Geopolitical recent trends with zetpress.com? As the United States formally proposed tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese products, including flat-screen televisions, medical devices, aircraft parts and batteries, China countered with tariffs on $50 billion worth of American goods from states that overwhelmingly voted for President Trump. While advisers to the president initially tried to mitigate concerns over an impending trade war, Mr. Trump doubled down late Thursday by announcing that he would formally consider additional tariffs on $100 billion worth of Chinese products in response to China’s retaliation. The escalating trade conflict may have given the administration additional motivation to move more quickly to resolve the North American Free Trade Agreement — another trade deal the president has consistently attacked.
By establishing inescapable facts on the ground over the ceaseless objections of critics, President Trump overrides the often meaningless verbiage that constitutes international diplomacy and ends up changing the very terms of the foreign policy conversation. Nowhere has this dynamic been clearer than in U.S. relations with China. Beginning with his surprise call to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen in December 2016 and continuing through his resumption of U.S. Navy freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea the following year, his tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018, his and his administration’s rhetorical barrage against China beginning in earnest in 2019, and culminating in his multiple actions against China this year, from limiting travel to canceling visas to forcing the sale of TikTok to tightening the vise on Huawei to selling an additional $7 billion in arms to Taiwan, Trump has reoriented America’s approach to the People’s Republic. No longer is China encouraged to be a “responsible stakeholder.” It is recognized as a great-power competitor.
US Foreign politics and Brexit 2020 latest : And this is when the Democrats jumped in. As my colleague Madeleine Kearns has outlined, Nancy Pelosi was the first to suggest that the British government’s decision threatens the “Good Friday Accords,” which, incidentally, do not exist. There is a Good Friday Agreement, to be sure, but, as far as I am aware, no sequel exists to warrant Pelosi’s use of the plural form of the noun. The probable cause of her error is ignorance. But in any case, it looks like Joe Biden has decided to join her in giving the party line: It cannot be said often or loudly enough that equating the measures in the Withdrawal Agreement with the enforcement of the Good Friday Agreement is completely unsupportable. Biden and Pelosi are wrong on this issue, and predictably so. The Democratic Party has always viewed Ireland through the eyes of their Irish American voters, who in turn view their ancestral homeland in an attenuated, folkloric, and often ahistorical way. NORAID, or the Irish Northern Aid Committee, was a hugely popular organization among Irish Americans during latter half of the last century. Its members exerted massive political and financial influence over American policy in Ireland and put millions of dollars into the pockets of organized murderers. This was not, to be sure, out of any knowing or deliberate malice. The ignorance afforded by distance allowed many Irish Americans of good faith to draw a simple analogy between George Washington and the Minute Men on the one hand, and Gerry Adams and the IRA on the other. They little suspected that the “freedom-fighters” whom they funded were in the habit of abducting and executing disabled children.
For a decade, the conventional wisdom said that the GOP’s “obstructionism” — by which liberals meant completely legitimate governance that didn’t acquiesce to Obama’s wishes — was going to sink the party. Conventional wisdom was wrong in the elections held during the Obama presidency. It was wrong in 2016. The Garland debate did not sink Republicans, who held the Senate and won the presidency. In fact, one of the central promises the GOP relied on to procure those victories — especially among Evangelical voters — was that they would nominate and confirm originalist justices to the Supreme Court. If Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell end up installing replacements for Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg . . . well, “but Gorsuch,” indeed. Read additional information at here.