Countdown 64 Day Election

California 34 days until early voting

TRUMP FOREIGN POLICY  

Trump has only one true unfettered action he has sole responsibility, Foreign Policy.  The Constitution gives him the responsibility for representing the United States in all foreign affairs.  This makes Foreign Policy the one true test of his success or failure as president.  After 3 ½ years here are some of the current actions Trump has taken and the current status.  This looks at current status of China, Afghanistan, NATO, Paris Climate Accords, Iran, Venezuela, Middle East Peace, TPP, and North Korea. And the USMCA replacement of NAFTA.  The majority of these have either been put on hold or are in progress and will be unveiled and ceremonies will dazzle till November.

China and the Tariff War

In July 2018, US President Donald Trump followed through on months of threats to impose sweeping tariffs on China for its alleged unfair trade practices.  Over the months that have followed, the two countries have been in countless back-and-forth negotiations, a tit-for-tat tariff war, introduced foreign technology restrictions, fought several WTO cases, consequently leading US-China trade tensions to the brink of a full-blown trade war.

Both sides have also threatened qualitative measures that affect US businesses operating in China.  For many months, neither Trump nor China’s President, Xi Jinping, showed signs of wanting to back down.

The China trade war is summarized as to the current status in the CHINA BRIEFING from Dezan Shira & Associates.  The U.S.-China Trade War: a Timeline

“January 15, 2020, the first signs of a truce were seen, when the two sides signed the Phase One Deal, which officially agreed to the rollback of tariffs, expansion of trade purchases, and renewed commitments on intellectual property, technology transfer, and currency practices.

Day 782: August 25 – US, China hold trade talks, act optimistic on phase one trade deal China’s Vice Premier Liu He, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin talked trade matters this morning. “The two sides agreed to create conditions and atmosphere to continue pushing forward the implementation of the US-China phase one trade agreement,” according to a statement put forth by the Ministry of Commerce of China.

The office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) also released an announcement, speaking positively on the trade deal. “The parties addressed steps that China has taken to effectuate structural changes called for by the Agreement that will ensure greater protection for intellectual property rights, remove impediments to American companies in the areas of financial services and agriculture, and eliminate forced technology transfer. The parties also discussed the significant increases in purchases of U.S. products by China as well as future actions needed to implement the agreement,” said the USTR.

The call is a signal that both sides are still committed to the implementation of the agreement.

The US and China postponed the review of their phase one trade deal scheduled for August 15, 2020 – roughly half a year after January 15, 2020 when the deal were signed by two countries.

It is unclear about the reason for the postponement of the initial video conference between US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Chinese Vice President Liu He. So far, no new date for the review has been announced.

Currently, China’s imports of US agricultural and manufactured goods, energy, and services are well behind on fulfilling the agreed timeline – China has committed to buy at least US $200 billion worth US goods and services during 2020 and 2021. In the first half of 2020, China bought less than a quarter of the annual targeted amount of US goods agreed under the deal, although it has stepped up purchases of US farm and energy products in recent weeks.”

As you can see the results are not stellar and Trump as he continues to pay off big Agra for his unfulfilled promise for big purchases of soy beans, and consumers continue to pay for the tariffs. 

I can see the reason for the postponement by the U.S. Trade Representative.  A win for Trump?  Not yet, however there is time before the election and I predict he will announce the trade deal just prior to the election. Will Trump be able to force China to increase trade in our agricultural products?  If the announcement is close enough to the election will there be any time to scrutinize the result?

Afghanistan

There are currently approx. 8,600 troops in Afghanistan.  In a story in the Military Times an article written by Kathy Gannon writes:

“When the U.S. signed the deal with the Taliban on Feb. 29, after more than a year and a half of negotiations, it was touted as Afghanistan’s best chance at peace in four decades of war. It was also seen as a road map for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, ending America’s longest war. 

Four-and-a-half months after the signing, chief U.S. negotiator and peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad tweeted that “a key milestone in the implementation of the U.S.-Taliban agreement” had been reached as American troop numbers dropped to 8,600 from about 12,000 and five bases were closed in Afghanistan.” 

Even as Khalilzad chastised increased insurgent attacks on Afghan security forces, he said the Taliban had been true to their word not to attack U.S. and NATO troops. In recent weeks, hopes have been raised of a July start to negotiations but the Taliban and the Kabul government have become bogged down in the final release of prisoners, a prerequisite for the start of negotiations. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told the AP that the Taliban reject government efforts to substitute prisoners from the originally negotiated list for the exchange.

The Taliban have stepped up their military activity against Afghan government forces since Yaqoob’s appointment in May, a sign the militants under his leadership may see battlefield wins as upping their leverage at the negotiating table. 

“I can see a lot of reasons for the Taliban to be pushing the envelope — perhaps as a negotiation tactic, but equally likely as a means to test U.S limits,” said Daniel Markey, a senior research professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. “So far, the Trump administration looks like it is heading for the exit, no matter what. Why not ratchet up the violence to see what greater victories can be won? “

A story last week in the Washington Post had written: in a report released on Wednesday the police in the southern provinces use drugs.  The report claims half of the police in the south use drugs and as many as 70% of those being paid are ghost positions and the positions are not actually filled by people. This information comes from the Special Inspector general for Afghanistan Reconstruction.  PS. He promised to get out of Syria and there are still troops there.

Trump was determined to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan.  In Mid-2019 he was determined he would withdraw all troops before his election John Bolton had written in his book and added Trump had said “how does that look politically?” to a group including national security officials.  For now everyone should heed what Rand Paul said at the republican convention Mr. Trump “intends to end the war in Afghanistan “ at some future date TBA.  Decisions on national security issues should not be made with political decisions.

NATO

From his first meeting with NATO leaders he has managed to throw a wrench in the cool aid.  His either lack of understanding as how the organization is funded or he is or is just playing or is he actually dumb?  The funding comes from a pledge by the member states to invest with a goal of reaching 2% of their GDP by 2024. 

Each NATO European country since Russia had invaded the Crimean territory of Ukraine has boosted their participation and are in line to reach the 2% goal.  Donald Trump has beaten his chest saying it was I Donald that forced the countries to pony up.  This is most likely as a result of Donald being cozy with Putin and Trump’s ok with the Russian invasion into Crimea giving them the incentive.  Trump thumbed his nose at NATO by pulling troops out of Germany.

CNBC 29 July story by Amanda M. Micias

 WASHINGTON — Spurred on by President Donald Trump’s demand to pull troops out of Germany, the U.S. will bring about 6,400 forces home and shift about 5,400 to other countries in Europe, U.S. defense officials said Wednesday, detailing a Pentagon plan that will cost billions of dollars and take years to complete.

“The current EUCOM plan will reposition approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany, from roughly 36,000 down to 24,000, in a manner that will strengthen NATO, enhance the deterrence of Russia, and meet the other principles I set forth,” Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told reporters, referring to U.S. European Command which oversees U.S. military mission on the continent.

The decision fulfills Trump’s announced desire to withdraw troops from Germany, at least in part due to its failure to spend enough on defense. Trump has frequently dressed down NATO counterparts and threatened to reduce U.S. military support if allies do not increase spending. Last year while in London, Trump singled out German Chancellor Angela Merkel for not meeting the 2% of GDP spending goal set in 2014.

“So we’re paying 4 to 4.3% when Germany’s paying 1 to 1.2%, at max 1.2%, of a much smaller GDP. That’s not fair,” Trump said in December. According to the NATO figures, the U.S. spends less than Trump noted, 3.42% of GDP on defense, while Germany now spends 1.38%, which is an increase of about 11% from 2018.  Expenditures are not mandatory so why are you spending so much?  Are you a hypocrite Trump? Is the reason for the higher expenditures to hold on to defense jobs?

Considering the 2% is a goal and not mandatory is Trump’s actual motivation to satisfy a promise to Putin for his assistance with the 2016 election?

Paris Climate Accords

This is one of the more curious decisions in one sense and in another sense it is downright disturbing.  It is curious in that the Climate Accords were only goals and were not mandatory and had no penalties for non -compliance.  The disturbing facts are that the administration in all its relevant agencies Trump has put in place climate change deniers.  Trump has found actual mature individuals that do not believe in science. 

Trump in denial of the science can then justify all the deregulation of any regulations that inhibits production or distribution which can cause pollution.  Trump has gutted the clean air and clean water regulations.  Even going so far as allowing known chemicals into waterways that cause childhood disabilities.  Coal ash is now allowed in waterways that render the water full of lead and mercury and unsafe to drink.  Automobile MPG standards are also being rolled back by the administration and are being fought by California.  Climate change is science and is real Donald.

Iran Policy

Does anyone know why Trump exited the Iran nuclear agreement.  Is it so he could sell nuclear technology to the Saudi’s, after all with Trump exiting the agreement, Trump was anxious to see if Iran would take the bait and again gallop toward a nuclear weapon.  With Iran’s actions Trump thought he could show a Westinghouse 80 billion contract with the Saudis as a milestone deal to provide jobs.  This is why he went to Saudi Arabia first, to sell weapons and nuclear power.

 The Crown prince said he would only pursue nuclear energy if the Iranians had attempted to build a bomb.  What did Trump do with that information?  He weaponized it by pulling out of the Iran agreement on his own.  Other countries did not and Iran continued honoring the agreement and Trump has been furious since.  Without the Iranians breaking the agreement does he loose leverage with the Saudis to sell dirty and expensive energy solely for the purpose of generating electricity?  The Europeans seem to hold-on to the agreement as long as Iran complies,  which they have to Trump’s dismay.

Could these facts be the rationale for Trump to ask the United Nations to punish Iran last week (Aug, 2020) for not taking the bait?  It becomes obvious Trump is not interested in nuclear proliferation, or security in the Middle East, he is interested in hawking wares as a snake oil salesman creating the need.  The Saudis have been teasing companies for the last 4 years for this effort.  The Saudis settled for a wait and see attitude with starting out with the small research reactor currently being built.  Trump’s exit of the Iran agreement was as dumb, we now are alone putting pressure on Tehran.  A world with isolationism creates unnecessary security problems.

Iran has managed to dodge the imposed sanctions and are struggling as a result.  Iran has kept up their end of the agreement including allowing inspections at two sites this week.  Russia, China and the other signatories to the nuclear agreement have all gone around the sanctions and with some difficulty and have succeeded.  A failed policy?

VENEZUELA

Will Trump go after Maduro to win a re-election?

Carlos Eduardo Pina 30 Aug 2019 Aljazeera

In January this year, US President Donald Trump stunned many in Venezuela by giving his backing to opposition leader Juan Guaido after he proclaimed himself acting president of the country.

Since then, the US has made a series of unprecedented political, economic and diplomatic moves in an attempt to hasten the removal of President Nicolas Maduro. The Trump administration attempted to legitimize these actions by arguing that Maduro’s “illegitimate” government, which came to power due to “fraudulent elections” has transformed Venezuela into a “failed state” and made it the epicenter of a humanitarian crisis with a major regional spillover.

Why is the US president so determined to facilitate regime change in Venezuela and is he likely to succeed?

First, Trump wants the United States to have control over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and knows that he cannot achieve this while Maduro’s left-wing government is in power. Consecutive US administrations have also worked hard to eliminate any actor that poses a threat to US oil imports and Trump’s is no different.

Some analysts have recently suggested that a desire to control Venezuela’s oil reserves cannot be the reason behind Washington’s insistence on pushing for regime change in the country. They have argued that US oil companies would be reluctant to develop Venezuelan’s heavy crude oil at a time when domestic oil production is increasing.

This is not a valid argument, however. Although the US is indeed significantly less dependent on Venezuelan oil than it was 10 years ago, Washington still views having control over the largest proven oil reserves as an important strategic advantage in a world which still runs on fossil fuel.

Moreover, there is reason to believe US oil companies are still interested in Venezuela’s reserves. Trump has appointed people associated with the US oil lobby, such as John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo, to key positions in his administration. These people, undoubtedly, have in mind the oil industry’s interests when they are making decisions about US foreign policy on Venezuela and its support for the opposition. 

Trump indeed wants the US to have direct say in Venezuela’s oil industry, but perhaps even more urgently, he wants to make sure China or Russia does not control this strategic resource.

When Hugo Chavez became Venezuela’s president in 1999, anti-US sentiments started to spread rapidly in the country and the wider region, which allowed Russia and China to increase their influence in Latin America. In response, the US took steps to strengthen its relations with other countries in the region such as Colombia and Argentina. After taking office, Trump took the polarization in the region to the next level, transforming Venezuela into a battleground for the competition between global powers.

There are also domestic reasons for Trump’s interest in the demise of the Venezuelan government.

First of all, there is a large and fervently anti-Maduro Venezuelan community living in Florida, a state which has historically played a key role in deciding the winner of the US presidential elections. Trump wants to secure the support of Florida residents – many of whom hail from Latin America and support the Venezuelan opposition – in the 2020 election and he knows the way to achieve this is to convince them that he is doing everything he possibly can to topple the Chavista government.

Another reason behind Trump’s obsession with toppling the Maduro government is related to the rise of the Democratic Party’s “socialist” wing. The US president feels threatened by the popularity of the likes of Senator Bernie Sanders (who has pulled ahead of him in a number of swing states) and House Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

In response, Trump has started to equate in his rhetoric progressive policies with Chavismo and use the failures of the Maduro government to convince the US electorate that a progressive Democratic president would only bring economic collapse and social devastation.

After 65 countries, including the US, announced their support for Guaido’s self-declared presidency, many assumed the Maduro government’s days were numbered. Trump froze all Venezuelan government assets in the US and imposed crippling sanctions on the country. Meanwhile, Bolton warned of potential military action against Venezuela. None of this, however, proved enough to unseat the embattled Venezuelan president.

Maduro has managed to hold on to his seat this long mainly because Venezuela’s influential military has stood by him. The diplomatic and economic support he received from China and Russia have also helped retain power, and so did to a certain extent the European Union with its affirmation that it would not support any military action against the government. 

But none of this guarantees the Chavista government’s long-term survival. Given his failures in other foreign policy adventures – including his inability to strike a deal with North Korea and to bring down Iran – Trump could still decide to pursue the Venezuela file in order to guarantee his re-election. Earlier this month, he imposed an expansive economic embargo on the country to show the world that he has no intention of giving up. His next step could be signing off on a military intervention.

If Trump succeeds in orchestrating the demise of Chavismo in Venezuela, this would be the most important “victory” of his presidency. If he fails, however, it will certainly go down in history as one of the greatest blunders of American foreign policy. 

No matter what happens, in the end, it will be the Venezuelan people bearing the brunt of Trump’s foreign policy experiments. The sanctions have already devastated the country and made life extremely difficult, especially for the country’s poor. A military intervention would certainly result in a major humanitarian catastrophe and unimaginable human loss. 

Will this be another failed foreign policy for Donald Trump?

Middle East Peace

Middle East Peace, illusive at best, and with Trump it’s muddled.  The UAE and Israel peace accords should garner some type of success story, however,  it has not.   Both the UAE and Israel use nuclear energy and have agreed to recognize each other and have embassy’s.  So why is it not a success?  Was the lure of advanced F-35 A/C and other military enticements?  The Palestinian’s considered this agreement a slap in the face of Arab unity for that was  collectively  for a Palestinian state.

The entire peace process that Jared Kushner has undertaken for the last 3 ½ years has only managed to garner this one agreement that has pissed of many of the Arab States.  Prior to this Egypt was the only other Arab state to recognize Israel.

Kushner heads to Middle East looking to deliver some semblance of a peace deal ahead of election.  August 31 there is big show being prepared for signing the Israel/ UAE agreement.

By Vivian Salama, Kylie Atwood and Zachary Cohen, CNN

Updated 12:00 AM ET, Sat August 29, 2020 

Washington (CNN)White House senior adviser Jared Kushner is traveling to the Middle East this weekend to try to convince multiple Arab leaders to attend a splashy signing ceremony at the White House for the recent normalization deal between the United Arab Emirates and Israel. 

The aim is to provide a bit of eleventh hour grandeur, to herald a rare foreign-policy win and help bolster President Donald Trump’s reelection efforts this November. 

Several diplomatic and congressional sources told CNN that Kushner is courting multiple Arab countries to commit to attending a ceremony in Washington and that push is part of his trip to the region. They include Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain and Oman, according to two of those sources. Some of those countries are mulling over the possibility of making the trip and considering who they would send, the sources said.

As well as aiming to formalize the UAE-Israel agreement and secure the grand ceremony Trump has envisioned, Kushner. who is the President’s son-in-law, is also using the trip, alongside other top US officials, to pursue a series of normalization agreements between Israel and various Arab nations and strengthen efforts to counter Iran.

Kushner’s name and reputation have been inextricably linked to the flailing Middle East peace plan since the administration was in its infancy. Ivanka Trump said at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night that her father defied “all expectations” and “rewrote history again by making a peace agreement in the Middle East, the biggest breakthrough in a quarter century” as her husband smiled in the audience. 

Kushner is widely perceived to have failed in his efforts to resolve the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict but there is a hope that these efforts could help resurrect his reputation as a diplomat. His task is daunting, however, and there’s skepticism from multiple sources that further normalization agreements can be agreed on between Israel and other Arab states. There are also complications that will need to be addressed over the agreement with the UAE.

But it’s significant that Kushner is leading a delegation that includes national security adviser Robert O’Brien, outgoing US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook, Special Representative for International Negotiations Avi Berkowitz and senior National Security Council officials Miguel Correa and Rob Greenway, according to a senior White House official.

Despite Kushner having had no foreign policy experience before his father-in-law appointed him, there is a wide belief in diplomatic circles that Kushner is the only person truly able to influence the unpredictable American President. 

One senior administration official noted the significance of Kushner leading a delegation that includes the President’s national security adviser. “(John) Bolton and (H.R.) McMaster wouldn’t have agreed to that,” this person said, referring to O’Brien’s predecessors under Trump. “Jared is running the show.” 

Shift in focus to Iran

The administration’s approach involves a shift in focus from aiming to establish peace between Israelis and Palestinians to creating a regional coalition among a somewhat random group of nations, aimed at balking Iranian aggression.

The fragile normalization agreement between the world’s newest bellwether allies, Israel and the United Arab Emirates — united in their mutual contempt for Tehran and their strong ties to the Trump White House — is being used as a model for other countries.

The hope, according to two US and two foreign officials, is that in the short term, Bahrain, Oman, Sudan and Morocco will follow suit. Representatives from those countries did not respond to a request for comment.

Normalization for this particular group of countries isn’t a stretch, since most have had at least covert ties with Israel for years and have become increasingly tolerant of Israel as a regional business partner and major power in the region. 

Kushner will tell various nations that an anti-Iran coalition is their best bet and an effective insurance policy should former Vice President and Democratic hopeful Joe Biden pull off a win in the presidential election, according to several US and foreign officials. 

The Trump delegation will first stop in Israel for meetings, after which it will escort a number of Israeli government experts from various sectors on the first-ever commercial flight from Tel Aviv to Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital, on Monday, a senior White House official told CNN. Other stops include Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and possibly Oman and Morocco, the official said.

Ties between Washington, Israel and the Arab Gulf nations became strained under former President Barack Obama over the nuclear accord with Iran, which those countries viewed as a means of empowering Tehran. Since coming into office, Trump has withdrawn the US from the nuclear accord and worked to restore relations with Israel and the oil-rich Arab Gulf sheikhdoms. 

But Iranian aggression, and the potential for renewed nuclear talks under a Biden administration, isn’t the only incentive for these countries to throw caution to the wind and normalize ties with Israel. 

Aid for peace

One of Israel’s leading newspapers alleged this month that there was a “secret clause” in Israel’s deal to normalize relations with the UAE — one that would allow the UAE to buy billions of dollars in advanced military hardware from the US, including drones, F-35 stealth fighters and other weaponry. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially slammed reports of a possible stealth fighter jet deal as “completely fake news.” But then Kushner said last Sunday in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that the normalization agreement “should increase the probability” of an F-35 jet sale to the UAE.

Administration officials and experts agree that countries like Bahrain, Oman, Sudan and Morocco are intrigued by talk of military and economic aid for peace, and may be enticed by such a proposition. 

The concept of aid for peace isn’t new. US aid to Egypt has historically been conditioned on its obligations under the 1979 Camp David treaty, which ended three decades of sporadic wars with Israel. As relations between the two countries have dithered, with particular low points since Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in 2011, that funding has been seen as one of the treaty’s primary guarantees. 

Similarly, Jordan’s efforts to begin peace talks with Israel in 1994 came, in part, in the hope that Israel could compel Washington to resume military aid and spare parts as well as delivery of a squadron of F-16 jet fighters for the Royal Jordanian Air Force.

But several administration officials and GOP congressional aides told CNN that Kushner’s ability to make guarantees regarding military aid is questionable, particularly since these matters particularly go through a robust interagency process and are typically also cleared by Congress. 

Bumps in the road

While the hope is that these other countries may agree to establish formal diplomatic ties with Israel, the likelihood of getting there by Election Day remains uncertain. Sudan shunned the idea publicly ahead of a visit this week by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, saying it doesn’t have a mandate to pursue normalization with Israel. 

Moroccan Prime Minister Saad Dine El Otmani also told reporters this week that “we refuse any normalization with the Zionist entity because this emboldens it to go further in breaching the rights of the Palestinian people.” 

Administration officials acknowledged that the situation was too fluid and so hope for reaching additional agreements remains uncertain at best.

Even the UAE-Israel deal seemed to hit a snag almost as soon as it was announced. Both countries issued a flurry of contradictory statements about how the deal will impact Palestinians, who viewed the announcement as a sign of waning support among fellow Arabs.

UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed said on Twitter that an agreement had been reached to stop further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories, a threat Netanyahu had pledged to carry out this year. But later, in a televised address, Netanyahu confirmed that his annexation plans had only been “temporarily suspended,” adding that he was “still committed” to annexing parts of the West Bank.

Omar Ghobash, a top Emirati government minister, later confirmed that “we don’t have any guarantees as such” from Israel that it would not annex occupied Palestinian territory in the future.

The process is still ongoing and has always been illusive as long as Israel insists on taking over traditionally Arab territories.

Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)

From Wikipedia, The  Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, was a proposed trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States signed on 4 February 2016.

After the newly elected US president Donald Trump withdrew the US signature from TPP in January 2017, the agreement could not be ratified as required and did not enter into force. The remaining countries negotiated a new trade agreement called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which incorporates most of the provisions of the TPP and which entered into force on 30 December 2018.

The TPP began as an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam, bringing the negotiating countries to twelve.

 In January 2017, the United States withdrew from the agreement. The other 11 TPP countries agreed in May 2017 to revive it and reached agreement in January 2018. In March 2018, the 11 countries signed the revised version of the agreement, called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. After ratification by six of them (Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore), the agreement came into force for those countries on 30 December 2018.

The original TPP contained measures to lower both non-tariff and tariff barriers to trade, and establish an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. The U.S. International Trade Commission, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found the final agreement would, if ratified, lead to net positive economic outcomes for all signatories, while an analysis using an alternative methodology by two Tufts University economists found the agreement would adversely affect the signatories. 

Many observers have argued the trade deal would have served a geopolitical purpose, namely to reduce the signatories’ dependence on Chinese trade and bring the signatories closer to the United States.

If the true goal of Trump was to have China come into line, what better way than providing a vehicle to insure greater competition and alternate sources for goods now monopolized by  China with it’s cheap and plentiful labor force.

North Korea

The dotard in chief has been played by Kim.  The friendship has waned in recent months and talks have not been resumed.  Trump actually said you can rest easy, he has handled North Korea and “never again having to worry about North Korean nukes.”

North Korea  has the world’s fourth-largest standing military, highly-trained special forces, chemical weapons and a nuclear arsenal. Its citizens are closed off from the rest of the world and many are impoverished.  North Korea continues with both the nuclear program, and its inter-continental ballistic missile program enhancing its capabilities daily.

But the winds of change could be blowing. Kim Jong Un, the country’s young leader, made his debut on the diplomatic stage in 2018, meeting with some of the world’s most powerful leaders.  This despot’s debut on the worlds stage was made possible by Trump legitimizing his regime.  Current rumors are he is in poor health.  These rumors circulate when he does not appear in public for more than 2 days.

Kim has publicly committed his country to a path of peace and denuclearization.  The big questions remains however. Why now?   What about North Korea’s alleged human rights abuses? And is Kim sincere, or could the rest of the world get played?  Kim has used friendly overtures to buy time to continue to develop his nuclear ambitions, and it appears Kim has played Trump.

USMCA

Vox news By Jen Kirbyjen.kirby@vox.com  Updated Jul 1, 2020, 1:09pm EDT

The trade deal between Canada, Mexico, and the US officially goes into force July 1.

The United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) is an updated version of the nearly 25-year-old, trillion-dollar North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It includes major changes on cars and new policies on labor and environmental standards, intellectual property protections, and some digital trade provisions.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to renegotiate NAFTA, which he called “the worst trade deal ever made.” As president, he did so. The result is the USMCA, which Trump signed into law in January and touted as one of his signature achievements in his State of the Union address. 

Here’s a brief overview of what’s in it:

• Country of origin rules: Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA).
• Labor provisions: 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts must be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico agreed to pass new labor laws to give greater protections to workers, including migrants and women. Most notably, these laws are supposed to make it easier for Mexican workers to unionize.
• US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, a big issue for Trump.
• Intellectual property and digital trade: The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author (up from 50). It also includes new provisions to deal with the digital economy, such as prohibiting duties on things like music and e-books, and protections for internet companies so they’re not liable for content their users produce.
• Sunset clause: The agreement adds a 16-year sunset clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire, or “sunset,” after 16 years. The deal is also subject to a review every six years, at which point the US, Mexico, and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA.

Democrats on Capitol Hill refused to sign on to the deal without stronger enforcement of labor provisions, stricter environmental protections, and other changes.  As can be seen by some of the changes the agreement is more of an update to NAFTA than a new agreement.  This a modification provides more equity after 25 years of the agreement.  The original agreement did not address e-commerce. 

 t h