Latest news with #TheRoomWhereItHappened
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's Trade War With China Enters a More Aggressive Phase
The fact that U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a pause on the raft of new tariffs against most of the world's countries – but not on most of those directed at China – highlights what these new levies are really all about. They are in large part specifically aimed at finally correcting a longstanding imbalance in the trade deficit between the U.S. and China since the Ccmmunist country developed a capitalist twist in the 1990s under former leader Deng Xiaoping. This gap has become increasingly more dramatic through China's use of a variety of unfair trading practices, including export dumping, implicit import barriers and perhaps most notably the sustained manipulation to keep the Chinese renminbi currency undervalued against the U.S. dollar. Trump, his presidential predecessor Barack Obama and successor Joe Biden tried to do the same, but little changed, So, will this new strategy work and what will the geopolitical fallout be if it does not?During Trump's first presidency, he drew considerable disapproval at home and abroad from his approach to China that appeared to conflate three distinct elements that were best left separate according to his critics – national security, trade, and his personal admiration for President Xi Jinping. An early notable case in point had been the almost complete reversal of hard-hitting U.S. sanctions imposed on Chinese telecommunications company ZTE for committing major and repeated violations of the U.S.'s sanctions on Iran and on North Korea. According to former National Security Advisor and former stalwart Trump support, John Bolton (in his book 'The Room Where It Happened'), after a private telephone call to President Xi – in which it later transpired that Xi told Trump that he would 'owe [Trump] a favour' if he reduced the sanctions against ZTE – Trump did exactly what Xi had asked for. Trump tweeted: 'President Xi of China and I are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!' As Bolton wrote: 'Since when we had started to worry about jobs in China?' The same methodology of personally flattering Trump and then offering him some vague commitment on China's part to buy more of some product or another from the U.S. was again used by Xi to hold off Trump from imposing quick, full and irreversible sanctions on another massive Chinese firm accused of being used for intelligence gathering operations against the U.S. – Huawei, according to a senior legal source in the European Union's (E.U.'s) energy security complex. He added that China was very aware at that point that Trump was only concerned with the optics of the U.S.-China Trade War and not with the substance of how those negotiations were progressing. Therefore, Beijing tailored all its so-called concessions to being on issues that were meaningless in practice, but which would allow Trump to make victory-sounding Tweets. Attesting to Trump's focus on appearance rather than reality was an oft-repeated comment by him during his first presidency: 'Every time there's a little bad [Trade War] news the [stock] market would go down incredibly…Every time there was a little bit of good news the market would go up incredibly... And yet, other news that was also very big, the market just didn't really care.' It is perhaps partly in answer to this criticism, says the E.U. security source, that Trump has taken such an aggressive approach to China this time around. It may also be a recognition of the fact that all previous attempts by predecessors and successors alike to reduce the U.S.-China trade deficit have failed. Following Trump's loss in the 2020 Presidential Election, the Biden government made it clear that three key items related to China at the top of the agenda. First, U.S. companies would no longer be allowed to sign any contracts with Chinese companies that included any element of sharing technology. For decades, the Chinese had insisted that any U.S. company that wanted to do business with China must share its technology with its Chinese partner. This had allowed China to systematically reverse engineer everything that was shared and then to re-sell China-made versions back to the U.S. and the rest of the world at much lower prices, given the much lower unit cost of labour in China than in the U.S. Second, was to put into practice a new mechanism that would correct the long-term bilateral structural trade imbalance trade imbalance is a systematic way that was sustainable overt the decades to come. Specifically, this was to be the introduction of a new metric for China that would create a 'long-term steady-state equilibrium in trade', as there had been with Japan when it had operated basically the same economic model with the rest of the world in the 1960s and 1970s as China had done since the 1990s. This new approach was to be focused on correcting the long-term bilateral structural trade imbalance that had existed between the US and China for decades. Biden's team wanted to impose a strict percentage ratio between the five-year rolling mean average of the U.S.-China goods trade number (a deficit for the U.S.) to the U.S.'s GDP number. For 2019, for example, the figures were a U.S.-China goods trade deficit of US$345 billion, and a U.S. GDP of USD21.43 trillion, so the percentage ratio was around 1.6%. Whatever exact metric was taken, the five-year rolling mean average would be aimed at decreasing that percentage ratio by at least half within the first term of the Biden presidency. For various reasons, this full policy was never successfully rolled out, leaving the U.S.-China trade imbalance an ongoing source of contention. Consequently, Trump may not unreasonably believe that only a big, bold statement of intent regarding this inequality between the U.S. and China can succeed. However, by reverting to the protectionist ideology seen in the U.S. before 1913 – a point frequently mentioned in Trump's tariffs announcement – many firm, and wavering, allies may see the threat of the isolationist disengagement from global politics that accompanied this stance in the U.S. at the same time. Over and above the potentially cataclysmic ramifications of this for NATO – which has been the key foundation preventing another world war since 1945 – the consequences for the Middle East are enormously profound. Trump made it clear in his 'Endless Wars' commencement address to the United States Military Academy at West Point on 13 June 2020 that he saw the days of the U.S. being the 'policeman of the world' as being over. After this was put into practice with the U.S.'s unilateral withdrawal from the 'nuclear deal' with Iran in 2018, and then in the U.S. withdrawal from Syria in 2019, and Afghanistan and Iraq in 2021, Chinese (and Russian) influence across the door to a massive increase in influence from both Russia and China across the Middle East increased exponentially, as analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. As it stands, China has said very clearly that it will not back down in what is effectively a huge new trade war, and it has two key advantages over Trump in this respect. First, its people are used to hardship over the very long term. Second, China's leadership never faces the prospect of losing office. For some time now, Beijing has regarded Trump as a 'nation builder', but it is not the U.S. nation it is talking about, it is theirs. By Simon Watkins for More Top Reads From this article on
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Putin thinks Trump is an easy mark,' John Bolton says in interview
Instead of approaching the war in Ukraine from a geopolitical or moral perspective, U.S. President Donald Trump is framing his policy on Russia through the lens of his personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton. 'Trump thinks Putin is his friend. He trusts Putin,' Bolton told the Kyiv Independent. 'Putin thinks Trump is an easy mark. And as a former KGB agent, Putin knows exactly how to manipulate him, and I think that's what he's been doing since the inauguration, if not before,' he explained. Bolton served as the national security advisor to Trump from 2018-2019 during his first administration. Bolton's 2020 memoir, 'The Room Where It Happened,' offers a candid account of the tumultuous turn his working relationship with Trump took, highlighting his concerns about Trump's ability to effectively lead, including his impulsive decision-making on complex policy issues and lack of understanding of the importance of a strong U.S. foreign policy. In an interview with the Kyiv Independent, Bolton provided his insight on why Trump appears so eager to appease the Kremlin, why any U.S. attempt to align with Russia to deter China would be a "fantasy," and the opportunities the U.S. has missed for more than a decade to deter Russian aggression not only in Ukraine but beyond. This interview was conducted several hours before Putin signaled he was ready for a ceasefire on the condition that Ukraine doesn't receive more military aid or build its military. It has been edited for length and clarity. The Kyiv Independent: Trump has repeatedly claimed that negotiating with Russia is easier than with Ukraine. Despite Russia's nightly attacks on Ukraine, he continues to insist that Putin wants peace. Why do you think Trump is so eager to cater to the Kremlin's interests, especially when they have such maximalist demands? John Bolton: Trump has said many times publicly that he believes if he has good relations with a foreign head of state, then the U.S. has good relations with that country. And the opposite is also true. If he has bad relations with a foreign head of state, U.S. relations with that country are bad. Trump thinks Putin is his friend. He trusts Putin. He has said in just the past few weeks, 'Putin says he wants peace, and I trust him. I think if he didn't want peace, he would tell me.' So that gives you a pretty good idea of how he sees Putin. Now, I don't think Putin thinks he's Trump's friend at all. I think Putin thinks Trump is an easy mark. And as a former KGB agent, Putin knows exactly how to manipulate him, and I think that's what he's been doing since the inauguration, if not before. The notion that Russia is easy to deal with dates back to 2018, when Trump left Washington for the NATO summit — where he nearly withdrew from the alliance — before heading to Helsinki for a bilateral meeting with Putin. As he was leaving the White House to get on helicopter Marine One, he said to the assembled press, 'You know, I've got this NATO meeting, then I'm going to meet Prime Minister Theresa May in London, then I'm going to meet Putin in Helsinki. You know, the meeting with Putin could be the easiest of them all. Who would think it?' Well, there's only one person who would think it, and it's Trump. That was almost six years ago, and nothing has changed. The facts about Russia's conduct in the war — being the aggressor from the start — simply don't matter to Trump. After all, he believes in helping his friends. President Volodymyr Zelensky has had a strained relationship with Trump — through no fault of his own or Ukraine's — ever since the infamous "perfect phone call" in the summer of 2019, which ultimately led to Trump's first impeachment. And Zelensky has tried very hard, I think, in the past six months to build a relationship with Trump, but as we saw in the catastrophe in the Oval Office a few weeks ago, it hasn't worked. And there are people like U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who I think have also decided they don't like Zelensky and don't like Ukraine — Vance once said in his 2022 Senate campaign, 'I don't care what happens to Ukraine.' It's an uphill struggle. The Kyiv Independent: The Republican Party historically championed strong defense policies and deterrence against U.S. adversaries like Russia. What do you think accounts for the party's shift in attitude toward Ukraine? John Bolton: I believe a majority of Republicans actually still support Ukraine, certainly out in the country among Republican voters. And I think quietly behind the scenes, a majority in Congress do, too, but they're intimidated by Trump. They're very worried that he will support candidates against them in a primary election to decide who the Republican nominee will be. And in districts that are very safely Republican, it doesn't matter who the Democratic nominee is in November. It matters whether the incumbent House member, let's say, can win against a primary opponent. But I think the situation is beginning to change. More people are beginning to speak out. Trump's tariff policies are causing a lot of concern, and that adds to concern about his 180-degree shift toward Russia in the Ukraine situation. If our European allies continue their efforts to clarify who's at fault in Ukraine and what's at stake, we'll just have to keep fighting this battle day by day. The Kyiv Independent: The Kremlin has recently said that Trump's apparent foreign policy shift aligns with their interests. What damage does a U.S.-Russia alliance cause on the global stage? John Bolton: It could come close to destroying NATO. Having watched Trump come very close to withdrawing from NATO at the Brussels summit in 2018, I saw more than I needed to see about how much he doesn't like the institution — he hasn't changed his view on that. But even before a formal withdrawal, he could do a lot that would debilitate NATO and really undermine the capabilities of the institution to defend its own members or its interests in other conflicts. It's a very dangerous course that he's pursuing. They're certainly watching it very carefully in Beijing, where they believe that if the U.S. and NATO won't stand up for a country in the middle of Europe that's been invaded, we won't stand up for Taiwan, we won't stand up for the Southeast Asian countries near the South China Sea. So it really does have global implications for U.S. security and that of our friends and allies, too. The Kyiv Independent: Some argue that Trump sees a potential rapprochement with Russia as a way to deter China in the future. I'm curious about your thoughts on that, especially given the uncharacteristically supportive statements China has made for Ukraine recently. What is the dynamic that's forming here? John Bolton: It's a fantasy to believe the U.S. can somehow use the conflict in Ukraine to separate Russia from China. In the abstract, separating Russia is a very good goal to have. But for reasons not having anything to do with Ukraine or the U.S., Russia and China have grown closer, and it's really almost impossible to separate Russia from them today. The China-Russia axis is far from perfect, but in the case of the Ukraine war, China has been a considerable assistance to Russia. They have laundered sanctioned Russian financial assets through their own opaque financial system out into global markets. They've significantly increased purchases of Russian oil and gas. They've talked about building new pipeline capacity, which from China's point of view would be a plus so they don't have to lift oil in the Persian Gulf and risk taking it across the Indian Ocean. And they've provided a lot of political cover for Russia during this war, which they would expect reciprocity for if they went against Taiwan or did something in the South China Sea. There are still differences of interest between Russia and China. This is not the Cold War Sino-Soviet alliance that had an ideological bond. And obviously China is the partner in charge now, not Russia. So it's not exactly the same, but I think the idea that somehow Russia could be pulled away from China as part of a settlement in Ukraine is totally unrealistic. I don't think China has any good intentions in mind for Ukraine, either — they see it as something obviously Russia wants to have. The Kyiv Independent: Given your hawkish stance on Russia, was there a decisive moment in the past decade of the war in Ukraine when the U.S. had a real chance to deter Russian aggression but failed? John Bolton: When former U.S. President George W. Bush said at the Bucharest NATO Summit in April of 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia should have been brought into NATO on a fast track, that was the time to do it. Four months later, we saw the Russians move into Georgia, occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia — and they're still there. The only effective deterrence (against Russian aggression) is NATO membership, which is something that obviously Finland and Sweden concluded after 75 years of neutrality. They watched what happened in Ukraine and concluded the only real security was behind a NATO border. We had a chance in 2008 to do that (for Ukraine), and France and Germany objected. After Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and takeover of part of the Donbas, the West did little to impose meaningful sanctions. Former U.S. President Barack Obama showed no interest in taking strong action. I believe this all but guaranteed that when the Kremlin felt ready for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, they expected little resistance. That expectation was reinforced by the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan — negotiated by Trump but carried out by Biden — which sealed the deal. There were several missed opportunities (to combat Russian aggression), and unfortunately, we're seeing the consequences today. The Kyiv Independent: The Trump administration has said the ball is in Russia's court regarding a Ukraine ceasefire. But given Russia's track record of violating agreements and shifting blame, can we argue that responsibility now lies with the U.S.? If Russia inevitably breaks another ceasefire, and tries to blame Ukraine, how do you think Trump's administration will respond? John Bolton: We'll have to see what happens with the ceasefire first. The ceasefire is not in Ukraine's interest — anything that freezes the conflict along the existing battle lines is laying a foundation for annexation of all the territory on the Russian side by the Russians. That's been their pattern before. I think Putin has not had any incentive to come to the negotiating table because Trump's been giving him everything that he wanted. But I think now, with this ceasefire idea out there, Putin also has to be careful he doesn't lose credibility with Trump. I don't think he will outright reject the ceasefire. He may accept it, or I think most likely he'll say something like, 'I think a ceasefire idea is absolutely worthwhile and I'm ready to proceed. In principle, I agree with it.' But there would be technical details to work out there, which wouldn't get worked out anytime soon. Putin, judging by Russian propaganda from yesterday, seems convinced that they are on the verge of pushing the remaining Ukrainian troops out of Kursk. I don't think he will entertain negotiations until that operation is complete. In the meantime, he'll stall for time, mindful of preserving the goodwill he has built with Trump. Although Trump has given away so much at this point, it's hard to see what he could take back. Hi there, it's Kate Tsurkan, thank you for reading my latest interview. Given Bolton's experience of working alongside Trump I felt like he was one of the best people to talk to about the ongoing problems surrounding the U.S.'s increasingly uncertain role in achieving peace in Ukraine. As an American who has lived for many years in Ukraine, it's important that my fellow countrymen and women, regardless of their political affiliation, understand how important it is to support Ukraine. I'm just trying to do my own small part to help put the right information out there. If you like reading this sort of thing, please . Read also: Putin has likely rejected Trump's ceasefire proposal — what now? We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
