Tag: Economy
Peace Picks June 17-23
1. Transatlantic Cooperation in an Era of Crisis and Competition|June 17|3:15pm-5:00pm|Hudson Institute|1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
Hudson Institute will host distinguished scholars from France’s Institut Montaigne for a discussion on transatlantic relations. Founded in 2000, Institut Montaigne is a pioneering independent think tank dedicated to public policy in France and Europe. Panelists will include Michel Duclos, special advisor on Geopolitics at Institut Montaigne and former French Ambassador to Syria and Switzerland; and François Godement, senior advisor for Asia at Institut Montaigne.
Against a backdrop of surging populism in democracies and rising authoritarianism worldwide, Europe finds itself at the center of a return to great power rivalry between China and the United States. Disputes over trade and security are straining longstanding areas of cooperation even as global power centers shift and new partnerships beckon. How should policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and capitals across Europe respond to these challenges? What is the future of the transatlantic relationship in a rapidly changing world?
Speakers:
Michel Duclos, Special Advisor, Geopolitics, Institut Montaigne and former French Ambassador to Syria and Switzerland
François Godement, Senior Advisor for Asia, Institut Montaigne
Ben Judah, Research Fellow, Hudson Institute
Peter Rough, Fellow, Hudson Institute
Ken Weinstein, President and CEO, Hudson Institute
2. South Sudan’s Stalled Path to Peace|June 18|9:30am-11:30am|United States Institute of Peace|2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037|Register Here
In early May, South Sudan’s ruling and opposition parties agreed to extend the pre-transitional period of the South Sudan peace agreement leading to the formation of a unified Government for an additional six months. The extension of this period presents an opportunity to reflect on the progress and challenges to establishing a just peace in the country. South Sudanese citizens are desperate for peace, but many are asking what channels exist to support a meaningful reduction of violence. Between January and March alone, 25,000 people fled the country, adding to the already two million South Sudanese refugees worldwide. Without full implementation of the peace process, national- and local-level conflicts will continue to threaten hard-won development gains and require greater investments in lifesaving humanitarian aid.
Please join USIP for a look at South Sudan’s peace agreement and the measures required to build peace in the young nation. In this live-streamed discussion, experts from USIP, the Enough Project, and Democracy International will offer concrete, evidence-based recommendations for how to mitigate conflict, promote peace and advance accountability.
Speakers
David Acuoth, Founder, Council on South Sudanese-American Relations
Brian Adeba, Deputy Director of Policy, Enough Project, @kalamashaka
Mark Ferullo, Senior Advisor, The Sentry
Morgan Simpson, Deputy Director of Programs, Democracy International
Susan Stigant, Director of Africa Programs, U.S. Institute of Peace, @SusanStigant
3. Is the US Decoupling from Asia’s Economic Architecture|June 19|9:00am-1:30pm|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The CSIS Japan Chair, the CSIS Simon Chair, and JETRO cordially invite you to join us for the annual CSIS-JETRO conference.
9:00-9:05 Welcoming Remarks
John J. Hamre, President and CEO, CSIS
9:05-9:35 Opening Remarks (TBD)
9:35-10:00 Keynote Address
Nobuhiko Sasaki, Chairman and CEO, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)
10:00-11:15 Regional Perspectives on Indo-Pacific Economic Integration
China:
Xinquan Tu, Dean and Professor, Center for WTO Studies, University of
International Business & Economics, Beijing
Japan:
Yasuyuki Todo, Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Waseda, University
ASEAN:
Deborah Elms, Founder and Executive Director, Asian Trade Centre,Singapore
Moderator: Matthew P. Goodman, Senior Vice President; William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy and Senior Adviser for Asian Economics, CSIS
11:15-11:30 Break
11:30-12:30 Status and Impact of U.S. Trade Policy
Charles Freeman, Senior Vice President for Asia, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Lorraine Hawley, Senior Director, International Government Relations,Archer Daniels Midland Company
Aaron Cooper, Vice President, Global Policy, BSA | The Software Alliance
Moderator:
Michael J. Green, Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS;Director of Asian Studies, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service,Georgetown University
12:30-13:30 Luncheon Address (TBD)
13:30 Adjourn
4. 2019 Atlantic Council-East Asia Foundation Strategic Dialogue|June 19|9:30am|Atlantic Council|1030 15thSt NW, 12thFloor, Washington, DC 20005|Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Asia Security Initiative, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, for the 2019 Atlantic Council-East Asia Foundation Strategic Dialogue. This day-long conference will explore the current state of the United States and Republic of Korea’s ongoing negotiations with North Korea and the broader strategic picture developing in the Indo-Pacific. The Strategic Dialogue will feature keynote addresses by US Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun and ROK Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Do-hoon Lee. This will be H.E. Lee’s first public address in the United States, as well as the first time both Special Representatives will speak on the same stage.
One year ago, President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un met in Singapore for an unprecedented, historic summit that concluded with a promise to deliver lasting peace to a denuclearized Korean peninsula. Today, the question remains: will this promised future become a reality? Will the coming months see a continued stalemate in negotiations, a major crisis, or a dramatic breakthrough? Ultimately, how will developments on the peninsula shape the Republic of Korea’s role in the broader Indo-Pacific under intensifying US-China strategic competition?
Breakfast and lunch will be provided.
Agenda:
WELCOME REMARKS (9:30 a.m. – 9:50 a.m.)
Mr. Barry Pavel, Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director,Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Minister Sung-hwan Kim, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Republic of Korea; Board Member, East Asia Foundation
KEYNOTE REMARKS (9:50 a.m. – 10:50 a.m.)
The Hon. Stephen Biegun, US Special Representative for North Korea,US Department of State
H.E. Do-hoon Lee, ROK Special Representative for Korean PeninsulaPeace and Security Affairs,ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs
PANEL DISCUSSION: SEEKING A POST-HANOI BREAKTHROUGH ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA(11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.)
Dr. Toby Dalton, Co-Director, Nuclear Policy Program,Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
H.E. Jong-dae Kim, Member, 20th National Assembly; Head of the Foreign Affairs and Security Division;Member of the National Assembly’s National Defense Committee;Head of the Foreign Affairs and Security Division; Member, Justice Party
H.E. Jae-jung Lee, Member, 20th National Assembly; Spokesperson, Democratic Party of Korea
Amb. Joseph Yun, Former US Special Representative for North Korea Policy, US Department of State; Senior Adviser, Asia Program, United States Institute of Peace
Mr. Barry Pavel (Moderator), Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director,Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
LUNCH CONVERSATION (1:00 p.m. – 1:45 p.m.)
Amb. Paula J. Dobriansky, Former US Under Secretary of State; Senior Fellow, The Future of Diplomacy Project, JFK Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Dr. Chung-in Moon, Special Adviser to the President for Unification, Foreign, and National Security Affairs, Republic of Korea
PANEL DISCUSSION: CHARTING KOREA’S ROLE IN US-CHINA STRATEGIC COMPETITION IN THE INDO-PACIFIC(2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.)
The Hon. Ami Bera, US House of Representatives (D-CA); Chair, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Foreign Affairs Committee; Co-Chair, Congressional Caucus on Korea
H.E. Ihk-pyo Hong, Member, 20th National Assembly; Vice Chairman of the National Assembly’s Public Administration and Security Committee; Chief Spokesman, Democratic Party of Korea
Prof. Jaeho Hwang, Director of Global Security Cooperation Center, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
H.E. Sun-suk Park, Member, 20th National Assembly; Member, National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Future Planning, and Communications Committee,Member, Bareunmirae Party
The Hon. Ted S. Yoho DVM, US House of Representatives (R-FL), Lead Republican, Subcommittee on Asia, The Pacific, and Nonproliferation; Member, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, and Trade, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Dr. Miyeon Oh (Moderator), Director and Senior Fellow, Asia Security Initiative,Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
CLOSING REMARKS (3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.)
Mr. Barry Pavel, Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
5. Sixth Annual Building a Competitive U.S.-Mexico Border Conference|June 20|8:30am-4:30pm|Woodrow Wilson Center|1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
The Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute and the Border Trade Alliance invite you to save the date for our sixth annual high-level “Building a Competitive U.S.-Mexico Border” conference, which will focus on improving border management in order to strengthen the competitiveness of both the United States and Mexico. Topics covered at the conference will include the USMCA (the renegotiated NAFTA), strengthening security and efficiency at border ports of entry, the impact of tariffs and reduced staffing on trade, and growing crossborder cooperation for regional economic development.
Confirmed Speakers*
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)
Congressman Will Hurd (R-TX 23)
Ambassador Martha Bárcena, Ambassador of Mexico to the United States
C.J. Mahoney, Deputy United States Trade Representative
John Sanders, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Gustavo de la Fuente, Executive Director, Smart Border Coalition
Lance Jungmeyer, President, Fresh Produce Association of the Americas
Mario Lozoya, Executive Director, Greater Brownsville Incentives Corporation
Federico Schaffler, Director, Texas Center for Border Economic Enterprise Development, Texas A&M International University
Christopher Wilson, Deputy Director, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center
Britton Clarke, President, Border Trade Alliance
6. Russian Influence in Venezuela: What Should the United States Do?|June 20|9:00am|Atlantic Council|1030 15thSt NW, 12thFloor, Washington, DC 20005|Register Here
As a wave of public support for democratic transition is sweeping Venezuela and the international community, Moscow continues to stand by Nicolás Maduro. Displays of military force, Rosneft’s ownership of 49.9 percent of CITGO shares, and billions in loans to Maduro, showcase Russia’s rooted geopolitical and economic interests in Venezuela and the hemisphere.
What drives Russian support for Maduro? What is its role in the unfolding humanitarian, economic, and political crisis? How can the United States counter Russian involvement in Venezuela?
Join the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and Eurasia Center on Thursday, June 20, 2019 from 9:00 to 10:30 a.m. for a public event that will discuss the extent of Russian involvement in Venezuela, Moscow’s motivations and possible next moves, and how the United States should react.
Breakfast will be provided.
Speakers to be announced.
7. The Global Peace Index 2019 Launch|June 20|9:00am-10:30am|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The Human Rights Initiative of CSIS invites you to a public launch event of the 2019 Global Peace Index (GPI). The Global Peace Index is the world’s leading measure of global peacefulness, ranking 163 countries and territories according to their level of relative peacefulness. Created by the Institute for Economics and Peace, the report presents the most comprehensive data-driven analysis to-date on trends in peace and its economic value.
The report findings will be followed by a panel discussion considering the implications of closing civic space and inequality for peace. It will look particularly at the factors that IEP has found to be necessary preconditions for peace in its Positive Peace Report, many of which rely on an active civil society and limits on inequality.
This event is made possible by the Institute of Economics and Peace (IEP).
Featuring:
Stephen Lennon, Senior Policy Adviser to USAID’s bureau of Democracy Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs (DCHA)
Shannon Green,Senior Director of Programs at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC)
Jonathan Drimmer, Senior Adviser at Business for Social Responsibility (BSR)
Laurie Smolenski, Outreach and Development Officer, Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP)
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What Serbia can get
Berlin will be hosting Balkan leaders Monday. This summit will be EU High Representative Mogherini’s last chance before she leaves office to strike a deal on “normalization” of relations between Serbia and Kosovo. The Germans have let it be known that they are firmly opposed to border changes as part of such a deal and hope to kill the idea. But that leaves open the question of what Serbia could get from recognizing Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state.
Belgrade lost sovereignty over Kosovo due to Slobodan Milosevic’s depredations, including annulment of Kosovo’s autonomy under Socialist Yugoslavia, the expulsion of Albanians from its Serbia institutions, the establishment of an apartheid-like regime, mass atrocities committed against innocent women and children, state violence to chase Albanians out of Kosovo, and continued hostility after the fall of Milosevic to the establishment of self-governing democratic institutions that provide significant privileges for Serbs. Even after the fall of Milosevic, Serbia did nothing to “make unity attractive,” in the Sudanese phrase.
Serbia is entitled to nothing in Kosovo, but of course not being entitled doesn’t mean you can’t ask for what you want and use what leverage you have to get it. Serbia has leverage because it has been successful in blocking entry for Kosovo into some international institutions, including the United Nations. No doubt they give awards for that in the Serbian foreign ministry, but it isn’t doing anything for Serbia or Serbs except denying the Kosovars their dreams and holding out the forlorn hope that some day Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo can be restored. Inat (spite, more or less) is emotionally gratifying but not otherwise rewarding.
The trick for Serbia and for Kosovo is to ask for things that your adversary, or someone else, can give. That is where President Vucic has failed. He has asked for a chunk of northern Kosovo that includes a municipality that was Albanian-majority before the war as well as Kosovo’s major non-energy mineral deposits and its main water supply. Alternatively, Vucic appears ready to accept an Association of Serb Municipalities that would allow Belgrade to govern all the Serbs of Kosovo, north and south of the Ibar river. No self-respecting Kosovo president could concede these intrusions on sovereignty, no Kosovo parliament would approve them, and no popular referendum is likely to confirm them.
What could Vucic reasonably hope for? First and foremost is removal of an otherwise insurmountable obstacle to European Union membership. Germany and several other EU member states have made it plain that they will not ratify Serbia’s membership without complete and irreversible normalization of relations with Kosovo. Even if their governments wanted to do so, which they don’t, their parliaments would not. If Serbia, as it has planned to do, waits until it is fully qualified for EU membership, it can expect nothing in return for normalization with Kosovo, since all the leverage will then be with the EU and its member states. All membership aspirants yield on the last issues remaining once they have met the other EU membership requirements. Ask the Slovenians and Croatians.
Having wisely decided to normalize earlier rather than later, what can Vucic hope for? Pristina’s recently approved negotiating platform gives one hint: a good deal on payment of former Yugoslavia’s sovereign debts. There are other possibilities:
- Kosovo has approved conversion of its lightly armed security force into an army, not least so it can join NATO. Belgrade says it fears the Kosovo army would be used against Serbs. It is not hard to imagine a Kosovo army entirely designed for international missions that would pose no threat to Serbs either in Kosovo or in Serbia, whose army is far larger and better equipped than anything Kosovo can afford. Two hints: focusing on helicopters (the Americans have them conveniently at hand at Camp Bondsteel) and cyber defense would give the Kosovo army opportunities to add real value to NATO.
- The most important Serb historical and religious sites in Kosovo are south of the Ibar river, where most of the Serb population lives in enclaves. Further enhanced security arrangements that would ensure the sites and the people remain inviolate but still respect Pristina’s sovereignty should be doable.
- Kosovo has imposed high tariffs on Serb imports, in an effort to force Serbia into normalization. That isn’t working: Serb goods are entering Kosovo without passing through the official entry points. The Europeans and Americans are berating and threatening Pristina. The tariffs need to end, as they are no more than an incentive for smuggling and enrichment of organized crime that neither Kosovo nor Serbia should want if they want to be taken seriously by the EU.
- Kosovo’s constitutional court has issued a ruling that clarifies what kind of Association of Serb Municipalities would be acceptable. If Serbia is prepared to respect Kosovo’s constitutional order, it should take what is on offer, and provide comparable arrangements for Albanian communities inside Serbia.
- The nub of territorial contestation between Kosovo and Serbia is the municipality of North Mitrovica, which is still controlled by Belgrade (insofar as it is controlled) but was majority Albanian before the 1999 war. The Americans managed a similarly sensitive town in northeast Bosnia, Brcko, by declaring it a condominium of both the Federation and Republika, the two halves of the country. That effectively removed it from control of both and made it a self-governing entity with a special status, under American tutelage, within the context of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty. A similar solution for North Mitrovica, within the sovereignty of Kosovo, is conceivable. Whether American tutelage is practicable is another question.
- Both Belgrade and Pristina want immunity from prosecution for their own citizens who participated in the 1990s fighting, some of whom still serve in high positions. Odious though it may be to me, mutual amnesty for everything but war crimes and crimes against humanity is permissible. In both capitals it is widely assumed that whichever leaders take up President Trump’s invitation to sign a historic deal in the Rose Garden will be immune from prosecution.
None of this can happen quickly or easily, but there are some immediate steps that would point in the right direction:
- The defense chiefs of staff should meet and begin the process, common among neighboring countries, of exchanging information on their respective forces and defense strategies. They should also discuss security for Serb communities and sites in Kosovo as well as for Albanian communities and sites in Serbia.
- CEFTA, the central European free trade association in which both Serbia and Kosovo participate should begin an intense process of examining trade complaints by both Belgrade and Pristina, including the tariffs, with a view to resolving them by the end of this year.
- Kosovo’s Ministry of Communities and Returns should begin talking with Serbia’s Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government about reciprocal cooperation arrangements for Serb communities in Kosovo and Albanian communities in Serbia.
- All those concerned should read Bill Farrand’s account of what he did at Brcko in the first years after the war and how he did it. It is hard to picture that any international could reproduce that success in North Mitrovica without extraordinary and plenipotentiary powers. And it is pretty much inconceivable that anyone but an American, aided by a Russian and a European, could even begin to hope for success in less than a decade of concerted, well-resourced efforts, including backup by whatever NATO forces can be provided.
- Both Serbia and Kosovo need foreign investment and faster economic growth, not least to provide employment and keep their young people at home rather than fleeing to the European Union. The EU and US should be prepared to ante up for a multi-billion dollar/euro package of economic support, provided Pristina and Belgrade implement a serious normalization process.
Normalization may not arrive in one magical package this year, as some overly sanguine diplomats have been hoping, but as the result of a long and difficult process. It is going to require a lot of intense and complex cross-border cooperation. The time to start that has arrived.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Security and trade post-election
The Center for Strategic and International Studies November 14 hosted two panels on the midterm elections’ implications for the trans-Atlantic agenda and trade policy. The first featured a discussion with Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and the second a conversation between CSIS experts Louis Lauter, Vice President for Congressional and Government Affairs, and William Alan Reinsch, Senior Adviser and Scholl Chair in International Business. Heather A. Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic and the Director of the Europe Program at CSIS, moderated.
President Trump’s current threat to leave the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty set the tone for the first discussion. Murphy framed the move as consistent with a broader agenda from the anti-institutionalists in the Administration to withdraw from multilateral organizations, with the spotlight on NATO after the President’s threatening comments last summer.
Murphy highlighted that there is a tendency in Congress to separate the President’s actions and statements from the Administration. While the President is launching rhetorical assaults against NATO, under the surface NATO cooperation continues. Many Republican colleagues have favored this approach, creating an atmosphere complacency. Murphy cautioned that the President should be taken at his word. Congress should prevent an executive withdrawal from NATO. The Senator introduced a failed bill back in July that would have required Congressional consent. There might be more interest in the Democratic-controlled House once Congress reconvenes.
Murphy warned that US foreign policy has become too sanctions dependent. There is a need to create and use alternative Congressional foreign policy instruments, a recommendation echoed by Lauter in his recent study on Congressional foreign policy preferences. The Senator recently introduced the European Energy Security and Diversification Act to finance energy infrastructure in Europe as a means to promote independence from Russia. He also pointed to the need to fund fragile democracies in the region.
Trump’s distancing the US from its NATO allies should be seen as part of a general trend towards isolationism and nationalism, in contrast to French President Macron’s vision for multilateralism and internationalism to solve global problems. Trump’s America First message still resonates with large swaths of the country, prompting Murphy to state that until we fix our domestic politics and economy, politicians will be able to sell Trump’s message in regions that have seen losses in jobs such as manufacturing.
While Reinsch pointed out that trade is low on the average voter’s motivations, Murphy underlined the connection between global institutions/alliances and the strength of the American economy and jobs. Trump’s threatening posture towards NATO does not exist in an economic vacuum. Macron has been urging Europe to become more militarily and technologically autonomous, in part by favoring European defense contractors over American ones, in response to Trump’s criticism of NATO. The steel and aluminum tariffs imposed on the EU make the situation worse.
The political divide between skeptics and supporters of liberalized international trade rests more within parties than between them, according to Reinsch and Lauter’s recent studies. Lauter’s study of the pre-election Congress’ foreign policy preferences found that Congress was fairly internationalist, with Reinsch elaborating that trade was less a partisan issue and more a regional one. The coasts tend to be pro-trade while skeptics dominate the Midwest, as demonstrated in the mixed reactions to Trump’s tariffs on the EU.
A post-election survey of incoming Democrats looked at their public statements on the issue. Twenty-four of fifty-five surveyed said nothing about trade following the election. Twenty-one made pro-trade statements, and eight anti-trade statements. While Democrats may hold the USMCA (the NAFTA replacement) hostage for political reasons, Reinsch predicted that the new Congress will include many pro-trade representatives. It is too soon to write a general obituary for trade agreements.
China is the regional challenge that will likely continue to enjoy bipartisan support, evidenced in the reaction to the Administration’s 301 report on China. The question will be how this is handled moving forward in light of Trump’s relationship with the WTO. While he has rejected appointments of new judges for its dispute appellate body and is willing to go beyond the WTO to achieve policy goals, Reinsch emphasized that the Europeans and Japanese want to address concerns over China within the context of the WTO.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The flim flam election
Here are just a few of the nonsense claims I am hearing a few days before the American midterm elections, which will decide the January majorities in the House and Senate as well as control of state legislatures and governors:
- The migrant caravan in southern Mexico is a threat to the national security of the United States. It is not. The few thousand mostly women and children walking north are still at least a month away from the Texas border. Judging from past “caravans” of this sort, fewer than half will arrive there and present themselves as asylum-seekers, a claim that will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with US law. There is no evidence at all that there are “unknown Middle Easterners” and gang members in the group, as President Trump has claimed.
- George Soros and other Democrats financed the migrant caravan. There is also no evidence whatsoever for this claim. In Latin America, Soros’ Open Society Foundation addresses mainly governance and human rights, focused on Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. I’d guess the program is far more likely to contribute to people staying in their home countries than leaving them, by addressing local grievances and improving government performance.
- The US military deployment will protect us. No, because the US military is not allowed to do so inside the US. Nor will it fire, as President Trump has suggested, on stone throwers. The 5000 or so troops he is ordering to the border (supposedly to be increased later) will do support tasks for Customs and Border Protection, which has handled similar caravans in the past without much strain. This is an unnecessary and costly deployment ordered purely for political reasons: to show the President is doing something about the threat he has hyped.
- President Trump has negotiated a great nuclear agreement with North Korea. There is no nuclear agreement with Pyongyang, only a one-page statement that is not as strong as previous North Korean commitments to denuclearization. Kim Jong-un has stiffed Secretary Pompeo, who has been trying to convert that very general commitment into a real agreement. The lovefest has produced no offspring. The North Koreans have not even produced a rudimentary inventory of their nuclear program, never mind signed up to the kind of detailed constraints that Obama imposed on Iran in the nuclear deal from which Trump has withdrawn.
- The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is much better than the lousy North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and is already having an impact. The two are basically the same, with some updates that include both things the US wanted and things Mexico and Canada wanted. USMCA doesn’t go into effect until 2020. NAFTA governs trade until then.
- Trump has been great for the economy. The economy is good, largely due to the almost eight years of growth under President Obama. The employment gains and fall in unemployment since January 2017 are nothing more than continuation of the what was already happening:
But there are storm clouds on the horizon: short-term interest rates and inflation are headed up, the stock market is teetering, and the Trump tariff war is endangering US exports and increasing the price of US imports.
7. The Republicans will provide better health care, with insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. This proposition doesn’t pass the laugh test. The Administration is determined to annihilate the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Without Obamacare, which ensures that healthy people have incentives to sign up for health insurance, there is no way to cover pre-existing conditions except by charging market rates that will eliminate coverage for most people with them. No one should be fooled.
This is the flim flam election: a test of whether Americans can see through the lies and realize that they have been conned. I’m not predicting the outcome, but I will canvas over the weekend in Virginia’s 8th Congressional District and hope everyone I know will be trying to get the vote out.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The expansion is ending, not soaring
The New York Times this morning wonders why the “booming” economy isn’t redounding to benefit Republican politicians. Here’s a try at an answer: the economy is not booming:
It is in fact growing at about the same rate it has grown since 2010, when the deep recession induced by the 2008 financial crisis ended. Nor is there a dramatic change in unemployment, which likewise has been tending downwards, albeit at a gradually slowing rate since 2010:
source: tradingeconomics.com
The supposed change in America’s economic performance since President Trump came to office is a myth.
The only thing soaring at the moment is the national debt:
source: tradingeconomics.com
This is due to the Trump tax cut for the rich and a massive budget deal that increased the deficit, which had shrunk dramatically during President Obama’s two terms after ballooning during the 2008 recession:
source: tradingeconomics.com
The economy is not soaring. It is reaching its limits: unemployment can’t go much lower and inflation is rising:
The Administration’s draconian limits on immigration and its taxes on American production and consumption (also known as tariffs), as well as the ballooning budget deficit, are going to increase pressure on wages and prices, which the Fed will need to counter by increasing interest rates. Foreign tariff retaliation will also hurt U.S. production.
So if American voters are not paying much attention to the economy, it’s not because they are ignoring its stellar performance. It’s because they understand that the helmsman is reckless and the current performance is unsustainable. The stock market, which recovered well under Obama and accelerated a bit in Trump’s first year, swooned earlier this year and is now recovering, but only so far to about the same level as in January:
source: tradingeconomics.com
It is only a matter of time before the market sees what the public already does: that the limits to this long expansion are not far away.
This pessimistic macroeconomic outlook comes on top of a lot of other problems: Administration-induced increases in the cost of health insurance as well as reductions in coverage, forest fires and storms causing massive unprogrammed state expenditures and Federal relief, unproductive trade negotiations, and deregulation that threatens environmental and financial harm to consumers.
Hold on tight. The roller coaster is near its peak and readying for the downhill slide. The expansion is ending, not soaring.
PS: Nouriel Roubini and Brunello Rosa offer a more professional and global argument along the same lines at Project Syndicate today.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s Turkey shoot
After weeks of silence and inaction on the issue of Syria, President Trump has finally done something that will affect the outcome of the Syrian civil war. The influence will not be positive.
Using his favorite policy platform – Twitter – Trump announced Friday that as the Turkish Lira “slides rapidly downward against our very strong Dollar,” the United States will increase tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum. As the New York Times reports, his 50 percent tariff on steel will “effectively [price] Turkish steel out of the American market, which [accounts] for 13 percent of Turkey’s steel exports.”
The run on the Lira, which has been brewing for the past few weeks, is now fully in gear. The self-fulfilling prophecy of foreign-exchange traders selling the Lira before it further loses value, hence depreciating the currency, is in full force. Investors are instead rushing to short the Lira, amplifying the detrimental effect on its value. President Trump boasting about how “strong” the dollar is – which, seeing how uncompetitive American exports are as a result, is not a good thing – does not help.
What does this mean for the countries around Turkey? In the past twenty years, through their “zero-problems” foreign policy and aim for broader strategic influence in the Middle East, Turkey has been increasing its exports to Arab states. Turkish trade with the Middle East and the Gulf increased by 22.1 percent in 2017 alone. As the Lira continues to plummet and Erdoğan continues to shake confidence in the independence of Turkey’s Central Bank, Turkey’s economic strife will have repercussions across the region. It might even cause a domino effect by rattling investor confidence in other economically struggling countries in the region, such as Jordan.
The issue here is what Turkey’s economic troubles, and President Trump’s decision to pile on at the worst possible time, mean for the conflict in Syria. This is particularly salient in the Northern region of Idlib. After Russia and the Syrian government “liberated” the south of Syria of opposition fighters in June and July, Idlib is the last region in Syria with an active Arab military opposition to Assad – IS pockets of influence in the south and the east notwithstanding. During regime attacks on rebel strongholds in Homs in 2014-15, Aleppo in 2016, and Eastern Ghouta and Deraa in 2018, many opposition militias struck deals with the Syrian regime for safe passage to Idlib in exchange for their surrender. The same goes for a significant number of internally displaced persons, who fled regime-held areas and headed for Idlib in the hopes of protection from Assad or the opportunity to leave Syria for Turkey.
The result is that the Idlib region is currently home to more than 2.5 million people, up from 750,000 before the beginning of the war. Idlib is also home to a number of Turkey-sponsored political and military groups, as Turkey hopes to maintain Idlib as a zone of influence for the foreseeable future; it has already spent considerable sums of money in reconstruction efforts, in the hopes that it can return Syrian refugees currently in Turkey to Idlib – despite the fact that most of them are not from Idlib. As the last remaining rebel stronghold, Idlib is also the next military target for the Syrian government
Speculation abounds that the only thing stopping Assad from launching his offensive on Idlib is Russian calls for restraint, as well as a Turkish “red line” warning the Syrian government not to invade Idlib. This is where Turkey’s economic woes become important, particularly as they can be attributed to American actions.
Trump’s tweet will only increase animosity between the US and an economically desperate Turkey. As a result, Turkey is likely to accelerate its turn towards economic cooperation with Russia, with whom they signed a gas pipeline deal in July. Economic cooperation, however, comes with strings attached, and it is likely that Russia will use its greater economic leverage to defuse the chances of a Syrian-Turkish conflict. This would result in Turkish withdrawal from Idlib, and – as Middle East Institute scholar Charles Lister details – a military and humanitarian crisis on a scale unlike anything seen in the Syrian civil war so far should Assad attack the overcrowded region of Idlib.
There is much to criticize about Turkey’s role in Syria. They have sponsored salafist and jihadist groups, encouraged ethnic conflict between the Arabs and the Kurds in the north, and impeded American efforts to liberate eastern Syria from IS by attacking the Kurds in Efrin in January. Trump’s administration, however, is not attempting to influence Turkey’s behavior in Syria in a positive manner, or even to punish Turkey for their actions in Syria. Instead, Trump is kicking Turkey while it is down, meaning that Trump’s first active contribution to the conflict in Syria is somehow worse than America’s inaction in the past few months. As usual, it will be the Syrian population that suffers the most.
RSS - Posts
