Latest news with #US-Soviet
Euronews
5 days ago
- Business
- Euronews
Beasts and besties: German chancellors and US presidents through time
As Germany's new Chancellor Friedrich Merz meets US President Donald Trump for the first time at the White House on Thursday, he'll be aware of how his predecessors have tackled the transatlantic relationship. The stars don't augur well, however. During his first stint in office, Trump regularly made disparaging remarks about Germany and developed a non-relationship with Chancellor Angela Merkel characterised by mutual personal dislike. Trump's erratic trade policy, which has the EU and Germany specifically in its sights, as well as Trump's retreat from traditionally solid transatlantic positions on common defence and Russia, have challenged Merz before he even moved into the Chancellery. How the mutual relationship between Merz and Trump develops in the future is likely to depend crucially on how the Chancellor completes his first visit to the Oval Office - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sends his regards! Merz's basic problem is that Trump has taken an axe to German-US relations and is not particularly interested in good terms with Berlin. This situation is a novelty for a German chancellor. Merz's predecessors since 1949 have experienced ups and downs in their relations with the respective US presidents, but the close friendship between the two countries has never been called into question. So how did they get along? Konrad Adenauer was 73 when he was elected the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949. Four years after the end of World War II, however, the country was not yet a sovereign state. Adenauer was only too aware of this. He sought a close and trusting relationship with the US and adheres very closely to instructions from Washington. In 1953, Adenauer travelled to the US for the first time - it was the first ever visit by a German head of government to Washington! His talks with US President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61) were friendly. For Adenauer, the protection, aid and military presence of the United States were indispensable for the democratic development of Germany, as well as for peace and prosperity in Europe. Adenauer developed close personal relations with Eisenhower and especially his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, which benefitted German-US relations as a whole. In contrast, Adenauer's relationship with John F Kennedy (1961-63) was not without problems. The two are far apart in terms of both age and politics. In 1963, his last year in office, Adenauer was already 87, and Kennedy, 41 years his junior, saw him as a man of the past. Kennedy felt that the chancellor's stance on the German question was too rigid and lacked flexibility in the face of changing conditions in Europe. Conversely, Adenauer harbours mistrust of US-Soviet negotiations. He believes that a rapprochement between the two superpowers could only take place at the expense of Germany and its political goal of reunification. After the discord between Adenauer and JFK, relations between Chancellor Ludwig Erhard and Kennedy's successor Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69) became very friendly again. German foreign policy was by now characterised by the conflict between 'Atlanticists' and 'Gaullists', with the latter wanting a close alliance with France, which Erhard rejects in favour of nuclear protection by the US. Erhard and Johnson met sympathetically from the outset and came together five times during Erhard's short time in office. The first time was just one month after Johnson's inauguration, when the Texan invited the German to his ranch in Texas, a particular honour, especially for a foreigner. Willy Brandt was the first Social Democrat to become Federal Chancellor in 1974. Brandt sees himself as a self-confident partner of the USA. However, his 'Ostpolitik', which sought an understanding with East Germany (GDR), Poland and the Soviet Union, was viewed with great suspicion in Washington. US President Richard Nixon (1969-1974) distrusted Brandt, whom he considered to be a 'German nationalist'. Brandt, on the other hand, tried to maintain a good relationship with Nixon and avoided open criticism of the war in Vietnam. Personally, the two had practically nothing to say to each other. Alluding to Brandt's illegitimate origins, Nixon occasionally calls him 'the bastard' behind closed doors. In the mid-1970s, German-US relations were better than ever before. US President Gerald Ford (1974-1977) and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt knew and appreciated each other and were close friends in their private lives. There was a great deal of agreement on key issues, as well as a trusting openness in discussing differences. However, Ford lost the 1976 election to his challenger Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). Carter was inexperienced in foreign policy and relied on a team of advisors disconnected from the think tanks of the East Coast, where Schmidt had been well-connected for decades and enjoyed a high reputation. Schmidt, who had a tendency to lecture people, saw Carter as a novice who had only a limited understanding of the world's complex problems. This does not go unnoticed by Carter - relations quickly hit rock bottom. When it came to the deployment of the neutron bomb, there were serious disagreements. Schmidt, amid great domestic political difficulties, advocated the weapons system desired by Washington. When Carter stopped its production at the last minute for domestic political reasons, Schmidt felt exposed and abandoned. Unlike Schmidt, Helmut Kohl had no personal connection to the United States and did not speak English. Nevertheless, he showed transatlantic solidarity from the outset and endeavours to establish a personal relationship with every US president he deals with. His relationship with Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) even had friendly traits that outlasted even the embarrassing Bitburg controversy. In 1985, Kohl invited Reagan to visit the Bitburg military cemetery in the Eifel region during his stay in Germany - as a sign of reconciliation between former enemies. When it was discovered that not only Wehrmacht soldiers but also members of the Waffen SS were buried at the cemetery, a storm of indignation broke out in Washington. The White House wanted to cancel the visit, but Reagan remained stubborn and thus supported the German chancellor. Kohl also developed a friendly and close relationship with Reagan's successor George HW Bush (1989-93), which facilitated communication between the two governments during the collapse of the GDR and the German reunification process. In the 1990s, German-US relations were determined not least by the question of how much responsibility Germany should assume in the world. US President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), with whom Kohl had an even better relationship than with Reagan, reacted positively to the German decision to send Bundeswehr soldiers to the Balkans as part of an international peacekeeping force. In his memoirs, Clinton spoke almost affectionately and with great respect about his appreciation for Kohl. He was 'not only physically' the most impressive political leader in Europe for decades, according to Clinton. The relationship between German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and US President George W. Bush developed quite differently. The atmosphere between Bonn (later Berlin) and Washington was probably never as icy as in those years. The reason: the red-green government's no to the war in Iraq. Mistrust, personal animus, blatant dislike - the rift between the two leaders was total. This became apparent again years later, when both were no longer in office and both accused each other of lying on the occasion of the publication of Bush's memoirs in 2010. Under Chancellor Angela Merkel, German-American relations relaxed again. Unlike with Schröder, Bush got on well with Merkel and called her 'a friend'. In contrast, the chancellor's relationship with Barack Obama was slow to warm. In 2008, she refused to allow the then-presidential candidate to give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin - Obama had to make do with the Victory Column. But after Obama's election, the relationship was increasingly characterised by mutual trust. Both cultivated a sober and pragmatic political style and a liberal view of the world, which facilitated cooperation. In a way, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was lucky: US President Joe Biden was probably the last great old-school US Atlanticist. This made cooperation easier. Both liked each other, worked together in a spirit of trust and described each other as friends. In fact, Scholz consulted with Biden more frequently and more closely than with his European colleagues. When it comes to aid for Ukraine, Scholz did nothing without obtaining Biden's approval. At their last meeting, both warned against ending military support to Ukraine. This is now a matter for their successors.
Euronews
5 days ago
- Business
- Euronews
Digital weight loss: How online Ozempic buyers bypass prescriptions
As Germany's new Chancellor Friedrich Merz meets US President Donald Trump for the first time at the White House on Thursday, he'll be aware of how his predecessors have tackled the transatlantic relationship. The stars don't augur well, however. During his first stint in office, Trump regularly made disparaging remarks about Germany and developed a non-relationship with Chancellor Angela Merkel characterised by mutual personal dislike. Trump's erratic trade policy, which has the EU and Germany specifically in its sights, as well as Trump's retreat from traditionally solid transatlantic positions on common defence and Russia, have challenged Merz before he even moved into the Chancellery. How the mutual relationship between Merz and Trump develops in the future is likely to depend crucially on how the Chancellor completes his first visit to the Oval Office - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sends his regards! Merz's basic problem is that Trump has taken an axe to German-US relations and is not particularly interested in good terms with Berlin. This situation is a novelty for a German chancellor. Merz's predecessors since 1949 have experienced ups and downs in their relations with the respective US presidents, but the close friendship between the two countries has never been called into question. So how did they get along? Konrad Adenauer was 73 when he was elected the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949. Four years after the end of World War II, however, the country was not yet a sovereign state. Adenauer was only too aware of this. He sought a close and trusting relationship with the US and adheres very closely to instructions from Washington. In 1953, Adenauer travelled to the US for the first time - it was the first ever visit by a German head of government to Washington! His talks with US President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61) were friendly. For Adenauer, the protection, aid and military presence of the United States were indispensable for the democratic development of Germany, as well as for peace and prosperity in Europe. Adenauer developed close personal relations with Eisenhower and especially his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, which benefitted German-US relations as a whole. In contrast, Adenauer's relationship with John F Kennedy (1961-63) was not without problems. The two are far apart in terms of both age and politics. In 1963, his last year in office, Adenauer was already 87, and Kennedy, 41 years his junior, saw him as a man of the past. Kennedy felt that the chancellor's stance on the German question was too rigid and lacked flexibility in the face of changing conditions in Europe. Conversely, Adenauer harbours mistrust of US-Soviet negotiations. He believes that a rapprochement between the two superpowers could only take place at the expense of Germany and its political goal of reunification. After the discord between Adenauer and JFK, relations between Chancellor Ludwig Erhard and Kennedy's successor Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69) became very friendly again. German foreign policy was by now characterised by the conflict between 'Atlanticists' and 'Gaullists', with the latter wanting a close alliance with France, which Erhard rejects in favour of nuclear protection by the US. Erhard and Johnson met sympathetically from the outset and came together five times during Erhard's short time in office. The first time was just one month after Johnson's inauguration, when the Texan invited the German to his ranch in Texas, a particular honour, especially for a foreigner. Willy Brandt was the first Social Democrat to become Federal Chancellor in 1974. Brandt sees himself as a self-confident partner of the USA. However, his 'Ostpolitik', which sought an understanding with East Germany (GDR), Poland and the Soviet Union, was viewed with great suspicion in Washington. US President Richard Nixon (1969-1974) distrusted Brandt, whom he considered to be a 'German nationalist'. Brandt, on the other hand, tried to maintain a good relationship with Nixon and avoided open criticism of the war in Vietnam. Personally, the two had practically nothing to say to each other. Alluding to Brandt's illegitimate origins, Nixon occasionally calls him 'the bastard' behind closed doors. In the mid-1970s, German-US relations were better than ever before. US President Gerald Ford (1974-1977) and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt knew and appreciated each other and were close friends in their private lives. There was a great deal of agreement on key issues, as well as a trusting openness in discussing differences. However, Ford lost the 1976 election to his challenger Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). Carter was inexperienced in foreign policy and relied on a team of advisors disconnected from the think tanks of the East Coast, where Schmidt had been well-connected for decades and enjoyed a high reputation. Schmidt, who had a tendency to lecture people, saw Carter as a novice who had only a limited understanding of the world's complex problems. This does not go unnoticed by Carter - relations quickly hit rock bottom. When it came to the deployment of the neutron bomb, there were serious disagreements. Schmidt, amid great domestic political difficulties, advocated the weapons system desired by Washington. When Carter stopped its production at the last minute for domestic political reasons, Schmidt felt exposed and abandoned. Unlike Schmidt, Helmut Kohl had no personal connection to the United States and did not speak English. Nevertheless, he showed transatlantic solidarity from the outset and endeavours to establish a personal relationship with every US president he deals with. His relationship with Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) even had friendly traits that outlasted even the embarrassing Bitburg controversy. In 1985, Kohl invited Reagan to visit the Bitburg military cemetery in the Eifel region during his stay in Germany - as a sign of reconciliation between former enemies. When it was discovered that not only Wehrmacht soldiers but also members of the Waffen SS were buried at the cemetery, a storm of indignation broke out in Washington. The White House wanted to cancel the visit, but Reagan remained stubborn and thus supported the German chancellor. Kohl also developed a friendly and close relationship with Reagan's successor George HW Bush (1989-93), which facilitated communication between the two governments during the collapse of the GDR and the German reunification process. In the 1990s, German-US relations were determined not least by the question of how much responsibility Germany should assume in the world. US President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), with whom Kohl had an even better relationship than with Reagan, reacted positively to the German decision to send Bundeswehr soldiers to the Balkans as part of an international peacekeeping force. In his memoirs, Clinton spoke almost affectionately and with great respect about his appreciation for Kohl. He was 'not only physically' the most impressive political leader in Europe for decades, according to Clinton. The relationship between German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and US President George W. Bush developed quite differently. The atmosphere between Bonn (later Berlin) and Washington was probably never as icy as in those years. The reason: the red-green government's no to the war in Iraq. Mistrust, personal animus, blatant dislike - the rift between the two leaders was total. This became apparent again years later, when both were no longer in office and both accused each other of lying on the occasion of the publication of Bush's memoirs in 2010. Under Chancellor Angela Merkel, German-American relations relaxed again. Unlike with Schröder, Bush got on well with Merkel and called her 'a friend'. In contrast, the chancellor's relationship with Barack Obama was slow to warm. In 2008, she refused to allow the then-presidential candidate to give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin - Obama had to make do with the Victory Column. But after Obama's election, the relationship was increasingly characterised by mutual trust. Both cultivated a sober and pragmatic political style and a liberal view of the world, which facilitated cooperation. In a way, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was lucky: US President Joe Biden was probably the last great old-school US Atlanticist. This made cooperation easier. Both liked each other, worked together in a spirit of trust and described each other as friends. In fact, Scholz consulted with Biden more frequently and more closely than with his European colleagues. When it comes to aid for Ukraine, Scholz did nothing without obtaining Biden's approval. At their last meeting, both warned against ending military support to Ukraine. This is now a matter for their successors. In a world chasing speed—fast food, fast fashion, fast tech—it's no surprise that quick slimming is the latest obsession. But the demand for rapid weight loss has opened a controversial new chapter in global health: the widespread use of prescription-only diabetes medications like Ozempic and Mounjaro for aesthetic purposes. These drugs, part of the GLP-1 class, were developed to help manage type 2 diabetes. Yet their dramatic side effect—substantial weight loss—has made them wildly popular among people with no underlying medical need. It's a trend health experts now warn could spiral into a global crisis. More than 1 billion people worldwide live with obesity, and over 830 million are managing diabetes. In Europe, over half the adult population is overweight, and 17% are clinically obese. The World Obesity Federation projects that by 2050, 60% of adults globally will fall into this category. GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Saxenda were designed to address these numbers through medical treatment. They regulate insulin levels, slow digestion and reduce appetite, helping some users shed up to 15% of their body weight. For people with obesity and related health conditions, these drugs are a breakthrough. But for others—especially the young and image-conscious—they've become a shortcut. A way to stay lean without diet or exercise. And in today's fast-paced, hyper-filtered world, many are willing to skip the medical justification entirely. Although legally restricted in most countries, Ozempic and similar drugs can often be obtained with alarming ease. A quick online search reveals dozens of websites offering 'digital consultations' where users simply fill out a questionnaire, upload an ID, and—often without ever speaking to a doctor—receive a prescription. In some countries, the process is even more relaxed. Online platforms may not require access to a user's official medical records, allowing anyone with basic Photoshop skills and a scale to potentially game the system. In others, local pharmacies bend the rules. In places like Poland, Turkey, Greece, and Kosovo, access through unofficial channels has been reported despite existing regulations. A thriving grey market fills the gaps. Private group chats on messaging apps function like digital black markets. In just minutes, users can browse listings, order, and pay for unregulated GLP-1 drugs—no questions asked, no prescription required. Users even post photos celebrating their arrivals, turning health risks into social memes. This growing off-label trend comes with serious consequences. GLP-1 medications aren't without risks—especially when misused or taken without medical supervision. Common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, loss of appetite and dehydration. More serious complications may include swelling of the pancreas, gallbladder disease which sometimes requires surgical removal, loss of muscle tissue, kidney injuries and hypoglycaemia, especially when combined with other medications. Thyroid tumours have been noted in some animal studies of the drugs. Then there's the risk of fakes. In 2023, authorities in Austria and the UK reported hospitalisations due to counterfeit Ozempic pens, some of which were found to contain insulin instead of semaglutide. The World Health Organization (WHO) has since issued a global alert over falsified versions of semaglutide found in the UK, US and Brazil. 'These counterfeits can be life-threatening,' warned WHO's Dr Yukiko Nakatani. 'We urge people to stop using suspicious products and report them immediately.' Despite growing awareness, enforcement lags behind. Messaging platforms where these drug sales take place continue to operate with minimal oversight. Closed groups named after "fitness" or "health" are often digital storefronts for illicit sales. Algorithms don't differentiate between helpful tips and harmful products—until someone gets hurt. This loophole highlights a growing regulatory blind spot. Health authorities may police pharmacies and clinics, but the world's most popular communication platforms remain largely unregulated terrain when it comes to drug trafficking. A European Commission spokesperson noted that under the EU's Digital Services Act online platforms have an obligation to protect consumers. The act requires users to be able to quickly report illegal content and products, obliges platforms to remove illicit goods and online marketplaces have to trace their traders. "The DSA obliges platforms to address risks of illegal content and goods being disseminated on their sites," and the Commission is monitoring compliance and won't hesitate to open further proceedings, according to the spokesperson. The rise of weight-loss drugs has ushered in a new dilemma for both medicine and society. These are powerful tools with potential to transform lives—but only when used safely, and for the right reasons. As regulators struggle to keep up with demand, tech companies and messaging platforms must also step up. Health isn't just a personal issue—it's a systemic one. And without stronger protections in place, the rush for fast fixes could leave a trail of long-term damage. US President Donald Trump said that his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin told him "very strongly" in a phone call on Wednesday that he will respond to Ukraine's weekend drone attack on Russian airfields. "We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. "It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace." The call reportedly lasted for an hour and 15 minutes and was Trump's first known contact with Putin since 19 May. In a briefing with government ministers earlier on Wednesday, Putin made no mention of Ukraine's audacious operation deep inside Russia on Sunday, instead referring only to an operation carried out by Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) on Tuesday which saw the Kerch Bridge damaged. The bridge is a key piece of Russian infrastructure illegally built by Moscow after its unilateral annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in 2014. Putin referred to that attack as "certainly a terrorist act." However, Ukraine's SBU said the first explosion was timed to take place just before 5am when there were no civilians on or near the bridge. The Russian leader also questioned the value of faltering peace talks with Ukraine, accusing Kyiv of not being interested in peace. "What is there to talk about? How can we negotiate with those who rely on terror?" he said. The second round of face-to-face talks between Ukraine and Russia took place in Istanbul on Monday, with no major breakthrough made towards a lasting ceasefire. The two sides however agreed to another prisoner of war exchange, with Ukraine's Defence Minister Rustem Umerov saying seriously ill and young soldiers would be swapped. During the talks in Istanbul, Ukraine also gave Moscow officials a list of hundreds of Ukrainian children forcefully deported by Russia. "We are talking about hundreds of children whom Russia has illegally deported, forcibly transferred or is holding in the temporarily occupied territories. We are waiting for a response. The ball is in Russia's court," the head of Ukraine's presidential office Andriy Yermak said on Telegram. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said it took Kyiv "one year, six months, and nine days from the start of planning to effective execution" of the operation. Kyiv managed to smuggle FPV drones deep inside Russia and hide them inside trucks in mobile log cabins. The cabins' roofs were then opened remotely and the drones proceeded to launch their attack on Russian military bombers. Social media footage widely shared by Russian media appears to show the drones rising from inside containers, while the panels lie discarded on the road. On Wednesday, Zelenskyy said Kyiv would not have launched its drone strike on Russian strategic bombers if Moscow had accepted Kyiv's calls for a ceasefire. Zelenskyy said Ukraine has repeatedly urged Russia to accept the US-backed 30-day ceasefire proposal, which could be the first step to putting an end to Russia's all-out war against Ukraine. However during the second round of talks on Monday, Moscow rejected the proposal once again. "If there had been a ceasefire, would the operation have taken place? No," Zelenskyy explained, adding that roughly half of the planes will be impossible to repair, while others will require significant time to be put back into service. On Wednesday, Ukraine's security service (SBU) released new drone footage of Operation "Spiderweb," showing how exactly Kyiv struck 41 Russian heavy military bombers on Sunday. The footage shows Ukraine's first-person-view drones striking four Russian airfields: Dyagilevo in the Riazan region, Ivanovo in the Ivanovo region, Belaya air base in the Irkutsk region, located in south-eastern Siberia over 4,000km east of the frontline, and Olenya air base in Russia's Murmansk region, some 2,000km away from Ukraine's border. Kyiv said these were the airfields where Russian strategic aviation "had been based". The damaged aircraft include A-50, Tu-95, Tu-22, Tu-160, as well as An-12 and Il-78. Moscow uses these heavy bombers for daily attacks on Ukrainian cities. The SBU also revealed that it used a modern UAV control technology during this operation. It combined autonomous artificial intelligence algorithms and manual operator interventions. Ukraine's security service says some of the UAVs lost signal and would switch to an artificial intelligence-assisted mission following a pre-planned route. The warhead then automatically detonated as it approached and made contact with a specific target. Earlier, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that 117 drones had been used in Operation Spiderweb, each with its own pilot. The General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces confirmed on Tuesday that Russia lost 41 military aircraft.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's lifelong belief in tariffs is about to face its acid test
President Donald Trump's lifelong belief that tariffs can make the United States even richer by forcing other nations to bend to his demands is only being reinforced by the early skirmishes in his trade wars. But this worldview is facing its acid test at a moment when Americans are about to feel its painful consequences. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will meet with Chinese officials this weekend in neutral Switzerland, a venue that will lend an echo of US-Soviet Cold War summits to the most serious economic showdown yet between the two 21st-century superpowers. The talks, which will also include US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, represent the most critical moment in the trade wars so far. Global markets will hope for at least a temporary de-escalation in a clash that Trump escalated in the first place with his punishing 145% tariff on Chinese goods. But Trump's strategy and rhetoric in recent days are likely to complicate Bessent's assignment, since the president is showing that his faith in tariffs is undimmed by a dose of negative US growth and signs of a looming supply crunch. In fact, he's becoming more set in his belief not just that wielding massive trade penalties against foreign countries is the right thing to do, but also that it's working. 'They want to meet,' Trump said of Chinese leaders in the Oval Office on Tuesday. 'They're doing no business right now, and those ships are turning around in the Pacific Ocean … by not trading, we're losing nothing.' Investors, business leaders and consumers will hope the president will take a quick, face-saving exit out of his trade wars. But Trump's statements suggest that tariffs may not be the means to an end, but the end itself. And while trade deals with the US are possible, the terms for foreign nations are likely to be tough and may never result in a return to the low-tariff global economy of the past. Despite days of predicting a flood of trade agreements are imminent, the administration has yet to announce any new breakthroughs, so there is no real prospect of tariffs being lifted any time soon. Trump's volatility and record of changing his mind on a dime mean that none of his statements should ever be regarded as definitive. And the gathering storm caused by his policies as the threat of a recession grows and Americans begin to see shortages in stores could leave him no choice but to step back. The talks with China will be key to establishing whether a soft landing is possible for the trade wars — perhaps avoiding a major economic slowdown. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent walks to his seat ahead of his testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, on May 6 at the US Capitol in Washington, DC. - Tom Brenner/TheBessent told Fox News on Tuesday that his initial plan is to try to cool the confrontation and that the talks with Chinese officials represent the 'missing piece' in the administration's strategy and will take place on a trip during which he had previously planned to talk trade with Swiss officials. But China typically favors intricate trade talks that play out for months. And Bessent cautioned that he didn't expect to be discussing 'the big trade deal' yet. And a growing number of Trump's comments and social media posts suggest that he's not yet interested in changing course a third of the way through a 90-day pause in reciprocal tariffs. On Tuesday, he played down expectations for a flurry of trade deals that he and senior aides had been predicting were imminent for days — moments after his treasury secretary said on CNBC that he expected to announce deals with top trading partners 'as early as this week.' The president seemed frustrated at the suspense he'd helped to build. Perhaps this means that trade talks are going more poorly than the administration is ready to admit. Or Trump could have his eye on a different endgame. 'So, I wish they'd keep — you know, stop asking, 'How many deals are you signing this week?' Because one day, we'll come and we'll give you a hundred deals,'' Trump said, before trying to clarify that his preferred outcome of the trade deals may be permanent protectionism. 'And I think my people haven't made it clear. We will sign some deals, but much bigger than that is, we're going to put down the price that people are going to have to pay to shop in the United States.' Trump as the world's 'luxury store' owner In Oval Office talks with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the president explained his vision of operating as a retailer who sets the price for each individual customer. In this scenario, tariffs are not an attempt to draw countries into talks to unlock acceptable deals for both sides. Instead, they are a way to fix a levy for the right to do business with the US that would depend on how far each nation sacrifices their own economic interests to boost America's. 'Think of us as a super-luxury store, a store that has the goods. You're going to come and you're going to pay a price, and we're going to give you a very good price,' Trump said. This means the old world is gone. Trump also said last month that his 145% tariff on China will 'come down come down substantially, but it won't be zero.' And he told Time Magazine in a recent interview that he'd consider it a 'total victory' if tariffs — an economic device he's viewed with almost mystical reverence for decades — are at 50%. This may require adjusting expectations on global markets and in foreign capitals. Perhaps Trump falls short of his long-shot goal of returning manufacturing to the United States to levels in place before the entry of nations like China and Vietnam into the global economy in the late 20th century. But it's increasingly clear that, at least while he's in the Oval Office and controls what is still the world's most powerful economy, the days of untamed globalization are over. Moreover, it's becoming clear that the president doesn't see any future deals as just a reset for the global trading system. He wants to transform it so that the US becomes a manufacturing and exporting giant but doesn't buy things from abroad. 'They have to sign deals with us,' the president said. 'If they want a piece of our market — we don't want a piece of their market. We don't care about their market. They want a piece of our market.' This is a mind-bogglingly impractical strategy, even if it shows unshakeable belief in the potential of the American people and the country's industrial machine. It ignores the fact that millions of Americans like to buy low-priced foreign goods that would be more expensive if made in the US. Such purchasing power has improved the lifestyles of the middle and working classes, who can now afford items like flat-screen TVs and other electronics as well as essentials such as clothes. Trump's strategy also ignores that other nations make things global consumers want to buy, too — not just staples but luxury goods that are not endemic to the US. A looming age of austerity? The president's thinking may be radical, but it does track with other recent comments — including his warning that American children would have fewer and more expensive dolls and pencils — that suggest the president foresees a new age of austerity despite his vows to make America rich again. In this sense, his comments on trade alongside Carney, who was just elected to lead the country that buys more US products than any other, offered a striking glimpse into how he thinks. Having a president set the price of access to the US market would be an extraordinary way to run a 21st-century economy. It may also be an illegal and unconstitutional use of executive power. And since Trump has a foggy understanding of how how tariffs work — he sees them as a massive source of revenue for the government rather than a huge tax on American consumers — his approach would also come with serious risks for the US economy. Attempts to artificially control the price of goods usually causes shortages and supply chain issues, and they can spike inflation. Such a top-down system is also prone to manipulation. Trump has already granted temporary tariffs carve-outs on some tech products, including iPhones, and to parts manufacturers that supply the auto industry after lobbying from CEOs. Such interactions allow the president to take the spotlight and move the chess pieces around the board — a common thread in many of his policies. And in an administration with a remarkably cavalier attitude to ethics, such as system is ripe for corruption. What is to stop a company or country offering Trump a favor or inducements that boost his companies to get preferential treatment? 'We don't want steel from Canada 'cause we're making our own steel,' Trump said Tuesday. 'We really don't want Canadian steel and we don't want Canadian aluminum and various other things because we want to be able to do it ourself.' US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney meet in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC, on Tuesday. - Leah Millis/Reuters Such aspirations show that Trump is not simply pushing a vision of self-sufficiency; he's envisioning a real attempt to drive other nations out of business to make them dependent on America. He may have soft-pedaled his territorial claim on Canada with Carney in the room, but his trade policies would have a similar effect. 'We don't really want cars from Canada. And we've put tariffs on cars from Canada, and at a certain point, it won't make economic sense for Canada to build those cars,' Trump said, in a comment that rhymed with the rationale of his 'America first' foreign policy — to leverage US might to exert control over smaller, less powerful nations. 'We've been ripped off by everybody for 50 years, for 50 years, and we're just not going to do that anymore. We can't do that, and we can't let any country do that to us,' Trump said. He's being saying this for decades: as a businessman, as a candidate and now as a second-term president. It's a narrow and cynical view of the world. But it might be time for Trump's critics to accept that he really means it. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
LIVE REVIEW: Public Service Broadcasting @ New Theatre Oxford: Sky-high electro-rock
LIVING in such strange and uncertain times it often seems there is little cause for cheer. Constantly confronted with the weird, confusing and downright horrible, we could be forgiven for sinking into a despondent slump. We desperately need a shot of positivity – a reminder that there is much to celebrate in the field of human endeavour; reassurance that people are capable of great things – ambition, invention, industry, courage, creativity, resilience and strength of spirit. READ MORE: Public Service Broadcasting's J Willgoose says why he has written new album about an unsung aviation legend Who would have thought that fortifying jolt of optimism could come in the shape of a band? Public Service Broadcasting do precisely that, celebrating uplifting achievements, forgotten stories and inspiring exploits. And they do it to an absorbing soundtrack of exhilarating electronica, driving guitar rock and tender instrumental introspection – studded with samples borrowed from old news reels and recorded archives. By Tim Hughes Since appearing on the radar with the juddering electronica and soaring guitar of breakthrough tune Spitfire, the South London outfit have taken listeners on audio journeys from the dark days of the London Blitz to the avant garde clubs of Berlin. They have introduced us to the heroes of the US-Soviet space race, the hardy miners of our now vanished coal industry, and, now, pioneering aviator Amelia Earhart. The ringmaster for this enlightening circus of invention is musical genius J Willgoose. Smartly turned out in trademark tweed, corduroy and bow tie, J shuns the role of the traditional rock frontman. He stands to the side of the stage and communicates with the audience through a computerised voice simulator. Over the years he has expanded his live outfit from two-piece to a full band – and on their visit to the New Theatre Oxford on March 20, they lay on a powerhouse show. Their new album The Last Flight focuses on the final journey of America's pioneering adventurer Amelia Earhart who, aged just 25, flew higher than any woman before her. The first female to fly solo across the Atlantic and Pacific, she set multiple speed and distance records. And her feats feature front and centre in the show. The stage is lit by a striking set resembling a flight deck – dials showing altitude and airspeed turning into screens displaying archive footage, punchy visuals and, in the case of Earhart's last 1937 flight, maps showing her journey around the world. And to a soaring symphonic soundscape, we are taken to the skies with her. We open with a piece about her plane – Electra – and follow her journey through Towards the Dawn, The South Atlantic, Arabian Flight and Monsoons. It is by turns intimate, epic, exciting and moving. The new tunes flow effortlessly into tunes from their other aerial extravaganza, The Race For Space. Sputnik is slow-building and epic, E.V.A. bubbly and dreamy, and The Other Side sparse and tense. Stylised gems from Berlin-inspired Bright Magic set a change of tone and style. Spitfire, their tribute to the victor of the Battle of Britain, energises the crowd and fits the airborne theme. We also get a taste of coal dust with Progress from the excellent From Every Valley album. But this is really a show with its head in the clouds and the wind in its hair – expansive narrative pieces lit up by shimmering interludes of live vocals and bursts of brass. They finish with a trip back to Mission Control for the punchy anthemic Go! But the best is yet to come with an encore featuring Bright Magic's bouncy People, Let's Dance and the funk-fuelled Gagarin – complete with dancing cosmonauts resplendent in full space suits and helmets. PSB. By Tim HughesThe set was a soaring celebration of aerial and cosmic endeavour, but to the delight of longstanding fans they returned to earth – albeit at its highest point – for final tune, Everest. This musical tribute to Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay's conquest of the world's highest peak is epic, rendered euphoric by triumphant trumpet and trombone. It was simply beautiful, a towering orchestral masterpiece inspired by an heroic feat. And, like the rest of the show, for just a while it succeeded in raising our spirits, cheering our souls and making the world a better place.
![[Ahmet Davutoglu] Trump aims to dismantle postwar US-led order](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F04%2F07%2Fnews-p.v1.20250407.06abf480cb84454c88c51bdbe002e66e_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Ahmet Davutoglu] Trump aims to dismantle postwar US-led order](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
[Ahmet Davutoglu] Trump aims to dismantle postwar US-led order
At the beginning of Donald Trump's first term in the White House, I argued that this would be no ordinary US presidency. The international order, already beset by fundamental weaknesses and disputes over its core values and institutions, was now facing a seismic shift. With the beginning of Trump's second term marked by even greater chaos, what once seemed like an isolated shock has evolved into a full-blown 'systemic earthquake.' Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, often unhinged executive orders, and despotic approach to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine have shaken the very foundations of the multilateral system, which took four centuries of wars and suffering — dating back to the Peace of Westphalia — to build. Trump's actions and pronouncements over the past two months suggest that we are entering an era of profound uncertainty in which crises can erupt and escalate at any moment. A single principle now seems to prevail: might is right. After all, at the heart of international law lies the principle of pacta sunt servanda: treaties must be honored. Yet within weeks of returning to the White House, Trump has violated, invalidated, or withdrawn from numerous agreements and commitments made by previous US administrations, including his own. Trump's broader foreign-policy objective appears to be to dismantle the global order established 80 years ago by a generation scarred by the horrors of World War II and usher in an era of neo-colonial competition. His threats to annex Greenland 'one way or another,' reclaim control of the Panama Canal, and turn Canada into the 51st state — along with his portrayal of Gazans as little more than an obstacle to a real-estate deal — offer a stark glimpse of his neo-imperialist worldview. Despite its oligarchic structure, the United Nations Security Council — dominated by its five permanent members (P5) and led by the United States — stands in the way of Trump's quest for global dominance. Consequently, he has chosen to bypass it in favor of a P2 arrangement that revolves around the US and Russia and echoes Cold War-era US-Soviet bilateralism. He has also openly defied Security Council resolutions, along with a wide range of international conventions. Trump's America First agenda stands in stark contrast to the 'humanity first' principle that underpinned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, crafted in the aftermath of WWII to prevent a resurgence of fascism. That declaration, and the subsequent creation of the UN Human Rights Council, embodied the spirit of an international order that placed human dignity above geopolitics. By rejecting this founding ideal, Trump risks transforming the Security Council into an instrument of brute force. If the four remaining permanent members were to adopt similarly nationalist postures, the result would be a dangerous scramble for dominance. Similarly, Trump's efforts to dismantle key UN agencies like the UNHRC, the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), UNESCO, and the World Health Organization are eroding the foundations of the international order. His destructive approach is not only undermining the UN system but also the Pax Americana that has long underpinned global stability. Unlike the imperial systems that preceded it, the postwar US-led order rested on three pillars: US-dominated multilateral institutions, a global security architecture built around alliances like NATO, and an economic order based on free trade and the dollar's status as the world's main reserve currency. By contrast, Trump's vision of Pax Americana for the twenty-first century is one of unchecked, tech-driven totalitarianism. His bullying tactics — such as his repeated attempts to humiliate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — are part of a broader effort to shock and intimidate global leaders into accepting his 19th-century vision of the world. This shift didn't come out of nowhere. The US-led order has been fraying for years. Since the end of the Cold War, US foreign policy has been marked by strategic discontinuity, with each administration adopting wildly different doctrines. George H.W. Bush's call for a 'new world order' was followed by Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventionism. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fueled George W. Bush's neoconservative rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama's multilateral but often passive diplomacy, in turn, triggered the reactionary reflexes that defined Trump's first term, just as Joe Biden's inconsistent and largely ineffective foreign policy — particularly in Gaza — helped pave the way for Trump's return. Now, with Trump more emboldened than ever, we are witnessing the consequences of America's strategic discontinuity: a neo-colonial order driven by Christian nationalism, empowered by advanced technologies, sustained by irrational impulses, and wrapped in brazen rhetoric. In the spring of 2002, in a lecture at Princeton University, I noted the surge of extreme nationalism in post-9/11 America and warned that the US did not need a Caesar-like leader who seeks domination through military might. Instead, it needed a Marcus Aurelius — a philosopher-statesman capable of leading a complex global order with wisdom, restraint, and respect for international law. For a while, I believed Obama could become such a leader. When he took office in 2009 and chose Turkey as his first overseas destination — followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt — I felt a genuine sense of hope. Alas, I was wrong. But my own experiences as foreign minister and later prime minister of Turkey reinforced my belief in the possibility of balancing diplomacy and force in a way that serves the interests of all countries — not just those of great powers. From Argentina to Turkey, countries around the world face the same fundamental choice confronting the US: Will we succumb to authoritarian Caesars who become more oppressive as their power grows, or will we choose leaders who, like Marcus Aurelius, seek to govern deliberatively? That is the defining question of our time, and we must answer it together. Ahmet Davutoglu is a former prime minister (2014-16) and foreign minister (2009-14) of Turkey. The views expressed here are the writer's own. — Ed.
