Tag: Trade
Stevenson’s army, October 6
– Politico draws attention to the important role the Commerce Dept plays in foreign policy, in particular in trade with China.
– David Ignatius sees hope for a deal over Yemen.
– CIA warns its informants abroad are being arrested and killed.
-WaPo explains why using reconciliation to suspend debt limit takes 1-2 weeks.
– Here’s report on HFAC hearing on Afghanistan our guest told about. And here’s a video with transcript.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 5
– State’s legal adviser Harold Koh is resigning with a blistering letter criticizing administration immigration policy.
– USTR explains Administration’s China policy. Here’s the text.
– Crisis Group suggests changes in war powers to deal with war on terror.
– Joe Klein cites historian’s analysis of early immigrant groups to today’s political divisions. Interesting read.
-I’m beginning to wonder whether the best debt limit action would be a narrow Senate ruling that measures affecting the debt can’t be filibustered. I know McConnell can’t be shamed into changing his position. And Democrats fear a vote-a-rama if they use reconciliation [which is stupid since they’ll face multiple votes on their ultimate package]. But I could see a point of order on the narrow debt question based on the 14th amendment, paragraph 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 4
– Hungary burnished its image with lobbying campaign.
– Foreign leaders like King Abdullah of Jordan bought prime Malibu real estate.
– Where the money won’t go, because of the CR.
– In speech today USTR will show little thaw in trade war with China.
– Paul Pillar says Afghanistan isn’t good real estate for terrorists.
– Punchbowl News says parliamentarian tells Senators debt limit can be changed using reconciliation without jeopardizing Biden program.
– My former colleague and Mint Director Philip Diehl makes the case for the platinum coin.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 29
– WaPo has a bunch of pieces on the DOD testimony to the SASC on Tuesday. Here’s a link to the statements and hearing.
– Fred Kaplan analyzes the session.
– Politico notes questions being raised about AUKUS.
– More on Turkey’s defiance of US.
– Fiona Hill has new article in Foreign Affairs.
Politico Pro has this on solar tariffs:
SOLAR TARIFF PETITION GIVES BIDEN A CATCH-22: The Commerce Department must decide by Wednesday whether it will open an anti-circumvention investigation that could result in tariffs on solar panels from Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand.
The three nations are responsible for more than three-quarters of solar imports to the U.S. But American panel manufacturers say they only have that status because other importers reroute their solar components through those nations, in order to avoid anti-dumping and countervailing duties on China that have been in place since the Obama administration.
A third of solar projects at risk: If Commerce decides to extend the duties to the three Asian countries, solar project developers in the U.S. say it will force them to renegotiate prices or abandon projects altogether — hampering Biden’s goal to eliminate carbon emissions from electricity production by 2035. If the new duties on panels are approved, developers say, they could slash the rollout of solar projects in the U.S. by nearly a third over the next two years.
The new tariffs would be “absolute industry killers,” warned Ben Catt, CEO of Pine Gate Renewables, a North Carolina-based solar project developer. “If you were to put those tariffs on any of the projects we are doing right now, I just think the pricing structure gets thrown out the window.”
Climate “outside the scope”: Supporters of the tariff petition say that’s beside the point. If Commerce finds that importers are avoiding duties by rerouting their solar panels through the Southeast Asian nations, then by law the department must impose duties. Other concerns, like climate change, are “outside the scope of the case,” said Tim Brightbill, an international trade partner at Wiley Rein LLP, who is representing the petitioners.
Myriad trade issues: The tariff petition is just one of many trade challenges bedeviling the American solar sector. The Biden administration is also weighing whether to extend “Section 201” emergency safeguard duties that former President Donald Trump imposed on solar products from China, Taiwan and certain other suppliers in 2018. Those are currently set to expire in February, but petitioners want them renewed for four more years.
The administration is also considering new trade restrictions on solar panels and parts from the Xinjiang region, the center of human rights abuses in China that the U.S. has labelled a genocide. And American solar installers are also struggling with higher commodity prices and supply chain issues that are rippling through the economy.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The angel sings, but the devils are in the details
President Biden today gave his first speech to the United Nations outlining his foreign policy priorities and approach more clearly than he has so far. He aimed to restore trust in American leadership, not only in the aftermath of the Trump Administration but also in the wake of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and controversy surrounding the deal to sell nuclear submarines to Australia that shocked and annoyed France.
The priorities were strikingly different from Trump’s:
- Ending the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Slowing climate change
- Encouraging respect for human rights
- Rebalancing geopolitcs
- A level playing field for trade
- Ensuring benefits, and limiting harm, from technology
- Countering terrorism
The first three items would not have appeared on any Trump Administration list. Numbers 4-7 would have, but with a distinctly America First (i.e. alone) spin.
Biden’s means are at least as different from Trump’s as his priorities. He favors diplomacy over war, multilateralism over unilateralism, and the power of America’s example at home over American intervention abroad.
In my book, this is all well and good, but then come the difficulties in applying these methods to actual issues. Encouraging booster shots to Americans is likely not the best way to end the COVID-19 epidemic, but exporting vaccines to poor countries exposes the Administration to criticism, so Biden is trying to split the difference by doing both. Slowing climate change is a grand idea, but can Biden get the legislation through Congress to meet his own goals for limits on American production of greenhouse gases. Encouraging respect for human rights is fine, but what do you do about Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince is thought culpable for the murder of a US-based journalist? Rebalancing geopolitics is fine, but what if selling nuclear submarines to Australia requires you to blind-side and offend your longest-standing ally?
And so on: a level playing field for trade is hard to achieve when a major competitor is using prison (or slave) labor to produce manufactured good. Responding to state-sponsored cyber attacks is proving a particularly difficult challenge. Facial-recognition technology, with all its defects, is spreading rapidly around the world even though it is prone to misidentification and other abuses. You may prefer a less military approach to counter-terrorism, but if there is a successful mass casualty attack in the US the military response will be dramatic. Never mind that 20 years of military responses have not been effective and have killed a lot of innocent non-combatants.
As for methods, there too there are problems. The State Department is a notoriously weak diplomatic instrument. Can it carry the weight of additional responsibilities? Diplomacy may be preferable to prevent Iran and North Korea from getting a nuclear weapons, but will Tehran agree? A two-state solution would be best, but how can we get there from here? Multilateralism is often preferable, but not always possible. One of my mentors used to quote President Carter (I think) saying multilaterally where we can, unilaterally when we must. But that judgment is not a simple one. America should be a shining “city on the hill,” as President Reagan hoped, but what then about the January 6 insurrection and the anti-voting legislation in more than two dozen states?
Biden’s angel sang well this morning at the UN. But the devils are in the details. It isn’t going to be easy to get those right in a divided country and a competitive, if not downright chaotic, global environment.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 17
– China reacts by seeking to join TPP.
– Arms controllers get concerned.
-Latin American summit looks to replace OAS.
-LIndsey Graham looks to pull a Charlie Wilson.
And look at all the stuff Members want to put in the NDAA.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
