| | | | The Big Twist in Trump's China Crusade | | The tit-for-tat on tariffs continued Tuesday as China's government said "it would impose tariffs on US goods worth $60 billion following the Trump administration's announcement that it was hitting $200 billion worth of Chinese goods with new tariffs," CNN reports. But the Wall Street Journal notes there appears to be an unintended consequence: US tariffs are "helping China be more competitive."
"After building its economy on a mountain of inexpensive exports, from socks to toys to steel, China has been on a mission to upgrade its output. Over the past few years, Beijing has embarked on a campaign to ship low-skill factory work out of the country and build an economy that uses advanced manufacturing techniques to produce high-value products," write Liza Lin and Dan Strumpf.
"US tariffs promise to make selling low-cost goods to American consumers less profitable. Companies as a result are rethinking their operations and products, while the government is offering more incentives to help the transition along."
| | | China is running out of US goods to impose tariffs on, Gideon Rachman writes for the Financial Times. It's going to have to start fighting back in other ways.
"Diplomats say China has already eased the enforcement of trade sanctions on North Korea, which are important to US efforts to force the regime of Kim Jong Un to scrap its nuclear weapons. The Chinese are also likely to throw up new regulatory obstacles to American businesses operating inside China," Rachman writes.
"There is also new speculation about China's role as a big buyer of American government debt. Some have long theorized that China could exert pressure on the US by simply refusing to buy Treasury bills, so making it harder to fund the US federal deficit." | | US Diplomacy Is Looking Very…White | | | The State Department's diversity problem didn't begin during the Trump administration. But as it pushes through ambassador appointments, the problem appears to be getting worse, report Robbie Gramer and Jefcoate O'Donnell for Foreign Policy. And that's bad for American diplomacy.
"Of the 119 ambassadors Trump has nominated since he took office in early 2017, 91.6 percent—109 diplomats—are white, and 73.9 percent—88 ambassador picks—are men, according to an analysis conducted by FP," they write. "Trump's picks include no African-American women."
"In the Obama years, 24 African-American women served as ambassadors around the world, from Niger to Uzbekistan."
"The officials who spoke to FP said having an ambassador corps that resembles the country it represents is important in and of itself…But they say it can also give ambassadors a tactical edge in negotiations with governments abroad." | | America's Foreign Policy Solvency Problem | | Polish President Andrzej Duda suggested at a meeting with President Trump today that the United States should establish a permanent US base in his country that could be called Fort Trump. But Peter Beinart, writing in The Atlantic, suggests that Americans might be a little less enthusiastic.
"In 1943, the columnist Walter Lippmann said the goal of American foreign policy was to serve as the 'shield of the republic': to shape an external environment that protects freedom and prosperity at home. And for many Americans, by many measures—including growing federal debt, stagnant income growth, and degrading infrastructure—the republic during this period of overseas expansion has not fared well," Beinart says.
"The result has been a crisis of foreign-policy 'solvency.' The term is Lippmann's. A government's international commitments, he argued, resemble its financial commitments. Just as it cannot indefinitely incur debts that exceed its ability to pay, it cannot indefinitely incur overseas obligations that exceed its power. A nation's power consists not merely of money and guns. In a democracy, it also consists of the public's willingness to deploy them. And when a nation's obligations exceed that power, the scales must eventually—often painfully—be brought back into balance."
| | A Bit Player in Their Own Crisis | | "Russia and Turkey have agreed to create a demilitarized zone in Syria's Idlib province, potentially thwarting a large-scale military operation and impending humanitarian disaster in the country's last rebel stronghold," CNN reports. The National suggests in an editorial that the deal does nothing to change a simple fact—in the power games that are unfolding, the Syrian people are only a bit player.
"As defenseless Syrian civilians watch on, world powers are carving up the country to no one's benefit but their own," The National says.
"Although millions have been killed and displaced, Syria is just one part of Turkish and Russian foreign policy. Meanwhile Syria's sovereignty lies in tatters, as its lack of representation at the Sochi meeting illustrated."
| | History Is Repeating for ISIS | | The latest phase of Syria's civil war may be drawing to a close, but there's little reason for optimism, suggests Hassan Hassan in The Atlantic. We've been here before, in Iraq.
There, the United States failed to "resolve the underlying problems that had fueled the fight against American soldiers and the government in Baghdad. The US did not push for the true integration of Sunni forces into the Iraqi state or secure them any real semblance of self-government," Hassan writes.
"ISIS could not have come to control such vast areas by virtue of its military strength alone. It grew so quickly because the US occupying force had only deflected the insurgents' energy, without ever resolving their complaints."
"The demise of the rebellion [in Syria] has set the stage for jihadis allied with Islamic State and al Qaeda to pick up the pieces. If history is a guide, they will exploit the volatile situation; they will co-opt the resistance against Assad, the surviving symbol of repression, use it to fill their ranks, and establish a permanent post in the region." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment