| | | | Why G7 Leaders Should Listen to Trump | | As G7 leaders meet in Canada it's time that they accept reality, writes Edward Alden for Politico Magazine. President Trump has been clear he has little interest in upholding the existing economic order. It's past time for them to take his rhetoric at face value.
President Trump "is prepared, indeed eager, to ignore the global rules of trade built under US leadership for the past 75 years," Alden writes.
"So what is an appropriate response? Clearly, if the G7 leaders spend this weekend lecturing Trump about alliance friendships and the virtue of stable global trade rules, they are wasting their breath. He simply does not believe in any of this."
Instead, US allies may have "to hit back and to hit back hard, targeting products that harm Trump's electoral base. Financial markets have so far remained remarkably calm in the face of escalating trade threats; concerted pressure that temporarily triggers a Wall Street sell-off could be exactly what is needed to make the president realize his trade policies come at a cost." - America alone. President Trump suggested Friday that Russia should be readmitted to the group of leading industrial nations. But Susan Rice, national security adviser under President Obama, suggests in The New York Times that from his verbal attacks on allies to imposition of tariffs on them, Trump has already given Russia as much as it could have asked for.
"America stands alone, weakened and distrusted. Without United States leadership, the G7 can accomplish little. And, when next we need our allies to rally to fight terrorists, place sanctions against North Korea, combat a pandemic or check China and Russia, will they join with us after we have so disrespected them?"
| | Fareed: The Global Warning Signs Dems Should Heed | | | America's Democrats seem upbeat about their prospects for November's midterm elections. But the decline of center-left parties across the globe should give them pause, Fareed writes in his latest Washington Post column. Unless they correctly diagnose what has gone wrong, they could be in for another unpleasant surprise.
"Throughout the world, politics has shifted from core issues of economics to those of identity. Perhaps this is because of the rise of a mass middle class. Perhaps it is because the left and right do not have dramatically different programs—certainly compared with 50 years ago, when many on the left wanted to nationalize industry and many on the right wanted no social safety net at all," Fareed writes.
"But for whatever reason, people today are moved by issues of race, religion, ethnicity, gender and identity. And on those issues, the left faces a dilemma. It cannot celebrate identity and diversity without triggering a backlash among the older, whiter population." | | Will North Korea Open for Business? Would Anyone Care? | | | The Trump administration has floated the idea of foreign investment in North Korea if it abandons its nuclear weapons program. Andy Sharp writes for Bloomberg that that raises a not unimportant question: Will anyone want to invest there?
"Aside from its disciplined and relatively cheap workforce, North Korea also has vast mineral reserves, which could be worth $6 trillion, according to a 2013 estimate by the North Korea Resources Institute in Seoul. These reserves have so far been off limits to the world's biggest miners because of sanctions," Sharp writes.
The problem? Foreign firms have been burned before.
"North Korea continues to stiff Sweden over a bill for 1,000 Volvo sedans shipped back in the 1970s; a Chinese mining company called its four-year venture in the isolated nation a 'nightmare'; and an Egyptian telecoms giant doing business there can't repatriate its profits." | | The Two Faces of Kim Jong Un | | With the meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un just days away, Fareed hosts a new prime time special to explore the history of the Kim dynasty, what might be behind the recent change in tone, and ultimately tries to answer a crucial question: What does Kim really want? Fareed's latest special, "The Two Faces of Kim Jong Un," premieres this Sunday at 8 p.m. ET on CNN.
| | Ignore the Iran Regime Change Chatter | | Forget, for the moment, the chatter about the Trump administration wanting regime change in Iran, writes Walter Russell Mead for The Wall Street Journal. US pressure is more likely about making a deal.
"For now at least, behavior modification, rather than regime change, appears to be the focus of Trump policy toward Iran. That could change. Mr. Pompeo did not rule out a military response to any Iranian effort to relaunch its nuclear program, and other military action by Iran—say, in the waters of the Persian Gulf—could provoke a kinetic American response that could rapidly take both countries into uncharted territory.
"But the administration's priorities are clear: President Trump, whose goal is to reduce American exposure and commitments in the Middle East, appears to be more interested for now in making a deal with Tehran than in toppling the Islamic Republic."
| | Why America Should Ignore Poland's Base Idea | | The United States should ignore Poland's suggestion that the US military establish a permanent deployment of US troops, writes Doug Bandow in The American Conservative. The idea that Russia poses an imminent military threat is fanciful.
"Russia today looks a lot like the pre-1914 Russian Empire, intent on having its interests respected and its borders protected. Taking back Crimea, which hosts the Black Sea base at Sevastopol, and preventing Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO were obvious and important interests. But Putin would stand to gain little from triggering full-scale war by invading one or more of the Baltic States or Poland, the most nervous alliance members," Bandow writes.
"Europeans recognize that Russian troops are not going to march through their neighborhoods, so why spend more on defense? Especially since Uncle Sam can be trusted to play his default role." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment