald Trump has thrown a wrench into this diplomatic ritual.

Germany, which currently holds the rotating G20 presidency, selected “shaping an interconnected world” as the theme of the 2017 summit. But the meeting comes at a fraught moment for transatlantic relations.

The future of the interconnected, liberal international order built by the United States and its allies and sustained for more than seven decades seems increasingly fragile.

The new US administration has abandoned the Paris climate accord, attacked free trade and defended economic protectionism, injecting a measure of high drama and uncertainty into the gathering.

Might this year’s G20 summit be remembered as the moment when countries concluded that they must bypass America to reach agreement on pressing global issues?

The most controversial issues on an agenda that includes migration, refugee flows, sustainable development, public health and counter-terrorism are likely to be international trade and climate change.

Trump’s “America First” approach in these areas has put him on a collision course with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In late June, she told the German parliament, “Those who think that the problems of this world can be solved with isolationism or protectionism are terribly wrong.”

youtube

Trump has repeatedly denounced US trade agreements, saying they disadvantage American workers. During his first week in office, he announced his intention to withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the biggest regional trade agreement in history.

He has also threatened to scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement and to pull out of a free-trade accord with South Korea.

He has complained about US trade deficits, including those with close allies such as Germany, and has raised the possibility of imposing tariffs on steel imports, a step many world leaders strongly reject.

The EU, in contrast, signed a trade agreement with Canada in October 2016 and on July 6 announced a trade deal with Japan.

youtube

Given the protectionism on display in the White House, these agreements are powerful symbols of Europe’s and its partners’ commitment to internationalism.

Trump, who once called climate change a “hoax”, is also out of step with other advanced economies on environmental policy. His decision to withdraw from the “draconian” 2015 Paris climate agreement was widely criticised.

The US president has suggested that he may be willing to negotiate a new climate agreement, but Merkel insists that the Paris accord is “irreversible”.

European leaders would like the other 19 countries at the G20 summit to reaffirm their commitments to meeting the carbon-reduction goals set in the Paris agreement, thus highlighting America’s isolation on the issue. But with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, and Indonesia wavering over how strongly to embrace the climate deal, they may have to settle for majority support.

The Trump-Putin moment

Beyond the official agenda, a number of highly anticipated meetings between world leaders are planned on the sidelines of the summit.

For the first time since taking office in January, Donald Trump will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The meeting comes at a complicated time for Trump: there are at least three investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election underway, as well as into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials.

Trump and Putin are unlikely to dwell for long on such questions. Trump will probably seek to discuss the Syrian civil war, where Russia is deeply engaged, focusing on President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons, the creation of safe zones and coordinating the fight with Islamic State.

Trump will also meet individually with leaders from China, South Korea and Japan to address the increasingly tense situation on the Korean peninsula.

Following North Korea’s announcement on July 4 that it had successfully test-fired its first intercontinental ballistic missile, Trump took a combative tone on China in an early-morning tweet on Wednesday, faulting Beijing for not doing more to restrain the reclusive regime in Pyongyang.

US discussions with the leaders of South Korea and Japan will likely focus on missile defence, imposing further economic sanctions on Pyongyang and conducting further joint military exercises off the coast of North Korea.

Europe in the lead

With Trump in the Oval Office, the US is widely perceived as retreating not just from the global consensus on climate change and decades of trade policy but also from multilateralism and internationalism more generally.

While he affirmed the importance of NATO in a speech in Poland on July 6, Trump also questioned whether the West has the “will to survive” in an age of “radical Islamic terrorism.”

With American global leadership in doubt, China and the EU have tentatively staked out a bigger role on the international stage.

window.instgrm.Embeds.process()

At this year’s World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a strong defense of free trade. China, which is poised to exceed the carbon-reduction target it set for itself in Paris, also called US withdrawal from the climate agreement a “global setback”.

But China is not yet prepared to assume the mantle of global leadership alone. Nor does it fully subscribe to many of the principles of the current liberal international order, including democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

By default, then, the EU has become liberal internationalism’s main defender. At a June 29 meeting with EU leaders, European Council President Donald Tusk confirmed that “Europe is taking more responsibility at the international level in these turbulent times”.

On July 5, Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, called the EU a “global point of reference” for everything from liberal democracy to the fight against poverty and terrorism.

Since it was established in 2008, the G20 leaders’ summit has aimed to shore up its members’ commitment to multilateral cooperation and international institutions. Trump, though, has shown a preference for working outside these global structures and arrangements. His rise to power raises the question: can liberal internationalism survive without US leadership?

Richard Maher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

0 notes