Tag Archives: foreign policy

A Mixed Message

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s (R) tariff program is before the Supreme Court (oral arguments were heard last Wednesday), it appears to be in trouble, and I claim it’s due to his mixed messaging to us in the public.

I have long argued, especially during Trump II’s tariff implementations, that there are two purposes for tariffs, and so two kinds of tariffs. One kind is protectionist tariffs, tariffs implemented to protect domestic industries, especially those in their nascent stages and those that are national security critical. Protectionist tariffs are, in the main, badly mistaken for a variety of reasons; although, an argument can be made that protectionism related to national security is a cost of national security that must be paid if we’re to remain free as a nation.

The other kind of tariff is that used as a foreign policy tool, tariffs applied in order to persuade another nation or bloc of nations to desist from their unfair trade practices, viz., dumping product at below cost, unfair subsidies of their own domestic industries, withholding export of products critical to the importing nation’s economy or national security, or other policies to which the tariffing nation might object.

Trump has been busily touting both the revenue raised by all of his tariffs, of both kinds, while also insisting that they’re necessary foreign policy tools intended to get other nations to leave off their unfair trade practices, to “stop ripping off America,” and to mend their ways on other matters.

Which brings me to the present article by The Wall Street Journal‘s Greg Ip.

Lawyers often stretch the facts to make their case, but even so, this was quite the howler from US Solicitor General John Sauer in defense of President Trump’s tariffs at the Supreme Court on Wednesday: “They are not revenue-raising tariffs.”

Ip, with that lede, stripped his Sauer sentence of its context. The rest of what Sauer was saying is that their purpose, as a foreign policy tool, is to persuade the targeted nations to change their ways. That these foreign policy tools also happen to produce money is deeply secondary. Ip later acknowledged that, but not until deep into his piece. Sauer again, originally:

“The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most effective, so to speak, if no person ever paid them,” because they would have achieved their goal of changing another country’s behavior, or diverting all American purchases away from imports to domestic goods[.]

And that’s the problem with Trump’s rhetoric here. He’s made no distinction in his program between tariffs as protectionism and revenue-raising, the latter which is a Congressional prerogative and not Executive, and tariffs as foreign tools, which is an Executive prerogative and not Congressional.

This is a milieu where Trump’s studied vagueness in his rhetoric may well backfire. Keeping adversaries suitably confused as to our intentions through ambiguity can be highly useful. However, American law, and so our courts—especially our Supreme Court—deal in clearly stated specifics within each case that comes before them. Vague, especially, internally conflicting, speech is properly disdained by judges and Justices.

Trump’s contaminating his use of tariffs as foreign policy tools with his use of tariffs as protectionist policy may well produce the elimination of his tariff program in toto. That would be to our nation’s economic ill, and to our nation’s national security detriment.

Immorality

Posted on by
Reply

The men and women of the People’s Republic of China government, led overwhelmingly by President Xi Jinping, are behaving in an utterly immoral fashion when it comes to lethal, illegal drugs and the precursors for manufacturing them.

Those men and women have been continually welching on the agreements they pretend to make to curb fentanyl and fentanyl precursors exports.

Even when Beijing toughens regulations on individual precursors, as it has done several times in recent years, including this summer, Chinese producers can get around the rules by slightly altering the chemical structure of their products.

This bit saucers and blows it.

China calibrates its cooperation on counternarcotics in response to the overall US relationship, said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution.

That’s a polite way of saying that the PRC’s government men and women will continue to poison our children unless and until we kowtow to their demands.

Or maybe Xi and his syndicate simply are amoral, with no concept of what’s right or wrong or the differences between the two—only naked power for themselves, nationally, and egoistically globally.

This, more than any military or cyber superiority, is what makes the PRC exceedingly dangerous.

Silliness

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has directed DoD to begin nuclear weapons testing. It’s unclear, at this point, whether he wants to test the existing arsenal or test delivery systems under development or to be developed.

Rhode Island’s Progressive-Democratic Senator Jack Reed has the present installment of silliness, as paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal.

[B]reaking the testing moratorium would prompt Moscow and Beijing to restart full-fledged testing.
US nuclear testing, he added, would also provide justification for Pakistan, India, and North Korea, which last tested in 2017, “to expand their own testing regimes, destabilizing an already fragile global nonproliferation architecture.”

Russia already is in the early stages of full-fledged testing, as evidenced by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bragging about his new nuclear hypersonic missiles, nuclear-powered nuclear-armed cruise missiles, and nuclear-armed torpedoes. The People’s Republic of China is expanding its own nuclear arsenal as fast as it can; such expansion doesn’t occur without testing.

Pakistan, India, northern Korea? The last has shown no restraint in testing nuclear missiles; it’s not even bound by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Baby Kim’s only reason for pausing is his publicly stated decision to focus on parallel development of his conventional forces. Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenals aimed at each other, and India faces a nuclear-armed and threatening enemy in the PRC. Neither Pakistan nor India are members of the NPT. There should be no doubt they’ll engage in testing as they develop their arsenals.

Demanding Instant Results

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has threatened tariffs, raised and lowered them (though rarely as much as they were raised), and concluded on-again, off-again tariff agreements with the People’s Republic of China. The bulk of these moves have come within the opening months of Trump II, even though some moves were made during Trump I.

The good editors at The Wall Street Journal are taking a dim view of this. The opening of their lede:

President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping struck their third trade truce in a year on Thursday, and the best we can say is that the deal averted more economic damage.

Later in the piece, they offered this…truism:

One lesson here is that trade wars aren’t easy to win, especially against a peer competitor.

To which I say, “Patience, Grasshoppers.”

Wars—and the PRC has been fighting this economic war with us for lots of years, even if we’ve been slow to recognize that—are rarely over in a day. WWI was fought over four years, and WWII took eight years out of our globe’s weal and life. Looking farther back was the 30 Years War and the 100 Years War. The barbarian’s 3-day invasion of Ukraine now is approaching its 4th year. Over in what is now the PRC, the period of the Warring States lasted 250 years, and the century of humiliation that the PRC still remembers (the opium wars were in the beginning of that period) lasted…100 years and a bit more.

The men and women of the PRC government take a long view of things, even a generational view. It would be good were the changing men and women of our government to take a similarly long view. The WSJ editorial board could contribute by doing the same.

Trump’s moves may, indeed, end up with no material net effect, or they may end in national disaster, or they may end in a renewed and refreshed century of Pax Americana. It’s years too early to tell.

Idiotic

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) made the rounds in Asia, working foreign policy goals with a measure of success that was greater than the shortfalls. Meanwhile, Progressive-Democrats kept the US government closed over their Never Trump, No Way snit centered on their demand to permanently extend Obamacare subsidies that they’d planned for expiry when they passed their own spending bill during the Biden reign, a discussion that would occur apace once the government is reopened.

During Trump’s trip took him out of the country while the Progressive-Democrats held the government closed, and because of that, Progressive-Democrats led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) bellyached loudly that Trump had left town during the shutdown. How dare he?

What’s being missed in the Progressive-Democrats’ plaints and what’s being actively ignored by the press is ex-President Jimmy Carter’s actions during the Iran hostage crisis. Carter promised to remain voluntarily imprisoned in the White House until those hostages were freed. He kept that promise for 444 days, with the hostages being released only the day before Ronald Reagan’s (R) inauguration, with Reagan having promised sterner responses to Iran’s hostage-taking.

Presidents holing up at home in response to every problem—serious or otherwise—that comes up only stupidly limits the President’s options and capabilities for dealing with other problems—serious or otherwise—that also crop up, even in today’s more modern communications environment.

It seems, though, that the Progressive-Democrats have chosen to ignore that lesson. They seem to have chosen, instead, to be upset that they can’t control a sitting President of the other party.