Our So-Called Foreign Policy: The U.S. Public Opinion Gap isn’t Only Partisan

Tags

alliances, America First, climate change, Democrats, globalism, Immigration, Jobs, national security, nuclear deterrence, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Pew Research Center, Republicans, terrorism, Trump, weapons of mass destruction

A recent (November 29) Pew Research Center poll on public attitudes toward foreign policy issues was a classic good news/bad news story – at least if you believe that the top priority of American foreign policy should be to promote the security and well-being of the American people.

On the one hand, that’s pretty much what the results show – that’s the good news. On the other hand, these commonsense positions prevail overwhelmingly because adults viewing themselves as either Republicans or Republican leaners hold them. That’s the bad news.  In other words, the views of Democrats and those leaning Democratic reveal a marked disregard for their nation’s self-preservation and prosperity.

According to Pew, 72 percent of all Americans say that “taking measures to protect the U.S. from terrorism” should “be a top foreign policy priority,” 71 percent would assign the same priority to “protecting jobs of American workers,” and 66 percent regard “preventing the spread” of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with similar urgency.

But now check out the partisan splits: On the terrorism issue, fully 84 percent of Republicans and their leaners regard it as a top foreign policy priority. Only 61 percent of Democrats and their leaners agree. So much, i.e., for the idea that Americans will never forget September 11. And remember – the question only described protection from terrorism as a top priority, not the top foreign policy priority.

On protecting American workers’ jobs, 81 percent of Republicans and their leaners would treat it as a priority, versus only 65 percent of Democrats and their leaners. I’m old enough to remember when the Democrat called themselves the party of working Americans.

The exception here is preventing the spread of WMD: Fewer (64 percent of Republicans and their leaners see it as a major priority than do Democrats and their leaners (68 percent), but these results are very close.

Many of the other Pew poll findings are not the slightest bit surprising. Principally, the biggest partisan divides on foreign policy issues come on “dealing with global climate change,” “reducing illegal immigration into the U.S.,” and “maintaining U.S. military advantage over all other countries.”

But here’s what’s more surprising. The Democrats, and especially their leaders, have enthusiastically assumed the mantle of globalism champions versus President Trump’s proclaimed America First approach. And a hallmark of globalism, whether on the right or the left ends of the national political spectrum, has been international activism. Liberals and conservatives generally disagree on where to place the emphasis (e.g., emerging transnational issues like climate change and migration versus more traditional security-oriented issues), but energetic engagement is favored by all.

Nonetheless, if you look carefully at the Pew results, Democrats and their leaners would place the “top priority” label on relatively few foreign policy issues. Indeed, only one such candidate for this status reaches the 70 percent mark with these groups – “improving relationships with allies.” And only four issues are seen as top priorities by 60 or more percent of Democrats and their leaners – as stated above, WMD (68 percent), protecting American jobs (65 percent), climate change (64 percent) and terrorism (61 percent). 

Overall, then, it’s easy to conclude from these and other findings in the Pew poll that Democrats and their leaners may be globalists, but they’re globalists who don’t seem to regard overseas-related challenges with overwhelming concern. Alternatively, they’re reluctant to support zeroing in on a limited (and arguably more manageable) set of goals. P.S., the relatively low score for climate change seems especially noteworthy given the importance progressive Democrats and others relatively far to the Left have attached to the idea of a “Green New Deal.”

It’s even easier to conclude that Republicans and their leaners are more committed to an America First-type approach. And it looks like this commitment is somewhat stronger. Their highest priority foreign policy issues are the aforementioned terrorism and job protection – where their priority scores are in the 80s percent. And their next three priorities are maintaining a national military edge (70 percent), reducing illegal immigration (68 percent), and preventing WMD spread (64 percent). For good measure, “getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order” comes in at 56 percent.

However revealing these Pew results, they still left out two of the biggest questions for politicians and others trying to surmise which approaches to U.S. foreign policy, and what specific initiatives, would garner the most and least public support. The first is how genuine political independents view these issues. The second is how high a priority is assigned to preventing a nuclear attack on the U.S. homeland.

The importance attached to halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction points to great concern about this challenge. But the strong support expressed by Democrats and their leaners for shoring up America’s alliance relations indicates an especially serious lack of awareness on their part that indiscriminately extending nuclear umbrellas over U.S. allies has greatly increased the odds of such attack (principally from the newish NATO commitments to the highly vulnerable Baltic states, and the longstanding commitment to protect South Korea from North Korea and its new nuclear capabilities).

Of course, these Americans can’t entirely be blamed for this knowledge gap, as both U.S. leaders and the mainstream media continue to work overtime to mask the – growing – nuclear war risks inherent in the nation’s alliance system. (President Trump has been only a partial exception.) Hopefully 2019 will see some explicit, intellectually honest discussion of these dangers – and well before they reach critical mass.

Advertisements

Im-Politic: Has a Major U.S. Economist Secretly Been in China’s Pocket?

Tags

China, donors, economists, globalization, Huawei, Im-Politic, Isaac Stone Fish, Jeffrey D. Sachs, national security, Project Syndicate, technology, telecommunications, think tanks, trade war, Trump, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Washington Post

I’ve always been skeptical of claims that money explains everything about where prominent folks stand on policy debates. Sure, money talks loudly, and that’s why, for example, I’ve so consistently reported on how leading U.S. think tanks are lavishly funded by corporate interests (e.g., here) and even by foreign governments (e,g, here) with huge stakes in matters on which they regularly comment, such as trade and globalization issues.

But I’ve believed that for the most part, their positions are also at least partly sincerely held – reflecting either an inability even to question what they’ve learned in school, or the power of group-think in their professional and social circles (inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway in particular these realms tend to overlap substantially), their honest convictions, and typically some combination of the above.

I still refuse automatically to write off analysts who disagree with me as simple donors’ mouthpieces, but a recent incident has reminded me that – in the words of a close long-time friend – when seeking to understand political behavior, the most cynical explanation is rarely wrong.

The story begins with an article on the Project Syndicate website – a sort of digital global op-ed page (which, to be sure, overwhelmingly publishes writers with globalist/establishment viewpoints) – by economist Jeffrey D. Sachs.

Sachs is a world-renowned figure in his field, but as with many of his colleagues, seems to assume that mastery of conventional economic concepts translates into expertise on all other subjects. (Google “Krugman, Paul” for perhaps the leading example of this phenomenon.) So I wasn’t entirely surprised to see him writing on the recent American arrest, on sanctions-busting charges, of a senior executive from the Chinese telecommunications entity Huawei – even though he has no special credentials on China, or technology, or national security.

I was very surprised by the nature of Sachs’ attack on the U.S. action, which ran on December 11. Most criticisms of the arrest focused on whether it would escalate the U.S.-China trade war – whether because it signaled a more aggressive turn in Washington’s approach, or because it would trigger Chinese retaliation – or whether the United States ultimately could curb China’s technological development, or whether the American tech industry could continue excelling after a cutoff of its access to Chinese markets or parts and components.

But according to Sachs, the Huawei arrest mattered most because it showed that “The Trump administration, not Huawei or China, is today’s greatest threat to the international rule of law, and therefore to global peace.” That’s pretty out there given that Huawei’s largest shareholder is a Chinese telecommunications company owned outright by the Chinese state, that its close relationship with Beijing has caused governments the world over to limit its presence in their markets for national security reasons, and that the Chinese regime itself has been challenging international law, and in turn peace and security, in the South China Sea region.

Still, I was inclined to write off Sachs’ diatribe as yet another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome, or the outgrowth of idolatry of the globalization status quo fanatical enough to fuel (sincere) outrage at any development threatening to change it – e.g., President Trump’s decision to confront China’s trade predation.

As a result, I was inclined to dismiss as off-base the reaction of one of my Twitter followers to Sachs’ article: “I guess we know who is signing Jeffrey Sachs’ paycheck these days.”

So imagine my surprise when, on December 12, Washington Post columnist Isaac Stone Fish reported that Sachs had written the forward to a big report put out by Huawei in November.

Nothing necessarily improper there. Academics engage in such activities all the time. And if Sachs genuinely believes that an entity that clearly is an arm of the repressive Chinese government deserved “kudos” for “producing… a timely and clear roadmap to help governments, businesses and civil society [emphasis added] to create digital nations on the path to sustainable development,” well that’s his business.

What is massively improper has been Sachs’ reactions to Fish’s questions about Sachs’ relationship with Huawei in light of his glowing praise of the entity both in the report and in his Project Syndicate piece: “Did Huawei pay you for that [the forward]? If so, don’t you think you should disclose that?”

Rather than respond to Fish, Sachs stonewalled – in fact, going so far as to delete his Twitter account.

In the process, he not only made it difficult to avoid the conclusion that he has something to hide when it comes to Huawei. He’s also unavoidably created shadows over two respected organizations with which he’s been closely affiliated: Columbia University’s Earth Institute (which he headed between 2002 and 2016), and that Institute’s Center for Sustainable Development (which he heads now).

I’ve been looking for evidence of Huawei or other Chinese funding for these organizations, and haven’t found any yet. But that doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been any (perhaps funneled through third parties?), and that it hasn’t colored their work. Because like I said, when seeking to understand political behavior, the most cynical explanation is rarely wrong.

Im-Politic: Immigration Realists Should Love this Corporate Cheap Labor Lobby Immigration Study

Tags

Business Roundtable, Cheap Labor Lobby, China, Im-Politic, Immigration, Jobs, national security, Open Borders, OPT, Optical Practical Training program, student visa, tech jobs

You have to hand it to the Business Roundtable (BRT) – an organization comprised of the CEOs of America’s largest companies. It’s not often that a lobby group puts out a study that undercuts its own message in no less than three ways. But that’s exactly what the Roundtable has accomplished with its new report warning about the consequences of Trump administration actions deemed likely to reduce the numbers of foreign students that come to study in the United States.

The focus of the BRT’s concern is the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which allows foreign students to work temporarily for employers for years after their graduation. The Roundtable and other supporters of issuing lots of these visas portray them as a valuable way for domestic U.S. businesses to improve their (and the nation’s) competitiveness by increasing their access to the best talent on the planet. As a result, they argue, programs like OPT boost these students’ incentives to study in the United States and thereby become eligible to enhance its well-being to begin with.

Opponents charge that OPT hands employers yet another means of hiring less expensive foreigners over equally capable but more expensive native-born workers, and thus suppressing wages for all workers in the technology-heavy industries in which these visa holders are highly concentrated. OPT and programs like it have also been criticized (including by the Trump administration) for enabling large numbers of students from China gain cutting-edge tech skills that Beijing can ultimately used to undermine American economic and national security interests, and for providing these students and the Chinese government with golden opportunities to spy on American industry.  

The BRT’s case for the biggest possible OPT program rests entirely on its supposed economic benefits. But these exclusively economic arguments are their own Achilles Heel.

First, the damage the BRT claims the U.S. economy will suffer from a hypothetical (but in my view, reasonably assumed) 35 percent reduction in OPT visas by 2020 and a consequent 60 percent decline in participation in OPT by 2020 is laughably small. Chiefly, by 2028, according to the BRT, the economy will be a cumulative $52 billion smaller in inflation-adjusted terms than otherwise, and the cumulative number of jobs lost by native-born Americans will hit 255,000.

These numbers may sound big, but keep in mind: They represent not annual losses but the estimated total damage over ten years from OPT cutbacks. And they’re laughably miniscule given that the United States currently produces goods and services (the activity that generates the “size of the economy,” or gross domestic product, figure) at an annual, rate of nearly $18.7 trillion in real terms, and that this economy is currently supporting nearly 150 million jobs.

Second, logically speaking, the reverse proposition is also true: If the economic losses resulting from cutting back on the OPT program are so infinitesimal, then so is the economic contribution made by the program at its current size. In fact, it’s reasonable to conclude from the BRT report that if OPT was eliminated completely, the U.S. economy (rightly) wouldn’t even notice.

Third, the BRT’s complete neglect of the national security dangers posed by the OPT program looks like an implicit confession that they’re considerable. Are the BRT’s CEOs telling us that they shouldn’t be considered at all? That reducing them is worth no cost at all? That enhancing national security isn’t even worth the itsy-bitsy price that the BRT itself reveals OPT curbs would entail? 

Of course, none of these conclusions reflects well on the Roundtable, or on the corporate Cheap Labor Lobby of which it’s a card-carrying member. That’s why I’m hoping that immigration and national security realists share it with as many recipients – including government decision-makers – as possible. If this is the best that the Open Borders movement’s Big Business branch can do to tout the OPT program, it’s fate will quickly be sealed.

Making News: Back Tonight on Nationally Syndicated Radio on the Trade War & Huawei

Tags

China, Huawei, Iran, Making News, national security, sanctions, tech, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return tonight to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show to help provide an update on the U.S.-China trade conflict.  The segment, which is slated to begin at 9 PM EST, will also deal with the arrest in Canada of a senior Chinese technology executive for allegedly violating U.S. national security sanctions on Iran.

You can listen live on-line at this link, and as always, if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Pundit’s China Policy Delusions

Tags

2016 election, artificial intelligence, big government, China, Holman Jenkins, incomes, Jobs, Jr., national security, offshoring, tech transfer, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, Trump, Welfare State, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Holman Jenkins, Jr. did make one important and useful point in his Wall Street Journal column yesterday on U.S.-China trade policy (which puts him far ahead of most of the punditocracy): He’s absolutely right to call on President Trump to “lay out for the American people just how thoroughly [he] intends to shake up the hugely important U.S.-China economic relationship.”

For weeks, I’ve offered Mr. Trump exactly the same advice – to explain his China end game comprehensively to the American people in a prime-time Oval Office address (though unlike the free trade-obsessed Jenkins, I believe such a speech would boost public support for the Trump China agenda by describing the compelling long-term stakes of what I view as an effort to disengage economically from the PRC – and why they’re more than worth short-term sacrifices).

As for the rest of his column? It’s useful only for reminding Americans how internally contradictory and dangerous (not to mention downright ditzy) the case remains for retaining most of the pre-Trump China policy status quo. Just a few key examples:

>Jenkins insists that rather than pursue a “shakeup” that would amount to “following [Chinese leader] Xi Jinping down the path of seeking foreign scapegoats for failure and heavy-handed intervention at home,” the United States should be “building up our military and alliances.”

But what would be the point of sending more troops and equipment to East Asia while Washington returned to trade policies that have transferred literally trillions of dollars to the Chinese state and helped fuel a rapid military buildup, and investment policies that have ignored the massive export of advanced defense-related knowhow to Chinese entities, and for too long overlooked Chinese acquisitions of similar assets in the American economy?

>According to Jenkins, “China’s avid pursuit of artificial intelligence” shouldn’t worry Western experts because it’s “likely to be employed mainly in destroying the creativity and initiative of its own people.” But capabilities even remotely that massive won’t threaten any major U.S. strategic interests?

>In Jenkins’ view, central to strengthening the U.S. economy sufficiently to meet the Chinese threats he doesn’t laugh off is “dealing with the fiscal challenge of our welfare state.” But good luck with the politics of shrinking social safety nets under an American approach to globalization that kept sending valuable opportunities to earn middle- and even living-wage working- class incomes to China and other penny-wage and regulation-free production and export platforms.

Jenkins isn’t entirely wrong in his overall conclusion that “American prosperity is still made at home.” But the impact of purely domestic reforms is bound to be seriously diluted after decades of Jenkins and his crowd at the Journal (along with most of the rest of the nation’s punditocracy, the pre-Trump Republican party, and the Clinton-ite Democrats) focusing like laser beams on building a truly globalized economy.

And finally – about that headline calling for a “vote on a China Cold War”  (even though the article’s body only glancingly mentions the point): During his successful White House run, President Trump made no secret of his determination to overhaul America’s China trade policy. From the standpoint of democratic legitimacy, the Trump 2016 election victory was all the mandate his administration’s China policy measures need.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Now That It’s a Real China Trade War….

Tags

Apple Inc., Bob Woodward, China, consumer goods, Fear, foreign direct investment, Gary Cohn, intermediate goods, Jobs, manufacturing, national security, prices, producer goods, supply chains, tariffs, technology, Trade, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Now it’s a “trade war.” By slapping tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China, President Trump has now placed in harm’s way roughly half of all last year’s American purchases of goods from the PRC. So I’ll stop using quotes around the phrase, at least when it comes to China developments. And here are some points that deserve special emphasis:

>For many of the same reasons that the new tariffs on China or on steel haven’t shown any sign of increasing prices for the intermediate (or producer) goods that businesses buy (the focus of previous tranches, and of the Trump metals tariffs), this larger set of tariffs on consumer goods are unlikely to cause much pain for American shoppers.

As I’ve written, if businesses don’t believe that their markets can currently bear price increases, what it is about the tariffs that will change their assessment – especially in the next few weeks and even months? Put differently, if they’re likely to raise prices then, why haven’t they done so already? Are they really in the habit of giving their customers unsolicited and unnecessary price breaks at the expense of their revenues and profits?

In this vein, President Trump’s decision to exempt some prominent Apple products from the new levies suggests he’s been snookered by the tech giant – for fear of spoiling too many Americans’ Christmases. In fact, here’s an article that makes clear that Apple’s pricing policies have virtually nothing to do with the cost of the components it uses.

Of course, it seems logical to suppose that if consumer products companies won’t be raising their prices much because of the tariffs, then the supplier of those products – China – won’t be harmed either, because sales levels will remain generally unchanged. But actually, the tariffs will accomplish a somewhat related but highly worthwhile goal (that is, if you believe that China’s predatory trade practices pose a major problem for the American economy): They’ll make China a higher cost, and therefore less competitive supplier of these products.

As a result, the American companies they depend on will have further incentives to shift supply chains outside China. For most consumer goods, which are labor intensive, nearly all of the beneficiaries won’t be domestic U.S. competitors and their workers. Instead, they’ll be other very low-cost countries with natural comparative advantages in these industries.

But this result will definitely weaken employment in China and possibly the PRC’s politics – whose stability has long depended on the ability of China’s leaders to deliver rising living standards for a critical mass of China’s population. Both developments would unmistakably serve U.S. interests.

Electronics – both consumer and “higher tech” – look like a conspicuous exception, due to the sheer size of China’s industrial complex in these sectors and the scale advantages alone that they create. Few acceptable alternative production sites will be available for many years. Nonetheless, there’s much more potential for production and job shifts back to the United States for the large number of non-electronics advanced manufacturing industries where domestic American producers would boast considerable competitive advantage – especially if they didn’t need to worry about predatory Chinese competition.

>The President’s decision to limit the tariff on the new group of targeted Chinese products to ten percent (at least initially) strongly indicates his awareness that his trade policies could well provoke even greater opposition than has been expressed already. In other words, despite his professed confidence, trade wars aren’t always “easy to win.” But he needs to do much more to generate and even preserve needed public support. Specifically, Mr. Trump needs to make an address – or even a series of addresses – from the Oval Office, with all its trappings, explaining why the stakes of America’s economic conflict with China are so high, and therefore why some domestic sacrifice will be absolutely essential.

The President has spoken about the need for tariffs at numerous rallies and brief sessions with reporters. But his main points – that the Chinese have been ripping Americans off for decades, that basic fairness must be restored, and even that success will mean investment and jobs flooding back to U.S. shores – are sadly inadequate to the task. As widely observed, at risk from continued China policy failures are the nation’s security and future as global technology leader – which will undercut future U.S. prosperity in ways that dwarf even the employment and production damage suffered so far.

That such an address hasn’t been made – and by such an effective communicator – could be a sign that an overarching China strategy still hasn’t been developed. And although Mr. Trump’s initiatives so far show every sign of throwing Beijing off balance, they’ll fall way short of their (needed) potential unless carried out as part of an integrated strategy.

>My own candidate for such a strategy – economic disengagement from China. The main reasons?

First, the clearest lesson from decades of generally unfettered U.S.-China trade and investment is that the two countries’ economic systems are simply too incompatible to permit mutually beneficial commerce.

Second, as I’ve written, even full Chinese agreement to most American demands can’t be adequately verified by Washington. China’s manufacturing complex is too vast, and its government operates too secretively. In this vein, in particular, subsidies are way too fungible for outsiders to track.

Third, most forms of continued economic engagement with China will inevitably continue to strengthen directly or indirectly China’s ability to challenge U.S. national security interests. In macroeconomic terms, continuing huge Chinese trade surpluses with the United States will keep ensuring that Beijing will have the resources needed to continue its rapid military buildup while satisfying civilian needs satisfactorily. In more sector-specific terms, continued American manufacturing investment will continue bolstering China’s ability to turn out the advanced weapons and other defense-related goods to enable Beijing to narrow further America’s remaining military and underlying technology edges. (That’s one reason why the administration’s stated objective of making China an easier environment for American business is so dubious.)

The Trump administration has made good disengagement progress on the inbound foreign direct investment front. But even here, much more can and should be done. For how can any acquisitions of American businesses or other assets by a non-market economy like China reinforce the free market basis of the U.S. economy? Indeed, how can such transactions help but distort and ultimately weaken American capitalism?

But let’s end on an optimistic note: Assuming Fear, Bob Woodward’s new tell-all book about the Trump administration, is accurate, there’s no more Gary Cohn running around the White House taking advantage of his position as head of the National Economic Council to snatch needed proposals like these from the President’s desk.

Following Up: Still Lots of Unanswered Questions About that Trump NAFTA Revamp

Tags

auto parts, autos, Canada, domestic content, Following Up, Mexico, NAFTA, national security, North American Free Trade Agreement, rules of origin, Trade, Trump, World Trade Organization, WTO

In recent days, the Trump administration has reached a trade deal with Mexico that either may or may not fundamentally rework the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). I say “may or may not” because above and beyond the question of whether the third NAFTA signatory, Canada, will actually go along, and whether Congress will agree to consider a bilateral as opposed to a trilateral deal, some of the most important provisions of the bilateral U.S.-Mexico pact remain unknown to the public.

In particular, it’s completely unclear what the United States and Mexico have agreed to regarding the rules of origin for automotive products traded within the NAFTA zone. In fact, it’s completely unclear whether what they reportedly have agreed to is an agreement at all.

To remind: The rules of origin specify how much of a product (in this case, most motor vehicles as well as all automotive parts) needs to be made inside North America in order to qualify for tariff-free treatment when its sold in any of the signatory countries. The idea – totally reasonable, in my opinion – is to make sure that as many of the benefits of a trade deal as possible flow to the signatories (which of course, legally need to incur all of the obligations) and don’t leak out to non-signatories (which of course legally need to incur none of the obligations).

Automotive trade is crucial in this respect because vehicles and parts combined last year made up nearly a third of all U.S. merchandise imports from Mexico, and (revealingly) 9.65 percent of the considerably smaller amount of U.S. goods exports to Mexico.

As I’ve repeatedly observed, the original NAFTA failed to achieve this objective. And the main problem was not the level of North American content required for duty-free treatment (62.5 percent). The main problem was that the penalty for ignoring the rules was so negligible (a 2.5 percent tariff). And it appears that even though the content requirement has been increased (to 75 percent), the meager penalty remains. Reportedly, it’s also the only obstacle to automakers ignoring the new requirement that 40 to 45 percent of a vehicle be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.

So it’s entirely reasonable to finish most news accounts and conclude that the new U.S.-Mexico treaty will do little to achieve its stated goal of inducing automakers based outside North America to move production and jobs inside North America.

Complicating matters, though, are some wrinkles in the U.S.-Mexico deal that have been reported in the days since the agreement was first announced. Principally, according to some news accounts, much higher 25 percent tariffs will be imposed on vehicles assembled in Mexico and sent to the U.S. market once the number of those vehicles exceeds 2.4 million. Therefore, the actual automotive rules of origin may well have been genuinely toughened.

Nevertheless, for several reasons, this conclusion, too, needs to be qualified. For Mexico exported only 1.8 million passenger cars and sport-utility vehicles to the United States last year. So its sales would need to rise considerably before that genuine toughening kicks in. Second – and again, reportedly – this provision of the agreement is contained in a side letter. The apparent failure to include it in the core text of the agreement raises questions about its enforceability – especially since the same reports indicate that under it, Mexico retains the right to challenge those higher tariffs at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Moreover, I’ve seen absolutely nothing about any quotas for imports of auto parts as such from Mexico – which are currently running at an annual rate topping $16 billion.

That could actually be good news for the United States – because the auto tariffs (again, reportedly) would be based on the U.S. trade law that authorizes Washington to impose levies based on national security considerations. Such trade curbs are legal under WTO rules because the creators of even this sovereignty-impinging arrangement recognized that no major powers would ever surrender their right to assess and act on their national security interests. It’s plausible, therefore, to believe that today’s WTO majority would shy away from challenging this kind of decision by Washington, however damaging it might be to their exports, for fear of provoking a U.S. walkout and thus the organization’s demise.

But there’s no guarantee of this outcome – especially if or when a more WTO-friendly administration replaces Mr. Trump’s in Washington.

It’s true that an eventual Trump decision to impose lofty national security-justified auto tariffs on non-North American auto-makers would render many of these questions moot – because even if Mexico was exempted, and those companies therefore could keep supplying the American market through that channel, they’d quickly run up against the quota (assuming of course that one exists).

Yet this auto tariff decision seems to lie pretty far down the road. In the meantime, the NAFTA decision continues to look pretty confusing. I’m just hoping that this post will make your confusion a little more informed.

Making News: A USAToday Op-Ed on Trump & Trade, & a New National Radio Podcast on the China Tech Threat

Tags

CFIUS, China, FDI, Made in China 2025, Making News, national security, tariffs, technology, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, Trump, USAToday

I’m pleased to announce that USAToday has just published my latest op-ed article — a piece arguing that President Trump is exactly right to believe that the United States has ample clout to prevail in trade conflicts with foreign economies. Read it at this link.

Incidentally, this article ran as a solicited rejoinder to a USAToday editorial criticizing Mr. Trump’s trade policies. As I’ve written before, the newspaper deserves great credit for its regular practice of letting readers know that there are (at least) two sides to every story.

Also the podcast is now on-line of my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show. Click here for an information-packed discussion about the latest developments in the U.S.-China competition to control industries and technologies vital for national security and prosperity.

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

Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight Talking China, & CNBC Interview Now On-Line

Tags

China, CNBC, George W. Bush, Gordon G. Chang, investment, Making News, national security, tech, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show tonight to help examine where President Trump’s economic conflict with China stands.  Click here to listen live on-line to what’s sure to be an informative discussion among John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and me.  And our special focus will be U.S. efforts to restrict China’s access to cutting-edge (including  defense-related) technology.  The segment is slated to start at 10 PM EST.

As usual, if you can’t tune in, I’ll be posting a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

Speaking of podcasts (or podcast-like links), click here to see the video of my interview on CNBC Monday on U.S.-China trade tensions.  Especially interesting is that my interlocutor was a former top George W. Bush’s aide who was trying to claim that his administration handled China just swimmingly.

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

 

Making News: A Major New Article on “America First” Foreign Policy, a Return to National Radio – & More!

Tags

America First, China, foreign policy, globalization, Making News, national security, Newsmax Now, Newsmax TV, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, The National Interest, Trade, trade wars, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that a major new article of mine on the future of U.S. foreign policy has just been published in The National Interest.  Titled “America First at Home and Abroad,” it looks at the heated debate over President Trump’s approach to international relations from a wholly new standpoint.

Rather than attacking or defending the President’s stances, the piece argues that Mr. Trump’s departure from the nation’s decades-long globalist strategy is much more bark than bite so far, describes what a genuine ‘America First” policy capable of attracting public and political support would look like, and makes the case that such a strategy is likeliest to serve U.S. security and economic interests going forward.

In addition, I’m scheduled to return to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show tonight at 9 PM EST to help John and co-host Gordon G. Chang provide updated coverage of President Trump’s China trade policies.  Click here to listen live on-line to what’s sure to be a timely and provocative discussion.

And last night, the Newsmax TV program “Newsmax Now” ran a backgrounder segment on U.S.-China trade relations based largely on my analysis of the subject.  Here’s the link; the backgrounder begins at about the 33:40 mark.

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