(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Biden Goes Full Trump on His New Metals Tariff Deal

Tags

allies, aluminum, Biden, Biden administration, China, Donald Trump, EU, European Union, metals, metals tariffs, quotas, steel, steel tariffs, tariff-rate quota, tariffs, Trade, trade wars, transshipment, Trump administration, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I’m old enough to remember when Donald Trump’s decision to tariff steel and aluminum imports from many U.S. allies was almost universally condemned outside his administration as not only unimaginably stupid and economically ignorant (as the supposed case for all tariffs) but downright heinous.

After all: These were U.S. allies that would be paying the price for Trump’s troglodyte protectionism. For decades they’d stood shoulder to shoulder with America in numerous foreign policy crises and showdowns with hostile dictatorships (or at least much of the time) and served as valuable force multipliers (even though their skimpy defense budgets prevented them from providing the United States with much concrete defense help when push came to shove, and needlessly exposed Americans to nuclear war risk). How, moreover, could relying on imported metals from friendly countries endanger U.S. national security – as the Trump administration legally needed to claim in order to slap on the trade curbs. Worse, the Trump metals levies as such left China, by far the biggest metals trade offender, untouched.

Even Trump’s own first Defense Secretary agreed on the tariffs’ cockeyed targeting. So did a fellow named Joe Biden, who during his presidential campaign last year upbraided his opponent for “picking fights with our allies” vowed to “focus on the key contributor to the problem [of a global metals glut] – China’s government.”

So although it’s been telegraphed for some weeks now, it’s still worth noting not only that since his inauguration, President Biden has kept the steel and aluminum tariffs firmly in place, but that his administration has just reached an agreement with the European Union (EU) that makes clear that the two major assumptions that drove Trump’s approach were completely correct.

First, as I’ve demonstrated repeatedly (e.g., here), the evidence is overwhelming both that global metals capacity stems not only from China’s own mammoth overproduction, but from numerous other metals manufacturing countries, and that all of these economies were working in any number of clandestine ways to make sure that most of this overcapacity was dumped into the U.S. market.

That is, they either responded to Chinese product flooding their own markets and threatening their own metals industries by ramping up their own exports to the United States; by modifying these Chinese metals slightly and then sending them state-side as their own products; or by simply permitting Chinese steel and aluminum to be transshipped through their own ports to the United States under false labels.

(This new report shows that China’s strategy of evading U.S. trade barriers has taken another mportant form”: acquiring metals production capacity in third countries – especially in the most profitable, specialty and other high-value metals segments – and using these facilities to ship to America.)

As a result, any U.S. tariffs needed to be universal to be effective – either simply to keep imports under control, or to secure foreign agreement to stop playing footsie with the Chinese. Any other approach would have left Washington continuing to play Uncle Sucker in a game of global whack-a-mole – whose latest round began when direct Chinese exports to the United States were sharply limited by tariffs put in place during the last year of the Obama administration.

Second, the Trump approach recognized that the United States boasted the leverage to achieve success, and the terms of the new agreement with the EU make clear that the former president judged the balance of economic power correctly It’s true that the deal EU saves various American industries from retaliatory tariffs. But in return for restoring these sectors largely unimpeded access to the huge total EU economy, the Europeans have accepted sharply reduced access to American customers.

A U.S. government fact sheet states that tariff-free EU steel and aluminum exports to the United States will be limited to “historically-based” volumes (which have not been specified, but which reportedly will equal only about 60 percent of the immediate pre-Trump tariff totals). Practically all attempted European shipments above that total would be subject to the exact same Trump levies that clearly kept them mostly out of the United States – at least judging from the Europeans’ fundamental complaint. (Trade mavens call such arrangements “tariff-rate quotas.”) In this respect, this EU agreement mirrors those reached by the Trump administration with countries like Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and South Korea.

The full details of the agreement haven’t yet been released, so questions remain about enforcement mechanisms – which of course matter decisively for any effort to combat secretive activity like transshipment. But because American-owned steel companies and U.S. steel unions have endorsed the deal, chances are they’ll be effective. And that’s likely to be true for the rest of his trade agenda as long as President Biden keeps going full Trump.      

Im-Politic: A Labor Shortage Story Short on the Facts

Tags

Bloomberg.com, Boris Johnson, Brexit, editing, European Union, globalism, Im-Politic, Immigration, Joe Mayes, journalism, labor shortages, media bias, Open Borders, truck drivers, truckers, trucking, United Kingdom

Is Bloomberg.com trying to make yours truly look good? It certainly seems that way. Exactly two days after I wrote that American journalism has long been suffering from an editing crisis (and subjecting readers and viewers to a flood of ineptly reported and reasoned articles, posts, and broadcast segments), this news site ran a piece illustrating perfectly two of this so-called profession’s biggest (and intimately related) flaws: pushing narratives largely by ignoring information that provides crucial context.

The lead paragraph tells you all you need to know where Joe Mayes’ September 22 story was going (and where he and his editors believed it should go): “The red lines of Boris Johnson’s Brexit project are starting to crack as voters face growing shortages of food and fuel, as well as a marked rise in living costs.”

As the second paragraph elaborated, “Despite riding to power on a Brexit campaign that pledged to cut immigration from the European Union, the prime minister [Johnson] and his cabinet are now preparing for what would be a significant and politically damaging U-turn: Tapping those same EU workers to plug the labor shortages crippling parts of the U.K. supply chain.” And “the most immediate and pressing concern”? “A major shortage of truck drivers.”

What could be more revealing – and embarrassing for supporters of the United Kingdom’s 2016 decision to leave the European Union (in large part to gain more national control over immigration inflows)? Immigrants from the same EU are now being recognized even by the Leaver-in-Chief as that country’s last hope for staving off starvation, freezing to death this winter, and raging inflation.

No question Brexit was a landmark decision, and no doubt there were plenty of valid reasons to be skeptical (as the close 2016 referendum results indicate). But this Bloomberg piece plainly suggests that the countries that have decided to remain in the EU literally have truckers to spare the British.

Which insinuates that the Brexiteers deserve to have insult added to injury. Except this story line is a crock. As an internet search that took me mere minutes revealed, there’s lots of info out there making clear that truck driver shortages are a global problem – that is, they’re not limited to countries that left the EU. Indeed, this industry website reports that trucking companies in Europe are expecting a 17 percent driver shortfall this year.

Further, the survey it’s based on found that any number of steps could be taken by trucking companies and governments in shortage-afflicted countries to increase driver supply without importing foreigners. Like raising pay. Like lowering the training age to encourage more young people to replace retiring truckers (a big problem in a sector with an aging workforce). Like creating safer parking areas, which would be especially helpful in attacting more women into the business. (They currently make up only two percent of drivers globally, according to the survey.)

In fact, finding such ;material is so easy that it raises the question of whether the main problem (and all the others I’ve spotlighted on RealityChek – e.g., here) doesn’t reflect simply a competence crisis. It also reflects a bias crisis, with the target being any measures or information that clash with longstanding globalist orthodoxies – in this case, Open Borders- friendly policies on the immigration and labor shortage fronts.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Follow Lithuania’s Lead on China

Tags

China, diplomacy, European Union, Lithuania, One China policy, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Taiwan

Don’t look now, but the Baltic country of Lithuania (yes, you read that right) has just shown the entire world a terrific way, low-risk and low-cost way to punish China for its worsening bellicosity and human rights atrocities by giving it a great, big black public relations eye. Even better: Though this action need not harm countries taking it one bit, the damage felt by the PRC’s thug leaders will be grievous and therefore capable of generating actual benefits – unlike most such political moves – especially if enough important (and even unimportant) countries participate.

The specific gambit? Permitting Taiwan to set up “a representative office under the name of Taiwan” on national territory. And Lithuania has demonstrated exactly how to do it – in the process demonstrating how this kind of decision can put China into a thoroughly humiliating box.

Lithuania set the process in motion July 20 when it announced its Taiwan decision. Since China’s Communist leaders have always regarded Taiwan as a renegade province whose claims to any form of autonomy amount to a mortal and thus intolerable threat to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, no one should have been surprised by Beijing’s response: withdrawing its own ambassador to Lithuania, demanding the departure of Lithuania’s envoy to China, and threatening to cut off diplomatic relations altogether.

Interestingly, Lithuania could have fudged matters in a way apparently acceptable to China had it clearly called the Taiwan facility a trade-focused office, or required it to use the name “Taipei” (the island’s capital) rather than “Taiwan.” However grudgingly, Beijing has tolerated other countries (and indeed the entire European Union, of which Lithuania is a member) taking this approach.

But even more interesting, Lithuania went “the full Taiwan.” Although insisting that it still regarded Communist China as the only legitimate government of China (thus like the United States and most other countries, maintaining full diplomatic relations solely with Beijing in line with a “One China” policy), it accepted the island’s decision to use its chosen name for the office. (That’s a first for Europe.). The “trade office” nomenclature has been rejected as well. (For the record, Taiwan does official business in the United States though “Economic and Cultural” facilities in Washington, D.C. and many other big cities. But the web page for the Washington location calls it an “embassy.”) And Lithuania has refused to back down in the face of China’s bluster.

So now it’s clearly time for every other country that values democracy, human rights, and its own self-respect to follow Lithuania’s lead either in permitting the establishment of explicitly Taiwanese government offices on their soil, or dropping the policy or pretense that existing offices must be strictly commercial entities.

Yes, unlike Lithuania, many major countries have the kinds of economic ties with China that make Beijing’s threats of retaliation understandably troubling. But if all or most act in concert, and stick to their policy guns, and for the time being stick officially with the One China policy, what realistically could or would China do? Withdraw its envoys from dozens of world capitals? Expel just as many foreign ambassadors from Beijing? Tariff imports from just as many trade partners? Cut off all their investments in China? Intensify harassment of all their companies operating in China?

Much likelier: China’ dictators huff and puff, and wind up sitting there and taking it – meaning that a face-obsessed regime would suffer a major indignity in the eyes of its own (face-obsessed) population, and in the court of global public opinion.

More important, Beijing would have little choice but to end its campaign of pressuring other countries to limit strictly Taiwan’s overseas official presence. Unless it wanted to be exposed repeatedly as a paper tiger in this respect? And maybe some governments would want to push the Taiwan relations envelope further, which would only further undermine China’s global image and fears that it – and especially its high tech totalitarianism – represents the wave of the future, and spur more resistance to its dangerous global ambitions.

At the same time, the opposite scenario might be even more crucial: If most countries aren’t willing to call China’s bluff despite the scanty risk levels, Beijing could become even more aggressive, and wring more security-related and economic concessions those with which it interacts. Decades of reckless national policies have already fed this beast with immense wealth and cutting-edge knowhow. Will the world now start feeding it psychologically as well?    

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Biden’s Now a Full-Throated “Tariff Man” on Metals

Tags

aluminum, Biden, China, dumping, EU, European Union, Katherine Tai, metals tariffs, overcapacity, steel, subsidies, tariffs, trade war, U.S. Trade Representative, World Steel Association, {What's Left of) Our Economy

There’s now a good case to be made that the trade curbs originally called the “Trump metals tariffs” should be called the “Trump-Biden metals tariffs” (and even vice versa). For on Monday, the Biden administration reached a “truce” in the trade dispute they touched off with the European Union (EU – whose member countries’ steel exports are among those hit with these levies). And this agreement kept the U.S. curbs – originally imposed by the former President in early 2018 – firmly in place.

Arguably even more important, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai fully endorsed Trump’s rationale for the global scope of these tariffs (which eventually exempted some countries – including Canada and Mexico, which joined with Trump in signing a  revamp of the North American Free Trade Agreement). At a Senate hearing last week, she noted that they were needed “to address a global overcapacity problem driven largely but not solely by China.”

In other words, Tai – and her boss in the White House – were acknowledging that massive and government-subsidized excess global steel output in particular was being dumped into the U.S. market, often indirectly, by many countries other than China. They’d either been permitting Chinese product to come into their import doors and go out their export doors to America (after being re-labeled); compensating for their own steel industries’ losses at the hands of dumped Chinese steel by ramping up their own exports of subsidized metal to the United States; or engaging some combination of the two.

Although President Biden has also decided to retain Trump’s China tariffs, the metals position deserves special attention. After all, a broad consensus has developed in U.S. policy and (to a lesser extent) business circles on the need for responding strongly to China’s systemic trade predation. But the metals tariffs have consistently been widely condemned as needless Trump slaps at many staunch U.S. security allies (like many EU members that also belong to NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

The Economic Policy Institute released a report in March documenting how well the tariffs have worked to help revitalize the U.S. steel industry, and how scant their damage has been to American steel-using industries. (My case for the latter proposition includes this post.)

But the American industry’s need for worldwide tariffs until the overcapacity problem is (somehow) solved also keeps emerging from the data on global steel markets that I first highlighted shortly after Trump’s announcement.

This post showed that before the tariffs were imposed, the American domestic steel industry was far and away the biggest global loser from the China steel glut – and that most other big steel-producing countries escaped anything close to comparable damage. Here’s how the percentages of global steel output of leading producers changed between 2010 and 2018.  (Note that some of the original 2018 numbers have been revised.)

US:                        -35.79

China:                   +20.44

EU 27:                   -23.73

Japan:                    -25.36

South Korea:           -2.67

India:                    +22.20

Turkey:                          0

Brazil:                   -17.24

Russia:                  -11.61

Logically, these figures can lead to only one of two conclusions: Either the U.S. steel industry had become the world’s least competitive by a mile (and very suddenly), or virtually the entire steel-producing world was exporting many of its own China steel problems to the United States.

And since U.S. productivity statistics reveal that the American primary metals sector (including steel and aluminum) had been a national productivity leader during that period, and was suffering major import-related production losses that were dwarfed by those of much less productive manufacturing industries, there can be no legitimate doubt that it faced a trade problem urgently needing fixing. (Here‘s the evidence.)

So what’s happened to the U.S. share of world steel production since the tariffs’ onset? The World Steel Association, source of the above figures, makes clear that the American relative performance has been much better. Here are the percentage changes in woldwide output between 2018, and the first quarter of this year:

US:                           -12.53

China:                       +8.44

EU 27:                     -16.45

Japan:                      -15.60

South Korea:           -12.47

India:                        +3.23

Turkey:                      -2.43

Brazil:                       -6.77

Russia:                      -2.02

These numbers show that China continues to increase its global production market share (to fully 55.66 percent as of this year’s first quarter) and that the United States has continued to lose share. But they also show that much of the rest of the steel-producing world is no longer able to gain so dramatically at America’s expense. Indeed, major producers like the European Union and Japan have fared worse than the United States, and the gap between American performance and that of the rest of these economies has closed substantially. And as the aforementioned Economic Policy Institute report has demonstrated, the U.S.-based steel sector’s fortunes in absolute terms have turned up as a result.

The lesson here is that the metals tariffs haven’t been a cure-all either to the U.S. steel industry’s troubles or even its trade-specific troubles. But they’ve undeniably helped – while leaving the rest of American manufacturing and the economy doing just fine. And because other global steel players are now taking it on the chin from China’s overcapacity, maybe the continued U.S. levies will finally help convince them to stop paying lip service to the goal of dealing with global – and especially Chinese – steel overcapacity, and join Washington in serious efforts to end it.

Im-Politic: Slandering the U.S. on Climate Change

Tags

Associated Press, Biden, Bloomberg.com, China, climate change, Conference of the Parties, COP26, Donald Trump, European Union, greenhouse gases, Im-Politic, Leaders Summit on Climate, Paris climate accord

I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that it’s as typical for us news/policy bloggers as it is for journalists to start the day expecting to write on a certain topic only to change course abruptly upon encountering a development that SIMPLY CAN’T WAIT.

Especially with a big U.S.-organized global summit on climate change set for later this week, that’s the category into which I’d place this new Bloomberg.com post titled “Biden Wants the U.S. to Lead on Climate Action, But the World Needs Proof.” And if the header didn’t make the portrayal of the United States as a preachy climate change hypocrite clear enough, the subhead informs readers that “after policy reversals and years of inaction, the country has a wide credibility gap to overcome.”

Predictably, moreover, authors place all the blame on you-know-who:

“The Biden administration [will] have to overcome the major trust deficit run up by former President Donald Trump, who withdrew from the Paris agreement and dismantled domestic policies key to driving the the country’s promised emissions cuts. The past four years revealed how tenuous pledges of U.S government action can be.” {Note:  This Associated Press report made much the same point.] 

Whatever you think about the merits of the issue, there’s no question that climate change wasn’t exactly a Trump priority, that he weakened (but did not eliminate entirely) important Obama-era regulations aimed at slowing it, and ran a very fossil-fuel-friendly administration. Moreover, the former President displayed no interest whatever in meeting, much less beating, the Paris agreement goals set by Barack Obama’s presidency.

But is that the real measure of U.S. credibility on climate change? Only if you believe that words matter more than deeds. For the latest available (2018) data show that, by two key measures, America has actually done a better job  restraining greenhouse gas emissions than many of the main Paris accord signatories.

If the chart below looks familiar, it’s because I used it in a post near the beginning of last year. 

But it’s as important as ever. Because it shows that, on an absolute basis (the left half of the chart), U.S. emissions dipped slightly in 2009, and then stayed basically flat since (including in Trump years 2017 and 2018). That’s actually better than it sounds, however, because the US economy grew the entire time, meaning that more economic activity didn’t lead to more emissions. And growth picked up a fair amount during those Trump years.

As for other Paris signatory countries, China’s rapid growth has only slowed – but the Chinese economy has slowed, too, so that doesn’t necessarily signal any carbon efficiency gains.   

Emissions from 28 of the European Union (EU) countries, began falling in absolute terms in 1990, and have consistently been lower than America’s. (Earlier results aren’t presented.) But the EU’s economic growth also has been considerably lower than America’s throughout this period, so lower emissions no doubt are mainly due to that steady fall in overall economic activity. (You can compare the growth rates of any countries or groups of countries by playing around with this interactive feature on the World Bank’s website.)   

On a per capita basis (he right half of the chart), we see major U.S. progress since about 2000, and it’s continued with minor fluctuations through 2018 (an especially good US economic growth year).  In fact, the United States has performed better than the world as a whole since 1990.   

EU 28 progress on a per capita basis has been slower than the US’, but better than the world’s as a whole.  And China’s per capita emissions soared till about 2010, before starting to level off.

Does the chart show that the United States is doing enough to mitigate climate change? Nope. Does it mean that lots of skepticism isn’t justified about President Biden’s ability to turn his climate change agenda into U.S. policy? Of course not.

But it does make clear that it’s simply off the wall to claim that Mr. Biden will be chairing his own climate change conference, and participating in a United Nations conference this November, as head of a country with a climate credibility gap, or anything climate-y to feel sheepish about. Indeed, pushing that line can only undercut the President’s message, and do far more to retard climate progress, not spur it. 

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Why Scalpels Won’t Cut it Against China

Tags

Biden, China, China Strategy Group, decoupling, Donald Trump, Eric Schmidt, EU, European Union, FDI, foreign direct investment, Germany, Google, health security, Made in America, manufacturing, multilateralism, national security, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, semiconductors, Silicon Valley, supply chain, Taiwan, technology

Yesterday’s RealityChek post argued made clear that one of the two recent blueprints for China policy offered to President Biden from the foreign policy and technology establishments suffered from crippling internal contradictions.

The second effort, from the Silicon Valley-dominated “China Strategy Group,” can be read more profitably by the President, because popping up here and there are some insights that are genuinely valuable especially since they come from analysts once strongly supportive of what they themselves call the pre-Trump strategy of “near-unbounded integration.”

Principally, the group, which notably is co-chaired by Google co-founder Eric Schmidt, calls for recognizing that “some degree of [U.S.-China] disentangling is both inevitable and preferable. In fact, trends in both countries—and many of the tools at our disposal—inherently and necessarily push toward some degree of bifurcation.” In other words, it’s endorsed a limited version of what’s now commonly called economic and technological decoupling.

In addition, it argues that both this decoupling, along with tariffs that it acknowledges may be needed to push back against certain Chinese offenses and provocations, should be pursued even though they will entail costs – a refreshing and crucially important departure from the long-time pre- and post-Trump consensus in the mainstream American political, business and policy communities that any increased consumer or producer price, or loss of even a smidgeon of market share in China resulting from retaliation from Beijing, proves conclusively the folly of placin any significant curbs on doing business with the People’s Republic.

Finally, the group points out that efforts to rebuild domestic supply chains to reduce reliance on China for critical goods must involve “more than a focus on the end products. Safeguarding key technologies requires the United States to define and secure the entire ecosystem of production, from fabrication to supply to talent to cutting-edge innovation.” In other words, Washington can’t simply seek to become self-sufficient, or largely so, in face masks or ventilators or semiconductors. It needs to become self-sufficient or largely so in all the materials, parts, and components required to make these products.

Yet many of these important insights (and useful recommendations for restructuring the U.S. government to foster the competition with China more effectively) are kneecapped by equivocation and a resulting failure to understand that sometimes policy scalpels cut too finely, and some policy needles are too small to be threaded – especially considering the “all of society” drive China’s totalitarian system is making to gain global technology leadership, and the dangers to America’s “security, prosperity, and way of life” Chinese success would create.

For example, the group emphasizes that decoupling policy mustn’t invite “escalatory cycles of confrontation, retaliation, or unintended conflict” or overlook those areas “where cooperation, collaboration, and exchange with China is in our interest, as severing ties and closing off the United States to the ideas, people, technologies, and supply chains necessary to compete effectively will undermine U.S. innovation.” At the same time, the authors acknowledge that China will respond to any further U.S. decoupling moves “more aggressively” precisely because “China’s leaders understand U.S. dependency as an important source of leverage.”

So although in principle, this omelet can be made without breaking many eggs, Beijing won’t be cooperating in fact. And the circle can’t be squared with clever phrase-making like “navigating the asymmetric competition” that look satisfactorily reassuring on paper and in speeches to conferences but that need to survive the body blows that will inevitably be delivered by reality.

The group’s approach to Chinese investment in the United States (whether in the form of creating new businesses or taking over or contributing capital to existing firms) illustrates the other big drawback of granular approaches when it comes to China: They ignore how any Chinese entity big enough to play in any foreign market, and especially America’s, is under Beijing’s thumb in every important respect.

As a result, there’s no point in taking the time and expending the resources to follow the group’s recommendations to figure out which Chinese tech platforms (whose importance it emphasizes) are and are not violating American privacy standards or conducting misinformation campaigns dangerous to democracy, or censoring content Chinese authorities don’t like, or helping suppress human rights in China or anywherer else, or stealing valuable data, or helping terrorists and criminals launder money; or whether these activities matter enough to merit official U.S. attention, or whether troublesome practices can be negotiated away through talks with Beijing on technical and other fixes.

In this instance, Washington should stay out of the black holes of setting priorities and especially monitoring and enforcing agreements, and assume that by simply banning these platforms from operating in the United States and in fact prohibiting all Chinese entities from owning U.S. hard assets. The latter step would add the benefit of shielding participants in America’s economy from competition with subsidized, market-distorting outfits from China. At the very least, Chinese entities should be required to prove that they’re not controlled or subsidized in any way by Beijing, or engaged in the above malign activities, before gaining entry.

In addition, despite the group’s understanding that entire manufacturing eco-systems, not just final products, need to be rebuilt and nurtured to ensure supply chain security, it appears to underestimate just how widely these relationships extend. After all, most of the numerous inputs to goods like mechanical ventilators (like its controls, power sources, monitors, and alarm systems) depend on big and complex supply chain and manufacturing eco-systems themselves.

Further, just as before the pandemic, few expected face masks and surgical gloves to become products vitally important to the nation’s well-being, the list of critical goods is likely to change and grow over time as new threats emerge. Therefore, the group is correct in warning that “any product or service could be termed essential to national security in an extreme hypothetical.” But what’s the basis for confidence that many products or services can safely be ruled out, and that such hypotheticals will always remain extreme?

At least as important, like the Biden administration, the group’s determination not to ruffle too many international feathers has also clearly led it to back the notion that the definition of “Made in America” for supply chain purposes should actually mean, “Also Made in Lots of Other Countries” that it considers trusted suppliers. Unfortunately, many of the countries so classified imposed export controls on critical medical goods during the pandemic’s first wave last spring. That is, when cooperation was most needed, they built walls – meaning that their trustworthiness isn’t exactly ironclad.

And as then President-elect Biden learned when the European Union rebuffed his entreaty to consult with Washington before signing an investment agreement with China, the allies remain determined to fence sit in the U.S.-China technology competition. The group acknowledges that the list of anti-China partners “may include all of the [European Union], though in some cases EU position/member states’ positions are too ambiguous today with respect to China for inclusion in all instances, and members may need to be considered on an individual basis.” But simply stating this position and its EU-splitting ambitions is enough to make clear its absurdity – especially since the EU country most reluctant to cooperate against China is economic kingpin Germany.

None of this is to say that all trade with (as opposed to investment in hard assets from) China should be cut off completely, or that international cooperation can be of no use to the United States in its struggle versus the People’s Republic. In particular, (and due largely to recklessly indiscriminate free trade policies), America urgently needs products and knowhow now dominated by foreign producers (notably Taiwan’s semiconductor manufacturing industry, and Japanese and Dutch suppliers of key microchip production equipment and materials). And if other countries are willing to cooperate with Washington on various China containing initiatives at acceptable prices, more help is indeed better than less. But the United States will never safeguard its interests adequately without realizing that multilateralism can’t be an end in and of itself, and that against monumental threats, axes are usually more effective than scalpels.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Biden’s Just Been Fooled Twice by Europe

Tags

alliances, allies, America First, AstraZeneca, Belgium, Biden, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, EU, European Union, Financial Times, globalism, health security, Northern Ireland, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, supply chains, The New York Times, Trump, United Kingdom, vaccines, Wuhan virus

It’s beginning to look like a pattern: President Biden keeps making clear that he’s determined to repair the vital U.S. alliance relationships he believes Donald Trump disastrously weakened, and the Europeans, anyway, keep flipping him the bird either explicitly or implicitly. And as the old saying goes, shame on anyone who’s been fooled more than once.

The explicit example came before Inauguration Day. The European Union (EU) – whose members were touted by candidate Biden as eager potential partners in a multilateral coalition against a common Chinese economic and national security threat – were on the verge of finalizing an investment treaty with Beijing. A top Biden aide publicly asked the EU to think twice and consult with the United States before proceeding. In response, the Europeans…proceeded. (See here for the details.) 

The implicit example came last week. During the campaign Mr. Biden, as noted here, made clear (except to every American journalist who covered the matter) that his plan to strengthen U.S. supply chains and make sure that the nation would never again be reliant on adversaries like China for crucial medical equipment and other vital products was by no means an “America Only” or even an “America First” proposal. Instead, one of its planks pledged to

“engage with our closest partners so that together we can build stronger, more resilient supply chains and economies in the face of 21st century risks. Just like the United States itself, no U.S. ally should be dependent on critical supplies from countries like China and Russia. That means developing new approaches on supply chain security — both individually and collectively — and updating trade rules to ensure we have strong understandings with our allies on how to best ensure supply chain security for all of us.” (Here’s the full document.)

In principle, this characteristically multilateral Biden approach made sense. Yet the blueprint came out scant months after (as reported here) many of these allies reacted to the outbreak of the CCP Virus by blocking exports of key medical equipment to ensure they could supply themselves.

You’d think that Mr. Biden, therefore, would have learned this lesson and recognized that the United States simply can’t afford to define “Made in America” as “Made in Lots of Other Countries, Too.” But you’d be wrong.

The day after his inauguration, the new President issued an executive order to create “a Sustainable Public Health Supply Chain.” And one of it directives charged various Cabinet and other agencies and senior advisers to study “America’s role in the international public health supply chain, and options for strengthening and better coordinating global supply chain systems in future pandemics….”

Again, therefore, Mr. Biden specified that this “sustainable public health supply chain” would stretch far beyond America’s shores, and that he believed various kinds of these “global supply chain systems” could ensure the nation’s health security in “future pandemics.”

How did the Europeans react? Little more than a week later, the European Union moved to restrict exports of the CCP Virus vaccine made by pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca because its own supplies were so short. As a top EU official explained, “The protection and safety of our citizens is a priority and the challenges we now face have left us with no choice other than to act.”

The EU almost immediately reversed its decision – but only in part. It agreed to maintain shipments to the United Kingdom (which has recently left the union under a complicated agreement negotiated after the “Brexit” referendu vote of 2015) and to Northern Ireland (which is a part of the UK, but which remains part of the Union’s single market for goods). But the Europeans, according to The New York Times, still intend “to introduce export controls that could prevent any vaccines made in the European Union from being sent to non-E.U. countries, but without involving Northern Ireland….”

For good measure, great potential remains for a big vaccine-related dispute between the United Kingdom and the EU due to differences over which party is contractually entitled to the highest priority when it comes to vaccine shipments.

And the Financial Times reported that “Belgium, a key location for vaccine production in the EU, has notified the Commission of a draft health law that would give it new powers to curb medicines exports. The proposed legislation would allow Belgian authorities to restrict or ban the shipment of critical medicinal products and active ingredients, in case of shortages or potential shortages.”

Vaccines apparently are not included, but how could any responsible leader inside the EU or outside count on Belgium keeping its word during emergencies?  The same goes, incidentally, for the word of a United States led by an adult thinker, as opposed to a globalist determined to return to the pre-Trump days of Uncle Sucker.   

President Biden clearly needs to learn that lesson, too – and also needs to start asking himself whether the Europeans are holding his administration and his allies uber alles globalism up for ransom, and if the price for securing their cooperation on any number of issues is turning out to be dangerously unaffordable.

Glad I Didn’t Say That! International Cooperation Doubletalk from Germany

Tags

Angela Merkel, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Davos, European Union, export controls, Financial Times, Germany, Glad I Didn't Say That!, globalism, multilateralism, nationalism, vaccines, Wuhan virus

“Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said the coronavirus

pandemic has been the ‘hour of multilateralism’, as she used her

speech to plead for more international collaboration to defeat the

virus.”

– Financial Times, January 26, 2020

“Germany is pressing the European Commission to give member

states the power to block the export of coronavirus vaccines

produced in the EU as tensions mounted over shortfalls in supply.”

– Financial Times, January 26, 2020

 

(Sources: “Davos highlights: European leaders urge Biden to extend efforts to reignite international co-operation,” by Guy Chazan et al, Financial Times, January 26, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/02465195-1957-490d-a3c8-4c54d45469a9 and “Germany presses Brussels for powers to block vaccine exports,” by Guy Chazan et al, Financial Times, January 26, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/ed0059c9-1ea5-4ba9-a1ff-88004b59e71d)

 

Making News: Trump “Requiem” Post Re-Published in The National Interest…& More!

Tags

allies, Capitol riots, Cato Institute, China, Ciaran McGrath, conservatism, Croatia, Daily Express, Dnevno, economic nationalism, EU, European Union, Geopolitika, globalism, GOP, impeachment, Joe Biden, Making News, Populism, Republicans, Ted Galen Carpenter, The National Interest, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that The National Interest has re-posted (with permission!) my offering from last Wednesday that could be my last comprehensive look-back at President Trump and his impact on politics and policy (at least until the next utterly crazy development along these lines). Click here if you’d like to read in case you missed it, or if you’d like to see it in a more aesthetically pleasing form than provided here on RealityChek.

One small correction still needs to be made: The last sentence of the paragraph beginning with “Wouldn’t impeachment still achieve….” should end with the phrase “both laughable and dangerously anti-democratic.” I take the blame here, because my failure to keep track of the several versions that went back and forth.

In addition, it’s been great to see my post on the first sign of failure for President-Elect Joe Biden’s quintessentially globalist allies’-centric China strategy (also re-published by The National Interest) has been cited in new and commentary on both sides of the Atlantic.

Two of the latest came from Zagreb, Croatia. (And yes, I needed to look up which former region of the former Yugoslavia contained Zagreb – though I did know it was some place in the former Yugoslavia!) They’re found on the news sites Geopolitika and Dnevno.  (These sites must be related somehow because since it’s the same author, it must be the same article.)

On January 14, Ciaran McGrath of the London newpaper Daily Express used my analysis to sum up a column analyzing the Europe-China investment agreement that prompted my post in the first place.

And on January 5, the Cato Institute’s Ted Galen Carpenter (full disclosure: a close personal friend) cited my piece in a post of his expressing general agreement.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Making News: Biden China Setback Post Re-Published in The National Interest

Tags

alliances, allies, China, EU, European Union, globalism, investment, Joe Biden, Making News, multilateralism, The National Interest

I’m pleased to announce that my recent RealityChek post on the European Union’s decision to sign an investment agreement with China, and how it’s trashed apparent President-elect Joe Biden’s globalist dreams of a multilateralist, allies-centric China policy, was re-published yesterday as a blog item by The National Interest. Click here to read – or re-read – with a snazzier layout!

And all throughout the year, keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.