1. At
U.S.-China summit, Trump presses Xi on trade, North Korea; progress cited
Reuters April 7, 2017
President
Donald Trump pressed Chinese President Xi Jinping to do more to curb North
Korea’s nuclear program and help reduce the gaping U.S. trade deficit with
Beijing in talks on Friday, even as he toned down the strident anti-China
rhetoric of his election campaign.
Trump
spoke publicly of progress on a range of issues in his first U.S.-China summit
– as did several of his top aides – but they provided few concrete specifics
other than China's agreement to work together to narrow disagreements and find
common ground for cooperation.
As
the two leaders wrapped up a Florida summit overshadowed by U.S. missile
strikes in Syria overnight, Xi joined Trump in stressing the positive mood of
the meetings while papering over deep differences that have caused friction
between the world’s two biggest economies.
Trump’s
aides insisted he had made good on his pledge to raise concerns about China’s
trade practices and said there was some headway, with Xi agreeing to a 100-day
plan for trade talks aimed at boosting U.S. exports and reducing China’s trade
surplus with the United States.
Speaking
after the two-day summit at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, U.S.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also said that Xi had agreed to increased
cooperation in reining in North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs – though
he did not offer any new formula for cracking Pyongyang’s defiant attitude.
Trump
had promised during the campaign to stop what he called the theft of American
jobs by China. Many blue-collar workers helped propel him to his unexpected
election victory on Nov. 8 and Trump is under pressure to deliver for them.
The
Republican president tweeted last week that the United States could no longer
tolerate massive trade deficits and job losses and that his meeting with Xi
"will be a very difficult one."
On
Friday, the unpredictable Trump not only set a different tone but also avoided
any public lapses in protocol that Chinese officials had feared could embarrass
their leader.
"We
have made tremendous progress in our relationship with China," Trump told
reporters as the two delegations met around tables flanked by large U.S. and
Chinese flags. "We will be making additional progress. The relationship
developed by President Xi and myself I think is outstanding.
“And I believe lots of very potentially bad
problems will be going away," he added, without providing details.
"AGREE
WITH YOU 100 PERCENT"
Xi
also spoke in mostly positive terms.
“We have engaged in deeper
understanding, and have built a trust," he said. “I believe we will keep
developing in a stable way to form friendly relations....For the peace and
stability of the world, we will also fulfill our historical responsibility.”
“Well, I agree with you
100 percent," Trump replied.
But
in a sign that rough spots remained, Tillerson afterwards described the
discussions as “very frank and candid.”
“President Trump and
President Xi agreed to work in concert to expand areas of cooperation while
managing differences based on mutual respect,” he said.
After
the meeting, Trump took Xi on a walk around the manicured grounds of his lavish
Spanish-style complex. Trump could be seen chatting and gesturing to Xi, who
did the same.
Tillerson
said Trump had accepted Xi’s invitation to visit China and that they also
agreed to upgrade a U.S.-China dialogue by putting the two presidents at the
head of the forum.
U.S.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the Chinese had expressed an interest in
reducing China’s trade surplus as a way of controlling their own inflation.
“That’s the first time I’ve heard them say that in a bilateral context,” he
said.
Ross
declined to say whether the United States was ready to designate China a
currency manipulator, however, referring to an upcoming report in which that
issue would be addressed.
Although
Trump during the presidential election campaign had pledged to label China a
currency manipulator on the first day of his administration, he has refrained
from doing so.
2. Comment: Trump's great change to Syria's attitude
DW.COM 2017.04
Trump
ordered the military action in Syria to be contrary to his previous position on
Syria, which made the United States involved in a conflict without seeing the
end.
After
the predecessor of Donald Trump finally decided not to have direct military
intervention against Syria, there was a reason. At that time, including
the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Hillary Clinton), including
cabinet members, as well as Republican senators John McCain (John McCain),
Lehammer (Lindsey Graham) and other congressional leaders, as well as the
French President Francois Hollande and other international political missions
support the military intervention in Syria. Visible, Obama's decision is
not easy.
The
United States has conducted military intervention in Afghanistan and
Iraq. In Libya, although the United States did not directly lead, but if
there is no US support, where the military action will not be carried
out. When Obama made a decision not to engage in direct military
intervention in Syria, the United States and the world were still digesting the
consequences of the three military operations. After years of massacres, these
three interventions still did not achieve the desired result - even if they did
not bring real peace to those countries, at least to stabilize them.
But
the main reason why President Obama had decided not to intervene in Syria was
that it might sound harsh, and the conflict was undoubtedly terrible - Syria
did not pose a threat to the national security of the United States. Obama
was hesitant, especially when he thought of his unscrupulous "red
line", but he still insisted on his attitude: the Syrian conflict did not
meet the necessary threshold for US intervention. It does not threaten the
national interests of the United States.
The task is arduous
Obama
opposes direct military intervention in Syria
His
attitude became tough after Obama took himself against his belief and was
dragged into the unfortunate military intervention in Libya. At that time,
he realized that the intervention of a more complex Syrian conflict would allow
the United States to take full responsibility from the political, military and
economic perspectives to address the dilemma of this war-torn country.
Intervention
Syria not only requires a strong military muscle, but also bear many years of
post-war reconstruction responsibility, and this is a lot of Americans worry
about the task. Obama knows that Americans who are tired of the war are
still suffering from the financial crisis and have no interest in helping other
countries to rebuild the promise.
Until
recently, Trump's view on this issue was similar to that of Obama, but in his
usual style, his opposition to military intervention was much stronger than
that of Obama. In 2013, Trump repeatedly complained against US military
intervention in Syria on Twitter. To be fair, Trump was a firm opponent of
Syrian military operations.
Attitude change
In
addition, Trump also hinted that the cooperation with the Assad government to
combat the so-called "Islamic State (IS)", in the President's view,
this is the real threat of US national security. This attitude is in line
with the Trump "American priority" campaign theme: the United States
should focus on domestic affairs, only to obtain significant national interests
in the case of participation in international affairs.
But
this week a rebel armed occupation of the Syrian city suffered a suspected
chemical weapons attacks, a large number of casualties, including many
children. It was clear that Trump's entire plan was suddenly
changed. Indeed, if new facts arise, the president is not only entitled to
change his mind, but also to act. But the problem is still - just as Obama
made a comment on the "red line" - there is never a convincing plan
to solve Syria's problems.
In
addition, President Trump also tried to implement relatively simple domestic
policies, such as tourism ban and health care reform, but have repeatedly
failed. This does not mean that he is more capable of solving many complex
international problems such as the Syrian conflict.
3.
As goes France, so goes the EU
French
voters hold the Continent’s future in their hands.
Politico 2017.04.06
Marine
Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron
PARIS
— When France sneezes, Europe catches pneumonia.
Rarely
have the French faced a starker choice of European futures than in this year’s
presidential election, where they’ll vote for “bye-bye European Union” or “back
to a Europe of Nations” or even “fast forward to a more integrated Union.”
If
the opinion polls are accurate and fickle voters, angry with the political
class, don’t change their minds at the ballot box, the second-round runoff on
May 7 is likely to pit anti-EU nationalist Marine Le Pen against pro-EU
centrist Emmanuel Macron. Still in contention in the first round on April 24
are conservative Gaullist François Fillon and evergreen leftist Jean-Luc
Mélenchon.
Le
Pen has promised to take France out of the euro and the Schengen open-border
zone, reintroduce the franc and reimpose border controls and trade barriers,
and has said she will call a referendum on leaving the European Union
altogether within six months if the bloc isn’t receptive to her proposals for a
radical treaty renegotiation.
It
is no exaggeration to say that a Le Pen victory could deal a fatal blow to the
eurozone and the EU, which can survive a Brexit but would be mortally wounded
by a Frexit. Germany’s federal election on September 24 matters too, but
is less uncertain — the German vote is bound to produce another coalition
led by one or the other pro-European mainstream party. For now, all eyes are on
Paris.
“Europe
is locking us up, Europe is forbidding us, Europe is bullying us” —
Marine Le Pen
France,
unlike Britain — which joined the EU late and was always semi-detached — has
been a central pillar of European construction from the outset. Its passions
and tantrums have dictated the tempo and shape of integration.
From
the failure of the European Defense Community to the Treaty of Rome, from De
Gaulle’s vetoes of Britain’s first membership bids to the “empty chair” crisis
and the “Luxembourg compromise;” from the creation of the European Monetary System
and the euro to the rise and fall of the proposed European constitution, the
European project has advanced or retreated at France’s pace.
The
result of the May 7 vote, and of subsequent parliamentary elections in June,
will determine whether the EU is plunged into existential crisis or given a new
lease of life with the prospect of a Franco-German grand bargain to deepen
European economic, monetary and defense cooperation.
Neither
French front-runner can necessarily count on a parliamentary majority to
implement their program and their promises may well be tempered by the
influence of the political and business establishment.
Yet
in the wake of Britain’s vote to leave the EU and the election of Donald Trump
in the United States, the choice between isolationism and internationalism,
between a closed, protectionist, angry France and an open, economically
liberalizing, optimistic one is a litmus test that will shape Europe’s future
for years to come.
“Europe
is locking us up, Europe is forbidding us, Europe is bullying us,” Le Pen
declared during a television debate among the main candidates last month. “I
don’t aspire to administer what would have become a mere region of the European
Union. I don’t wish to be vice chancellor to [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel.”
Aware
that her plan for an economic and monetary leap into the unknown scares the
middle-class voters she needs to win over to reach 50 percent in the runoff, Le
Pen has kept quiet about leaving the euro, seeking, instead, to project a
reassuring “I’m-on-your-side” image and appear stateswoman-like by meeting
Russian President Vladimir Putin or addressing the parliament in Chad.
Perhaps
surprisingly, given the current grumpy, Euroskeptical mood in France, polls
predict the most pro-European candidate, 39-year-old favorite Macron, has the
best chance of beating the far-right leader in the runoff. This despite his
avowed support for pooling more sovereignty in the eurozone and building a European
defense union in close partnership with Germany.
In
one of the rare dramatic exchanges in this week’s marathon TV debate among the
11 candidates, he accused Le Pen of proposing “economic war.”
Macron,
who was top economic adviser and then economy minister under Socialist
President François Hollande before resigning last year, is the only candidate
who has promised to adhere to France’s much-neglected European obligation to
bring its budget deficit below 3 percent of gross domestic product. His commitment
to fiscal responsibility and economic reform, and his sudden rise to
front-runner, won him an audience with Merkel last month after the center-right
German chancellor had declined to make time for him — probably out of tribal
loyalty to her French conservative allies — when he visited Berlin in January.
