Two experts raise concern over US treatment of allies and tariffs

I watched two separate interviews, one last week on PBS Newshour with a representative of the Council on Foreign Relations and one this morning on CBS Morning News with Ian Bremmer, the head of The Eurasia Group. I felt they both framed the issues and concerns very neatly.

The former noted while Trump has accurately raised concern over China and their pilfering of intellectual capital and trade deficits, he does not have a coherent strategy. It was noted that his tactics are less than effective, especially since this issue affects our G7 allies. It would be far better to work in tandem with our allies to put pressure on China, rather than place tariffs on them as well. He also noted the World Trade Organization has several levers that could be deployed to help with this effort.

As for the lack of coherence, Trump rightfully noted the intellectual capital is the greater concern, but said if China bought more goods from the US, that would be enough. If your biggest issue is theft of intellectual capital, buying more goods does not address that issue.

As for Bremmer, he has interviewed representatives of the G7 who attended the less than fruitful summit in Canada. He said the other members outside of the US all noted the relationship with the US is very far from the “10” that Trump assigned to it. He noted that between Merkel and Trump, it is about as dysfunctional as it gets. He added that other G7 countries worry that Trump has fewer reasonable voices advising him, so there is no one to reach out to that will get in the President’s ear.

What will come out as the Starburst Outburst, after the famous picture with leaders imploring Trump, he stood and agreed to sign a cooperation agreement that staff worked on until 3 am, including Larry Kudlow of the US. Then he reached into his pocket and grabbed two Starburst candies and threw them on the table saying “Angela, don’t say I never gave you anything.” This is about as demeaning as it gets, rivaling his refusal to shake her hand in the oval office.

The picture will be in future history books as a milepost of when the US turned its back on its allies. It will be in the section entitled “When the US ceded its global leadership position.” It is compilation of things that make me say this, not just the ill-advised tariffs.

They include: pulling out of an Asia-Pacific trade deal that went through without the US, announcing the pull out of the Paris Climate Change Accord, ignoring the pleas of allies to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, pulling out of the United Nations Human Rights council, separating children from parents at the border and adding more demands after a NAFTA deal was crafted. Then, there is the bullying, lying to and lying about our allies. Shoving the Macedonia President out of the way is as good a metaphor as any.

The United States is becoming a pariah under Trump. Until the so-called Republican leaders acknowledge this, we will continue to be such. How low must we go?

 

The biggest global risk to the west

Ian Bremmer, the President of the Eurasia Group and a CBS News Correspondent cited his group’s report on CBS This Morning regarding the greatest global risk. In essence, he said the number one risk is an emergent China filling the void being left by a retrenching US from the global leadership stage. Here is what Bremmer said in the interview about China.

“They  have the strongest leader in Xi Jinping they’ve had at least since Mao [Zedong]. And because the United States is America first, it’s transactional. It’s unilateral. It’s undermining a lot of alliances. You put those things together and suddenly you actually have a China that is willing to engage in what is increasingly a geopolitical vacuum,” Bremmer told “CBS This Morning” on Tuesday.

“In other words, this is the first time we’ve ever seen as U.S. leadership erodes, no one else has been standing up. Now the leader of China is saying we’re prepared to stand up whether it’s on climate or the global economy, you know, regional security, you name it, that’s a big change for the world.”

Bremmer cited an easy example. The US President said he is going to cut funding to Pakistan as they are not doing enough to combat terrorism. The sad truth is it really does not matter that much, as China supports Pakistan more than we do and will step up. I mentioned in a recent post that twice now, Xi Jingping followed the US President at two world events in Davos and Vietnam. The Chinese leader gave the speech the US President usually gives regarding working together globally. Trump spoke of maximizing only American interests.

Not only is this counterproductive, it will actually hurt our share of the global pie making us less relevant.There are two things to note. First, the position that Xi is advocating used to be a foundation of the US Republican Party. The party sold its soul to support the short-sighted and bullying President who gives the illusion of being a populist.

Second, the US cannot shrink to greatness. We are actually doing pretty well as a country and were so when Trump took office. It is the distribution of wealth that is the problem and this President has done very little to resolve that problem. Lessening our global position not only will hurt our economy, it will make us less safe.

If Trump continues in office through one term, this period will be viewed by historians when the US made an unforced error and ceded its global leadership position. This is the exact opposite of what the President should be doing.

 

 

140 Characters and Global Risk

This number equates to twenty words of seven letters or symbols. Or, twenty-eight words of five letters or symbols. Irrespective of the combination, 140 characters typed in impatience is not conducive to well-thought out communication.

Yet, when in the hands of an ego-maniacal, less informed than needed and thin-skinned man who does not filter his thoughts, it is dangerous. People react to these few words that cannot possibly reflect context and subtlety and, in many cases, should not be typed without much thought and input from expert advisors. It is a bumper sticker approach to policy statements and governance.

But, when these character limits are deployed with national security messages, they are a recipe for disaster. The author has been advised on more than one occasion by another country how troubling these communiques are, most recently by China about his tweet on North Korea.

If this author is intending to govern by tweet with his temperament, this should give every person on the planet pause. But, don’t take my word for it.

On the BBC World News America earlier this week, Ian Bremmer, the founder of the Eurasia Group, an organization who measures risk, said the greatest global risk this year is an independent or retrenching America from the global scene. Bremmer said it would be akin to removing the guard rails on the global highways.

This is the stated posture of the President-elect to look more within. Imagine that concept being executed in the hands of the same less-informed, ego-maniacal and temperamental tweeting man. What could possibly go wrong?