After two years, the trade war between China and America finally reached a truce by signing a deal that will help the two global powers to normalise their trade relations. The dispute between the two countries escalated after President Donald Trump who has always accused China of unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft, came to power.

Two express his resentment he tweeted last year, “Sadly, past administrations have allowed China to get so far ahead of fair and balanced trade that it has become a great burden to the American taxpayer. As President, I can no longer allow this to happen!”

….Sadly, past Administrations have allowed China to get so far ahead of Fair and Balanced Trade that it has become a great burden to the American Taxpayer. As President, I can no longer allow this to happen! In the spirit of achieving Fair Trade, we must Balance this very….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2019

To encourage Americans to buy their own goods, he imposed $360bn tariffs on Chinese goods, forcing Beijing to retaliate by imposing tariffs on US products worth $110bn. After a series of meetings between US  and Chinese officials, the two countries managed to narrow their differences which culminated into the first phase of trade deal last week.

Under the deal, China will increase US imports by $200bn and also strengthen intellectual property regulations, while the US agreed to reduce the tariffs it had imposed on Chinese products by half. Although the deal could be seen as a base for future negotiations, it failed to address some of the key controversial issues that had led to the deterioration of US-China trade relations.

Huawei

Even though the Chinese tech giant Huawei has been at the centre of the US-China current trade wars, nothing was mentioned about it in the new deal. There seems to be no solution to the matter in the near future. Just before the deal was signed The Wall Street Journal  reported that while Beijing and Washington were about to reach an agreement, the Trump administration was planning to “tighten restrictions on Huawei Technologies Co., that the White House and Congress view as a national security threat.”

Hopes of having an agreement on Huawei were further diminished after the signing of the deal when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC:

“Just as in this deal there were certain rollbacks, in phase two there will be additional rollbacks. I think a significant amount of the technology issues are in phase one. There are certain areas of other services away from financial services that will be in phase two,” he said.

He continued, “There’s certain additional cybersecurity issues that will be in phase two. So, there are still more issues.”  He, however, added. “Huawei is not part of the national security dialogue, which is ongoing. These are going to be negotiated separately.”

Trump’s administration has always believed that Beijing could use Huawei to spy on other countries and has gone to the extent of warning its key ally Britain against contracting the tech company to provide communication infrastructure for the 5G network.

Trump’s warning was that any deal with Huawei would put intelligence sharing between the two countries at risks. But according to sources, Boris Johnson is getting ready to defy the warning by signing a deal with Huawei.

Although Trump used national security as an excuse to ban Huawei, to a large extent his action was mainly influenced by the stiff competition the Chinese company poses to American tech companies such as Apple. This was clear when he said, “We are not doing business with Huawei. We’re going  to do our own business.”

Made In China Policy

Another sticking issue missing from the deal was the ‘Made in China policy’. It was adopted by the Chinese government in 2015, to put China on the same level with top industrialised countries like Germany, South Korea, Japan, and the US by investing in sectors such as IT, vehicles, and robotics.

However the US has remained sceptical of the programme with Secretary of Commerce terming it an “attack on American genius,” while the White House trade advisor called it a brazen announcement that China plans to dominate every single emerging industry of the future”.

Washington’s fear is influenced by the feeling of a threat the programme poses to its own tech supremacy. This is because Chinese companies supported by loans from state-owned and other subsidies would have an upper hand over their US rivals. In May last year, Beijing increased its subsidies to local companies to a record $22bn, further confirming Washington’s fear.

According to Lorand Laskai of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, “If Chinese national champions dominate the Chinese market, they’ll have a leg up abroad and in many cases will replace or outlast foreign competitors by virtue of their market size.”

Whether the US-China deal will hold remains to be seen. Some critics say there is nothing substantial in the deal except that it could give Trump leverage in the elections. Most likely he will use it as a campaign tool by boasting how he had won concessions from the Chinese.

Some analysts have also claimed the deal is likely to collapse within a year because of “limited success stories of government-mandated trade in the past”, and the provision that allows both parties to walk away from the pact

L'articolo Two Key Issues Left Out of US-China Trade Deal proviene da InsideOver.

Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro said he was open for talks with his American counterpart Donald Trump with hopes of improving ties with the US and ending a prolonged political crisis in Venezuela. However, it is uncertain whether the US is willing to do so due to Trump’s hard stance on Venezuela’s socialist government.

During the interview with the Washington Post, Maduro said he was willing to sit down with Trump, suggesting that both countries can benefit from the recovered ties based on mutual respects.

 “If there’s respect between governments, no matter how big the United States is, and if there’s a dialogue, an exchange of truthful information, then be sure we can create a new type of relationship,” the former bus driver told the Post.

Maduro also slammed the White House’s hardliners such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former national security adviser John Bolton for supporting economic embargoes that have worsened Venezuela’s financial crisis (triggered by the sharp drop in global oil prices in 2014).

“I believe Mike Pompeo has failed in Venezuela and is responsible for Donald Trump’s failure in his policy toward our country. I think Pompeo lives in a fantasy. He’s not a man with his feet on earth. I think Trump has had terrible advisers on Venezuela. John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Elliott Abrams have caused him to have a wrong vision,” Maduro added.

How did the US react?

In response to the Post interview with Maduro, Bolton tweeted that negotiations are unlikely, adding that Maduro should be an exile in either Cuba or Russia, among the countries that back the former aide to the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

“Maduro tells the Washington Post he wants negotiations with the United States? The only negotiations we should have with Maduro are what he wants for lunch on the plane that will take him to permanent exile in Cuba or Russia. Viva Venezuela libre.”

Maduro tells the Washington Post he wants negotiations with the United States? The only negotiations we should have with Maduro are what he wants for lunch on the plane that will take him to permanent exile in Cuba or Russia. Viva Venezuela libre. @JGuaido

— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) January 19, 2020

An Overview of Venezuela’s Crisis

The economic crisis in the oil-rich nation turned into the political discontent due to the growing distrust in the socialist regime. In 2017, mass rallies took place to protest against Maduro’s new constitution, which was seen as a threat to democracy.

In May 2018, Maduro won re-election against his contender, Henri Falcon, meaning that the socialist politician would secure another six-year term in office.

Maduro’s victory divided Venezuela, as well as Latin American nations and the world. Venezuela’s opposition groups and the West accused Maduro of rigging the vote. They called for a fresh election, while countries such as China, Russia, Turkey, and some of the leftist nations such as Bolivia supported Maduro and slammed the West for interfering in Venezuela’s domestic politics.

An unknown politician from the opposing side Juan Guaido became a self-proclaimed president, the US, and its European allies supported. Earlier this month, the 36-year-old man was sworn in as the head of the National Assembly despite being blocked from entering the parliament building.

Will the talks with Trump be a reality?

Maduro’s call for talks with Trump came as no surprise, given that in early 2019 he confirmed that Venezuela’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Jorge Arreaza had secretly met with the US envoy to Caracas in New York. The incumbent expressed his readiness to talk with Trump anytime, anywhere, without specifying more detail.

Two senior Venezuela officials confirmed Maduro’s statement, but they had no authority to talk publicly about the meeting. Both officials admitted that Arreaza and the US envoy Elliott Abrams had met twice at Washington’s request.

In August, Norway mediated the talks between Venezuela’s government and opposition representatives. However, the negotiations faltered.

In the recent interview with the Washington Post, Maduro hoped that he could meet with Trump and asked the POTUS to remove the economic sanctions that have worsened the crisis.

Despite Venezuela’s mismanagement in the oil sector and corrupt government, the US-backed sanctions have killed tens of thousands and halted Venezuelans to access food and health care, according to the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) report in 2017.

The sanctions are depriving Venezuelans of lifesaving medicines, medical equipment, food, and other essential imports. This is illegal under US and international law and treaties that the US has signed. Congress should move to stop it,” the report said as The Independent quoted.

Unlike Bolivia’s President Evo Morales who resigned following protests against his re-election, Maduro’s position is still strong thanks to the military support he has enjoyed so far.

Trump has yet to respond to Maduro’s call so far. However, as long as the US does not want to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate leader and insists on sanctions, the talks (if they take place) unlikely to create peace for Venezuela.

L'articolo Maduro’s Ready To Talk To Trump, No Response From The White House So Far proviene da InsideOver.

As Israel faces its third election in a year because of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s possible impeachment, the odds of him returning to power are becoming increasingly slim. The polls so far have been close for the current Prime Minister as the Walla news site discovered in December that 38 percent of people believe that Benny Gantz, the leader of the Blue and White Party, is better suited to be Prime Minister, while 37 percent say Netanyahu is good for the role. But the Trump administration’s peace plan for the country could change everything for Netanyahu.

Referred to as the ‘Deal of the Century’, US President Donald Trump will decide on whether to release his plan before the Israeli election. A December report by Lebanese TV channel al-Mayadeen saw a draft copy of the deal that revealed a Palestinian state would share some responsibilities over Jerusalem, but the city would remain under Israeli control.

The plan also includes the formation of ‘New Palestine’ in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the settlement blocs to become part of Israel.

Gantz has accused Washington of intervening in the election. Haaretz columnist Chemi Shalev said Trump’s peace plan ‘would throw a stink bomb at Israeli democracy.’ Shalev adds that the US President refused to publish the deal before the April 9th and September 12th elections because Netanyahu was not desperate for help then, but circumstances have changed due to the Prime Minister’s likely impeachment.

However, Trump may be releasing the deal at this time to benefit himself more than his ally. It was reported by American news website Axios that Channel 13’s Barak Ravid said if the US President waits until after Israel’s poll to release the plan, it may be difficult for him to do so due to his own re-election.

Also, Trump’s national security adviser Robert O’Brien told Axios that releasing the plan before the March 2nd election would not harm Israel’s electoral process, and that he is not focused on the nation’s electoral calendar. He is pessimistic that the country’s political deadlock will end before the deal’s release, which shows the White House is more interested in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than timing the plan’s publication to help a friend.

The President has did not discuss whether to present the plan before the Israeli election. Instead, Trump’s decision will be influenced by developments in Congress’s own impeachment process, the meetings the President and Jared Kushner will have with different leaders from the Middle East and Europe during the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, and Trump’s son-in-law’s final discussion with both Gantz and Netanyahu during the Fifth World Holocaust Forum.

The deal is unlikely to transform Netanyahu’s political fortunes. A Blue and White member told Al-Monitor that the Prime Minister ‘has run out of magic tricks’ and that if he welcomes the plan, Gantz will too. They added that they intend to avoid squabbling with Trump too much before the election and that they wish to maintain Israel’s ‘excellent’ relationship with the White House. Israeli voters who believe a change in government would thwart a peace plan that benefits their nation more than Palestine have nothing to fear if the Blue and White leader also supports the plan, which will only work to his electoral advantage.

It is yet to be seen whether Trump’s decision to publish his peace plan will benefit Netanyahu in the short-term, and what factors will help determine his final choice. If Gantz supports the deal, the Prime Minister will lose his electoral advantage; his close relationship with the US President. There is no reason as to why the Blue and White Party would oppose this deal, yet all can change in less than two months.

L'articolo Does Trump’s Peace Plan Constitute as Interference in Israel’s Election? proviene da InsideOver.

A year after expressing his inability to attend the Republic Day parade in the Indian capital, the US President Donald Trump will be visiting India in February to sign a short term trade deal, paving the way for a longer-term agreement on a later date. Officials from New Delhi and Washington are working out mutually convenient times for the US President Donald Trump’s visit to India.

According to trade observers, Trump wants to counterbalance China with India, which has a considerable market and offers high potentials for US investors. The US, which is a prominent supplier of arms to India, is keen to have greater access to the vast Indian consumer market. The trade agreement with India will be an essential achievement of the Trump administration with the US President seeking a second term in November. With the Modi government, struggling with a slowing Indian economy and keen to attract investment to revive it, a trade package with the US. would facilitate better market access to both countries.

During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States (US) in September 2019, President Donald Trump had made an appearance at the “Howdy Modi” event in Houston, and a trade deal was expected to be announced by the two leaders. But, the two sides differed on some issues before that landmark trip ended. The two sides have been in talks to resolve trade differences, and Trump’s visit could pave the way for an ambitious Free Trade Agreement.

Why the relationship soured

The deal will help to expand India’s exports, especially if the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) is revoked. Tensions over trade tariffs surfaced last year when the Trump administration hiked tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum from several countries, including India. Then, in May 2019, Trump abolished the trade privileges under the US Generalized System of Preferences program, claiming India is not allowing “equitable and reasonable market access” to American goods. India struck back two weeks later, hiking tariffs on 28 items imported from the US worth around USD 220 million.

It may be recalled that since India opened up its economy in 1991, the US-India bilateral trade has grown at a spectacular rate. India- US bilateral trade has increased significantly in the last decade, and it touched approximately USD 160 billion in 2019. The US is also a prominent investor and a significant source of FDI. If the trade deal is concluded, then an investment deal can follow. Mike Pompeo, the United States Secretary of State on a short visit to New Delhi in 2019, said American investments worth trillions of dollars are waiting to be invested in India. Trump followed that up in Osaka by promising India “huge things… in terms of manufacturing, in terms of trade,”- without providing details. India needs to increase employment which only manufacturing can provide, and an increase in exports is a must for it.

The United States and India consider one another as critical strategic partners to advance common interests regionally and globally. The two nations are keen to transform the long friendship between two of the largest free and open democracies into a global strategic partnership. With India’s growing integration in the worldwide economy, the deal is likely to be a win-win position for both the nations, with India getting access to markets where China was the dominant player.

L'articolo Donald Trump to Visit India in February to Sign a Trade Deal proviene da InsideOver.

Foreign policy has traditionally been determining whether or not a president’s tenure can be considered successful. Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been in the spotlight since he won the presidency but has moved even more into focus with the current Iran crisis. While the president will ultimately make the final decision, the vision, the grand strategies, are often shaped by people close to the president. Quincy Adams or George Shultz, only to name a few, were more than just Secretary of State. They were architects of foreign policy doctrines. The same applies to Mike Pompeo, who has become the main driver behind Trump’s foreign policy.

Pompeo, who succeeded Rex Tillerson in March 2018 indicated his political vision for America abroad immediately, yet very few people expected him to reach the influence he now has. Most importantly, European diplomats in Washington knew that Pompeo’s arrival would not only result in an end of the Iran nuclear deal but a significantly different stance on Teheran.

Already during his first speech as the new Secretary of State, Pompeo made it very clear that Trump’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran and also laid down his doctrine for future dealings with Tehran.

The deal that Obama signed with Iran was weak, he criticized, and while it might have delayed Iran’s nuclear program for a few years at most, it did not permanently prevent Tehran from building an atomic bomb. Above all, according to Pompeo, the lifting of economic sanctions associated with the agreement brought “new wealth” to the Iranian regime, which immediately invested the money in the financing of various Shiite militias working in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq for Tehran Waged war. During his first speech, Pompeo also mentioned the name of the man who was responsible for the militia activities: Qassim Soleimani.

Pompeo is cognizant that Tehran is the driving force behind the chaos in the region. Thus, the appeasement politics under the Obama administration was substituted for maximum pressure on the regime to protect the US, its allies, and geopolitical interests in the region. The killing of Soleimani was thus not only imperative from Pompeo’s point of view but in the planning for a more extended period, as the Washington Post had recently reported.

However, it is not merely Pompeo’s stance on Iran that has made him Trump’s most trusted cabinet member. After three years of leaks within the White House, Trump has displayed a reluctance to trust many of his advisors – and often rightfully so. With Pompeo, however, he found a loyal individual, with whom he also appears to connect on a human level. A mix that cannot be overestimated in the current position.

This relationship was cultivated even before Pompeo became a cabinet member. When he had still been the head of the CIA, Pompeo would brief the president personally on all relevant security matters. Usually, a CIA representative would conduct these briefings. However, Pompeo appears to have been cognizant of how beneficial an amicable relationship with this president can be. Moreover, it was CIA Director Pompeo who meeting with the North Koreans first and establishing a line of communication.

Now, as the Secretary of State, Pompeo has continued to build on the foundation the two men had established. Thus one can regularly witness Pompeo’s TV appearances, in which he displays his loyalty by not merely repeating the president’s agenda, but by reaffirming that the president’s agenda is indeed the correct one. In return, Pompeo has been granted the leeway to create the administration’s foreign policy.

With this leeway and power, Pompeo has become more than just Trump’s Secretary of State. It is apparent that Pompeo is significantly more present inside and outside the government than Secretary of Defense Esper, a role that used to carry significantly more responsibility. John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor, was not sharing the same visions as Pompeo and was let go as a result – though the official reason given were differences of opinion with Trump himself. Since Bolton was replaced, however, another formerly highly influential and essential position was filled by a comparable profile-less Robert O’Brien in September 2019 – which will have only increased Pompeo’s influence further.

However, the most critical element that connects Pompeo and Trump is that he shares the President’s America First doctrine. Similar to Bolton, Pompeo has always been hawkish on foreign and security issues with a hardliner stance on Iran. This stance is not an opportunist move by Pompeo, however, but a continuation of a policy he has been conducting dating back to his CIA days. After all, Pompeo, in one of his first acts as CIA Director, was to increase operations against Iran massively.

Further attempts to bring Iran to its knees are thus not only conceivable but almost a certainty.

L'articolo Mike Pompeo: President Trump’s Foreign Policy Architect proviene da InsideOver.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that his country had concluded its attacks on American forces and did not seek an escalation of war after launching more than 20 ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq.

Although senior Iraqi defence officials who work with the US command said that no Americans or Iraqis had been killed in the attacks, Bloomberg’s Karen Leigh, Iain Marlow and Michael Arnold argue that Tehran’s retaliatory strikes could provide the Trump administration with an excuse to avert war. This is because no Americans were killed during the attacks and they were carefully orchestrated by the Iranian Government to ensure US President Donald Trump did not have a reason to start a new conflict. Faysal Itani, a deputy director at the Center for Global Policy in Washington, called it a ‘measured response.’

However, there is still an opportunity for other nations to play their part in easing the crisis. Russia seems to be the only country that has criticised the US’s actions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned the US killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the US’s action last Friday as ‘unacceptable’, but has refused to condemn Washington’s actions. With Beijing currently in the midst of concluding its trade negotiations with the US, they have much to lose by upsetting the Trump administration. Also, they depend upon both Saudi Arabia and Iran for oil, so they are aware that choosing sides in the Middle East is not in their best interests.

If Iran is intent upon avoiding war now that it has engaged in retaliatory attacks against the US following Soleimani’s killing, this is an opportunity for more NATO states to help ease the situation. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that he will not ‘lament’ the Iranian general’s death, but he is also keen to ensure Britain does not participate in another US-led conflict.

French President Emmanuel Macron asked Iranian President Hassan Rouhani not to escalate tensions during a phone call on Tuesday. He urged his Iranian counterpart to respect the 2015 Iran Deal.

Rouhani told Macron that the US cannot be immune from retribution, but said that Iran would return to full compliance with the nuclear deal as soon as other participant countries meet their own obligations under the terms of the deal.

The French President could be a useful ally to Trump regarding Iran. Unlike Washington, he has a direct channel of communication with the Iranian Government and he almost persuaded Trump and Rouhani to meet following the G7 meeting last August, until the US President cancelled at the last minute. Therefore, NATO states like France can make a difference.

The US has no intention of abiding by the 2015 deal, but they do not want another conflict either. The Trump administration should aim to replace Obama’s agreement with one that prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and ease its sanctions in return.

NATO countries can help both sides conclude a new deal by opening up direct channels of communication with Iran, like Macron has, but they should also support Trump more. The 2015 deal failed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons altogether and it allowed Tehran to continue to sponsor terrorist groups. It is in few nations’ best interests to allow the Islamic Republic to continue to do this and they know that the end result could be war if the Obama deal is not replaced.

NATO knows that Russia intends to play a more direct role in Middle Eastern politics. It is unclear how Moscow would react if it came to war, which is why Western countries should be collaborating with Trump more to prevent Putin from manipulating this situation to his advantage.

Western states have much to gain by supporting the Trump administration because if they do not, they are aware that the consequences would be devastating.

L'articolo What role can NATO play to ease the Iranian crisis? proviene da InsideOver.

The current standoff between the United States and Iran is a pivotal time in history. Following the US killing of Kataib Hezbollah members in late December and subsequent American assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qasem Soleimani on Jan. 3, the region is poised to break out into a major escalation of violence. Leader of the Iraqi Shiite militia organization Popular Mobilization Abu Mahdi al Muhandis was also killed in the strike. Supporters of Trump’s action say he is taking the kind of decisive action that former President Barack Obama never did and standing up to America’s adversaries; opponents say Trump is going off half-cocked without a plan and putting the Middle East in danger of another disastrous conflict.

US Threatens Iran If They Hit Back

US President Donald Trump threatened to commit a number of war crimes if Iran retaliates to the US strikes, saying Washington will hit 52 specially selected cultural and high-value targets representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran in 1979. Meanwhile, Kataib Hezbollah has told Iraqis to clear away from US-held sites and bases in Iraq by Sunday evening, suggesting they could be preparing an assault.

What’s The Truth?

The truth is not black and white, nor is it able to be entirely summarized only from one aspect such as strategic, moral, political and economic. Morally speaking, Soleimani was responsible for grievous suffering in Syria, helping turn large areas of Aleppo into a husk and bearing responsibility for some of the horrific suffering of civilians. He also bears blame for pushing the policy of lethal responses to Iraqi protesters as well as helping kill American troops in Iraq. Over 1,500 Iranians were killed in 2019 alone for protesting against Iran’s regime. Nonetheless, it’s undeniable that Soleimani was an immensely capable soldier and strategist who had the ear of Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei and who helped crush ISIS and Al Qaeda. As millions of Iranians turn out on the streets to mourn Soleimani—some hoisting red Shia battle flags commemorating the martyrdom of Hussain—it would be a mistake to think that his assassination will be easily forgotten or that those mourning him are only doing so out of a sense of coercion or pressure from the state.

Strategically, hitting Soleimani is hard to fathom from a strict point of American national interest, since it will likely cause the already economically-squeezed Iranians to hit back via cyber attacks, proxies and destabilization of any governments in their orbit of power, worsening the current situation and leading to more assaults on American troops. Who does Soleimani’s death help? (Hint: not America). It helps the Gulf States, by putting a crack in the armor of the Shia crescent and Israel by weakening their Iranian adversary and pushing back on Iran’s attempt to openly expand and consolidate its influence in the region. Put simply: Trump’s puppet strings are being pulled by Gulf state actors and Israeli interests as well as the so-called “Deep State” within his own government who he constantly claims to oppose and who seem willing to bet that Iran will experience regime change if the current government is backed far enough into a corner and can’t provide security or necessities to its people.

Trump’s Hijacked Government

Quite apart from being a stalwart leader, Trump is a stuffed suit run by the Deep State he claims to hate. As renowned espionage writer John Le Carre put it in 2018, the Trump phenomenon was a “revolution led from above” from the start and his administration is being steadily “annexed by the CIA and the military complex.” This fact should concern any individual who feels uncomfortable with black funds being used to overthrow governments, targeted assassinations and unelected bureaucrats pulling the strings of the world’s most powerful military. Contrary to the claims of eager beaver establishment types and former spymasters like John Brennan—who like to go on the Rachel Maddow Show or give soliloquies about their precious principles and supposed patriotism—intelligence agencies do not always have simple national interest at heart, or at least not a straightforward path to safeguard their particular versions of it. Their concerns and strategies are not the same as Joe Public’s concerns.

What’s Next?

While it’s possible that Trump and his administration are sleepwalking into a conflict with Iran, it’s more likely that Iran will hit back via asymmetric means: this could mean cyber attacks, diplomatic subversion of American interests and increased tempo of building anti-US political alliances and military drills, proxy attacks and bolstering Iranian-supported forces worldwide including in Iraq. If a conventional war happens in well-defended and well-prepared Iran it would be hundreds of times more damaging to America than the war with Iraq, which had already been starved and economically strangled for a decade by President Bill Clinton and decimated during the first Gulf War by the time President George W. Bush sent in US troops. Although conventional war remains unlikely, there is no reason to doubt the ferocity of the Iranian response and the increased suffering that is going to occur in the Middle East in the weeks and months ahead.

L'articolo Trump’s Deep State-Run Foreign Policy proviene da InsideOver.

On 29 December 2019, the heads of the US government gather at Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s California villa. They have interrupted their Christmas holidays to meet with their commander in chief and, together, decide how to confront the revolts which, as from the last few weeks of 2019, have been disrupting Iraq. The tycoon leaves the golf field and locks himself in a room alongside his government high officials to discuss – or at least this is the version which circulated for days,- the raids which, a few hours later, would strike Kataib Hezbollah, the pro-Iranian militia in Syria and Iraq.

As the Washington Post later revealed, however, during the meeting other topics were also discussed. On that occasion, somebody – it is still uncertain who – introduced an option which, until then, had always been considered taboo: the possibility of killing Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, commander of the al Quds forces. It appears that Trump gave the green light to the targeted killing on that very occasion, and immediately, American intelligence launched the search for the general.

Four days later, on 2 January, the American president met with his closest advisors: Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo; Defense Secretary, Mark Esper; US Army Chief of Staff, Mark Milley; Acting Director of National Intelligence, Joe Maguire, and influential Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. But, as Il Corriere reports, “the most highly-anticipated guest was Gina Haspel, CIA director. It was Haspel who put together the dossier on Soleimani’s movements and, above all, on the general’s ‘ominous schemes’”.

They know that the general arrived in Damascus, from where he travelled to Beirut (to meet Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah) and finally made his way back to the Syrian capital where he boarded a flight landing in Baghdad on January 3 at 00.32 where, shortly after, he would meet his death.

The general had been busy during his last days. What with? And, above all, why did he reach the Iraqi capital’s airport travelling on a commercial flight?

As Il Post reveals, “the compound’s security is guaranteed by a private British company, G4S, under Iraqi intelligence supervision, while that of the airport perimeter and the air space is competence of Iraqi counterterrorism in collaboration with the United States.”

Was Soleimani hoping – despite his political standing – to not be seen? Or was he convinced he was protected by some sort of “immunity” as Il Corriere also recently hypothesized?

Maybe, a lead which should be investigated is that indicated by Iraqi premier, Adel Abdel Mahdi. Yesterday, just as his country was voting to expel all US troops from Iraq, Mahdi stated, as we can see in this video, relaunched by Ali Mourad, a reporter of Al Akhbar, a daily newspaper close to Hezbollah: “…I shall say this that it may go down in History: I was supposed to meet Soleimani at 8.30 on the morning he was made a martyr. He was to bring with him the answer to a message we delivered from Saudi Arabia, to reach an agreement in Iraq and the region.”

عادل عبدالمهدي يؤكد أنّه كان بصدد اللقاء بالجنرال #سليماني صباح الجمعة عند الساعة 8:30 للحصول منه على الرد الإيراني على الرسالة #السعودية التي كان عبدالمهدي قد أوصلها لإيران للتوصل لاتفاقات وانفراجات في #العراق والمنطقة pic.twitter.com/wd9uk4DCHh

— Ali Hassan Mourad (@alihmourad) January 5, 2020

If Mahdi’s version were true, it would be reasonable to suppose that Soleimani felt safe as he was the bearer of a diplomatic message. As things stand we cannot refute this account, we can only add pieces to an affair which still presents many obscure points.

L'articolo How Trump Decided to Kill Iranian General Soleimani proviene da InsideOver.

Nothing characterised Donald Trump’s presidential campaign more than his penchant for making new deals, after tearing apart or renegotiating existing ones. Be it the nuclear agreement with Iran or brokering better terms of trade with China, no one was safe from verbal wrath. 

Not even the North American Free Trade Agreement, an almost 30-year old pact that ensured free movement of goods between the US, Canada and Mexico. The agreement had led to thousands of job losses, Trump said, as many US companies shifted their production to Mexico where the costs are lower. The same goods were then imported from there, leading to a trade deficit – something the US president hates with all his heart. 

But earlier this week, the three North American countries finally reached another agreement in place of NAFTA, which the US says “will create more balanced, reciprocal trade that high-paying jobs for Americans” when finalised and implemented.

Trump had time and again complained about US companies moving their manufacturing to Mexico due to cheaper cost of production, resulting in American workers losing their jobs, especially in the auto sector where giants like Ford had relocated much of their factories across the border. The new pact addresses this issue by requiring that 40-45% of auto content be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour. 

This would push up the labour costs in Mexico and discourage US firms to shift manufacturing, or at the very least, ensure a higher wage for American workers involved in the sector. According to a report from the Trump administration, the new deal is expected to create over 76,000 auto jobs over the next five years, while the International Trade Commission puts that figure at 28,000 in a period of six years. 

It further requires Mexico to overhaul its labour justice system, by adding legislative actions that the country must take to provide for the effective recognition of collective bargaining rights. Another key feature is the proposed dispute settlement mechanism, which will ensure the enforcement of core labour standards in Mexico.  

The three countries have also committed to reducing trade distortions, for example by not using export subsidies or WTO special agricultural safeguards for products sold to each other’s markets. 

Another bone of contention for the Trump administration was regarding the tech sector, and the new deal explicitly prohibits Canada and Mexico from requiring US companies to host data of their citizens inside their borders. The agreement further lays a roadmap for digital trade, ruling out the application of customs duties on digital products distributed electronically such as music, software etc. 

However, overall the differences are not that many and might not justify the hype afforded to the entire politics leading up to this agreement. The new deal surely does a good job at addressing key points regarding data and digital trade in an ever-advancing technological world, but in the traditional sectors, the changes have been rather marginal. 

As for the benefits it will reap, there are differing views but even the most generous projections do not add too much to the US economy in terms of investments and jobs. However, now that the matter is hopefully settled once and for all, with backing from House Democrats as well, it will go a long way in boosting investor confidence and tackle the uncertainty that had plagued North American trade. 

Similar results to expect with China?

Now that a breakthrough has been made, with core US demands accepted, many might naturally be wondering if the Trump can score a similar “win” against China or other partners as well. But the underlying fundamentals suggest a different picture. 

Unlike the European Union or China, Canada and Mexico didn’t have too much leverage to bargain given their disproportionate dependence on the US for trade. For example, both had their exports to the United States accounting for 70% of the total proceeds while imports also had close to a 50% share. On the other hand, the two neighbours represented a cumulative 27% of the United States’ trade value. 

Meanwhile, the people’s republic has far more diversified trading partners with 20% of its exports directed towards the US and only 8% or so imports originating from the same. Over the years, China has expanded its trade base to virtually every part of the world, thus eliminating too much dependency on any one country. In addition, its rapidly growing economy offered American companies cheap suppliers and thus became a central part of their supply chains. 

As a result, the US  doesn’t enjoy the same bargaining power with China as it did with its neighbours and hence, won’t be able to dictate the terms of any agreement reached between the two countries.

L'articolo USCMA and Trump’s Art of the Deal proviene da InsideOver.

The World Trade Organization’s appellate body was at a standstill on Wednesday, as the US refused to approve replacement judges.

Just one member remains on the seven-member body, as the Trump administration continues its assault to dismantle the global trade system in favour of US control. Whether headed by the WTO or Trump, global trade has been in rapid decline since 1995, when the WTO was formed.

In May 2017, Saudi Arabia announced a $20 billion investment in US infrastructure. The announcement, which came during President Trump’s visit trip abroad as president, named Blackstone Group LP – the largest alternative investment firm in the world – as the beneficiary to the investment.

“You have two financial interests here – obviously of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund which is putting the money in and wants to make money, and you have Blackstone which is in the business of making money,” reporter, Arash Massoudi said. “They’re going to target deals where they can make money for themselves, ultimately.”

In December 2018, non-profit consumer advocacy organisation, Public Citizen, (which brands itself as an “advocate” for the people), published a report titled: “’Self-Funded’ Trump Now Propped Up By Super PAC Megadonors.” The report disclosed that CEO of Blackstone Group LP, Stephen A. Schwarzman, donated $344,000 to Trump’s re-election campaign. Following his election, Trump appointed Schwarzman as the chairman of the White House Strategic and Policy Forum.

In April 2017, International Business Times reported that Schwarzman oversees “regulatory, energy and infrastructure policies that could enrich Blackstone”. Wisconsin Democratic Senator, Tammy Baldwin would call for Schwarzman to step down from his Trump-appointed position.

“President Trump said he would drain the swamp, yet time and time again he breaks that promise, granting wealthy Wall Street insiders more access, power and influence in Washington,” Baldwin said.

“Mr Schwarzman should submit to federal ethics laws and recuse himself from influencing public policy that enriches his bank account. The last thing we need in Washington is more billionaires making a rigged game worse.”

Trump, a physical manifestation of all the limitations of a globalist economy, markets himself to the proletariat as the solution to their problems. The poison, disguised as the cure, Trump’s presidency is further embodiment of how big business ruined the world for the financial profit of a few.

In December 2019, the Institute for Policy Studies, Focus on the Global South and the Transnational Institute, published an alarming report on the global far-right movement. Titled: “The Battle for Another World”, the report concluded that the rise of far-right movements worldwide, are as a result of deep anxieties concerning economic and cultural dominance.

“An international reaction to economic globalization has been key to the right’s success,” it reads. “Unlike the internationalist left, the new right has been more effective at channelling discontent into political success at a national level.”

Nationalism and localisation has been taken to the extreme in an ironically global backlash towards globalisation: the (extreme) right’s hatred for globalisation is a global movement.

Although also steeped in other forms of discrimination, these anti-globalist ideologies are a backlash against the World Trade Organisation’s quasi-total dominance of the economic policies of individual nations.

The World Trade Organization shapes our global economy. It claims that it opens markets globally and provides “the legal ground-rules for international commerce”.

“Although negotiated and signed by governments,” it continues, “the goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business while allowing governments to meet social and environmental objectives.

“The system’s overriding purpose is to help trade flow as freely as possible – so long as there are no undesirable side effects – because this is important for economic development and well-being.”

Although it claims to put social and environmental objectives at the forefront, critics on both the left and the right political spectrum have criticised the WTO’s policies.

For the right-wing, the WTO is a force of evil, because it led to globalisation, which opened the market for manufacturing jobs to be outsourced to poorer countries, such as in 2001, when China joined the organisation. When Trump claimed he would “drain the swamp”, his promises referred to the power big business had attained, because of WTO policies.

For the left-wing, the WTO is a force of evil, because its economic policies drive a wedge between the proletariat. As the global population fights for economic survival among themselves, they are too divided to demand change from mega-corporations, who solely benefit from the WTO’s policies.

Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, argues that the WTO is solely interested in hyper globalization, at grave cost to the people’s social, economic, labour and environmental rights.

Economically, nations who do not comply to their trade rules and laws face trade penalties worth millions of dollars. Of 242 completed WTO cases, only 22 cases were won by countries fighting to uphold their domestic policies over those of the WTO. Many of the 22 cases won were unrelated to trade.

Our global world has reached a dystopia of ultimate corporate domination, as business leaders such as Bezos, Trump and Zuckerberg gain wealth by sacrificing consumer and labour rights.

The WTO was a deliberate attempt to privatise the world. Its vision of globalisation was a hypercapitalist dream of monopolistic corporate power, not one of mass transnational socialist movements. It consistently favoured trade deals over labour, consumer and environmental groups. For the left today, globalisation can still be saved through socialism; for the right, globalisation will be defeated through tribalism.

In “The Battle for Another World”, it is concluded that the Global Green New Deal is the left’s only solution to the rise of global fascism.

“A Global Green New Deal wouldn’t just address the environmental crisis. By creating enormous numbers of well-paying jobs, it would also speak to those left behind by economic globalization. Such a narrative would undermine the new right’s anti-globalist appeals while offering up a positive vision to rally around within and across borders.”

And yet, the proliferation of extreme right-wing views cannot be blamed solely on the weaponisation of economic policies in the twentieth century. Many who support these movements have previously occupied positions of social and economic power. The rise of Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Bolsonaro and more is indicative of a pushback against a New World Order that favours socialism over conservativism.

It is “the great replacement”, which argues that “minorities, with help from ‘globalists’, will usurp the privileges of the dominant group”. The great replacement, the Institute for Policy Studies report states, “has proven appealing to both an extremist fringe and more mainstream conservatives.”

The desecration of our global economic system only served to mushroom discriminatory ideologies previously laying still. Without the World Trade Organization, the destruction of the global economic system will simply continue at a faster speed. The battle for another world is rapidly becoming a war.

L'articolo How the World Trade Organization Propelled the Rise of the Global Far-Right proviene da InsideOver.