The G7 did indeed dedicate a to Afghanistan, and the parties agreed in condemning the Taliban’s suppression of fundamental rights. However, it could not be more of an understatement to say that the G7’s response to the Afghan crisis could have been more assertive. Alongside their critique of the Taliban’s conduct, the G7 also underscored a need to maintain continuous and direct dialogue with them, balancing its condemnation with engagement. This was an attempt to reflect the complexity of the international response required in this volatile situation, but it raises questions about the commitment of the international community to the well-being of the Afghan people.

Condemnations without action

The G7’s first perspective reflects the G7’s commitment to uphold the international order based on the rule of law. This commitment is paramount in resisting unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force, as exemplified by Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons. It should also be crucial in countering other forms of lawlessness that can destabilize the international order, such as those currently unfolding in Afghanistan.

Through addressing the issue of Afghanistan under Taliban rule, the G7 had a prime opportunity to manifest its resolute determination to repudiate such actions and uphold the rule of law. Afghanistan must transition from a Taliban regime imposed at the point of a sword to a representative, lawfully installed government, encompassing all echelons of Afghan society. Regrettably, the dialogue on strategic measures to aid this transition was bleak.

Does the Future Belong to the Taliban?

Since the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, the country has been plunged into a state of lawlessness that directly violates the principles upon which the international order stands. Reports of women being denied basic rights, minority groups facing persecution, and a lack of inclusivity in government structures are not only troubling but represent a blatant disregard for the rule of law. It was the responsibility of the G7 to stand united and address this crisis. Failure to act would not only compromise the credibility of the international order but also perpetuate the suffering of millions.

One of the most distressing consequences of the Taliban’s rule is the blatant violation of. For nearly two years, women and girls in Afghanistan have been denied access to education and basic freedoms. The implementation of a gender apartheid which confines women to their homes is a gross violation of human rights and a setback for gender equality worldwide. The Taliban’s actions demonstrate a clear and present danger to the international order, because lawlessness within a member of the international community can indeed become a new normal if left unchallenged.

The issued by the G7’s foreign ministers did voice a robust opposition against such repressive practices. However, it is insufficient for a multitude of reasons. While their vocal opposition to oppressive practices marks a positive first step, it is crucial that these words be underpinned by tangible actions and strategic policy initiatives that can catalyze substantial, meaningful change.

Furthermore, the G7’s primary focus on diplomatic endeavors and economic sanctions falls short of addressing the multifaceted challenges that Afghan women routinely face. In order to formulate a genuinely impactful response, it is imperative to incorporate an element of inclusivity, ensuring that the unique voices and perspectives of Afghan women are taken into account.

One Of The Taliban’s Monumental Ruins: Gender-Apartheid Policies

Only with a sustained, long-term commitment, bolstered by active collaboration with international organizations and a comprehensive strategy emphasizing the primacy of women’s rights and gender equality, can the G7 make significant strides in effectuating the deeply needed change in Afghanistan. This necessitates expanding the scope of their efforts beyond conventional diplomacy and sanctions, thereby unlocking the potential for transformative progress in this critical area.

The absence of an inclusive government in Afghanistan poses a significant challenge to stability and progress. A sustainable peace and future for the country can only be achieved through a government that represents the interests and aspirations of all Afghan citizens. The G7, as a collective voice of influential nations, could have exerted pressure on the Taliban to foster inclusivity and ensure that minority rights are respected and protected. Unfortunately, the issued statement from the G7 does not live up to this vital mandate. The international community would do well to take a more assertive stance in advocating for a truly inclusive governance structure in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan issues placed on the sidelines

The second perspective emphasized the G7’s mission to strengthen outreach to the Global South. The group sought to demonstrate its contributions to the issues that concern these nations.

Afghanistan, as part of the Global South, is a test case for this commitment. The G7 had a moral responsibility to ensure that the plight of Afghans, especially the most vulnerable, is not ignored. However, the shift of attention towards the “Global South” was mainly aimed at the influence of Russian and China. Thus, only a limited number of nations within the Global South were invited, and unfortunately, this meant that the issue of Afghanistan received scant attention.

Addressing Afghanistan’s issues would not have been just about resolving a single country’s crisis, but about reaffirming the values that the G7 represents and that the world needs. It should have been about demonstrating that the international order, based on the rule of law, isn’t just a concept but a practice that can, and should, be upheld even in the most challenging situations.

As the host of the G7, Japan held a unique position to drive the agenda and focus attention on pressing global issues like the Afghanistan crisis, which impacts global security, precipitates a humanitarian crisis, and affects regional stability. Given its strategic location in Asia, Japan’s security interests could be influenced by instability in Afghanistan. Additionally, Japan’s historic role in fostering international cooperation could have been leveraged to unite G7 nations in advocating for an inclusive government in Afghanistan, ensuring the rights of all citizens are respected. Unfortunately, the latest G7 meeting overlooked this opportunity.

The G7, therefore, should have taken a more robust stance on the situation in Afghanistan. It was incumbent on the G7 to leverage its combined influence to push for the restoration of women’s rights, the establishment of a legitimate government, and the protection of minority rights. The G7’s statement seemed strong towards ensuring that girls and women are once again allowed to attend schools and colleges, but a statement alone is not much unless it is followed by action.

In summary, as we navigate these tumultuous times and upon the conclusion of the summit, it is imperative for the G7 to prove that the international order it upholds extends beyond the boundaries of its member states. It must demonstrate that its commitment to the rule of law and its outreach to the Global South are not just theoretical constructs, but actual policies that have meaningful, practical impacts. In doing so the powers will affirm their role as a beacon of hope and a pillar of stability in a world that desperately needs both.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post More Talk Than Action From the G7 on Afghanistan appeared first on 51�Թ�.

But it was not to be. Instead, the Global South leaders were forced to sit and listen as their hosts announced their latest plans to tighten sanctions against Russia and further escalate the war by sending US-built F-16 warplanes to Ukraine. 

The G7 summit stands in stark contrast to efforts of leaders from around the world who are trying to end the conflict. In the past, the leaders of Turkey, Israel and Italy have stepped up to try to mediate. Their efforts were bearing fruit back in April 2022, but were by the West, particularly the US and UK, which did not want Ukraine to make an independent peace agreement with Russia. 

Now that the war has dragged on for over a year with no end in sight, other leaders have stepped forward to try to push both sides to the negotiating table. In an intriguing new development, Denmark, a NATO country, has stepped forward to offer to host peace talks. On May 22, just days after the G-7 meeting, Danish Foreign Minister Lokke Rasmussen that his country would be ready to host a peace summit in July if Russia and Ukraine agreed to talk. 

Many Peace Initiatives

“We need to put some effort into creating a global commitment to organize such a meeting,” said Rasmussen, mentioning that this would require getting support from China, Brazil, India and other nations that have expressed interest in mediating peace talks. Having an EU and NATO member promoting negotiations may well reflect a shift in how Europeans view the path forward in Ukraine.

Also reflecting this shift is a by Seymour Hersh, citing US intelligence sources, that the leaders of Poland, Czechia, Hungary and the three Baltic states, all NATO members, are talking to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy about the need to end the war and start rebuilding Ukraine so that the five million refugees now living in their countries can start to return home. On May 23, right-wing Hungarian President Viktor Orban , “Looking at the fact that NATO is not ready to send troops, it’s obvious that there is no victory for poor Ukrainians on the battlefield,” and that the only way to end the conflict was for Washington to negotiate with Russia. 

Meanwhile, China’s peace initiative has been progressing, despite US trepidation. China’s special representative for Eurasian affairs and former ambassador to Russia, has Russian President Vladimir Putin, Zelenskyy, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and other European leaders to move the dialogue forward. Given its position as both Russia’s and Ukraine’s top trading partner, China is in a good position to engage with both sides.

Another initiative has come from Brazilian President Lula da Silva, who is creating a “” of countries from around the world to work together to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. He appointed renowned diplomat Celso Amorim as his peace envoy. Amorim was Brazil’s foreign minister from 2003 to 2010, and was named the “world’s best foreign minister” in Foreign Affairs magazine. He also served as Brazil’s defense minister from 2011 to 2014, and is now President Lula’s chief foreign policy advisor. Amorim has already had with Putin in Moscow and Zelenskyy in Kyiv, and was well received by both parties.

On May 16, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and other African leaders stepped into the fray, reflecting just how seriously this war is affecting the global economy through rising prices for energy and food. Ramaphosa a high-level mission by six African presidents, led by President Macky Sall of Senegal. He served, until recently, as Chairman of the African Union and, in that capacity, spoke out forcefully for peace in Ukraine at the UN General Assembly in September 2022. 

The other members of the mission are Presidents Nguesso of Congo, Al-Sisi of Egypt, Musevini of Uganda and Hichilema of Zambia. The African leaders are calling for a ceasefire in Ukraine, to be followed by serious negotiations to arrive at “a framework for lasting peace.” UN Secretary-General Guterres has been on their plans and has “welcomed the initiative.”

Pope Francis and the Vatican are also to mediate the conflict. “Let us not get used to conflict and violence. Let us not get used to war,” the Pope . The Vatican has already helped facilitate successful prisoner exchanges between Russia and Ukraine, and Ukraine has asked for the Pope’s help in reuniting families that have been separated by the conflict. A sign of the Pope’s commitment is his appointment of veteran negotiator Cardinal Matteo Zuppi as his peace envoy. Zuppi was instrumental in mediating talks that ended civil wars in Guatemala and Mozambique. 

Will any of these initiatives bear fruit? The possibility of getting Russia and Ukraine to talk depends on many factors, including their perceptions of potential gains from continued combat, their ability to maintain adequate supplies of weapons, and the growth of internal opposition. But it also depends on international pressure, and that is why these outside efforts are so critical and why US and NATO countries’ opposition to talks must somehow be reversed.

The US rejection or dismissal of peace initiatives illustrates the disconnect between two diametrically opposed approaches to resolving international disputes: diplomacy vs. war. It also illustrates the disconnect between against the war and the determination of US policymakers to prolong it, including most Democrats and Republicans. 

Give Peace a Chance

A growing grassroots movement in the US is working to change that: 

• In May, foreign policy experts and grassroots activists put out paid advertisements in The and to urge the US government to be a force for peace. The Hill ad was endorsed by 100 organizations around the country, and community leaders organized in of congressional districts to deliver the ad to their representatives. 
• Faith-based leaders, over 1,000 of whom a letter to President Biden in December calling for a Christmas Truce, are showing their support for the Vatican’s peace initiative.
• The US Conference of Mayors, an organization that represents about 1,400 cities throughout the country, unanimously a resolution calling on the President and Congress to “maximize diplomatic efforts to end the war as soon as possible by working with Ukraine and Russia to reach an immediate ceasefire and negotiate with mutual concessions in conformity with the United Nations Charter, knowing that the risks of wider war grow the longer the war continues.”

• Key US environmental leaders have recognized how disastrous this war is for the environment, including the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear war or an explosion in a nuclear power plant, and have sent a to President Biden and Congress urging a negotiated settlement. ​​
• On June 10-11, US activists will join peacemakers from all over the world in Vienna, Austria, for an . 
• Some of the contenders running for president, on both the Democratic and Republican tickets, support a negotiated peace in Ukraine, including and . 

The initial decision of the United States and NATO member countries to try to help Ukraine resist the Russian invasion had broad . However, promising peace negotiations and deliberately choosing to prolong the war as a chance to and Russia changed the nature of the war and the US role in it, making Western leaders active parties to a war in which they will not even put their own forces on the line.

Must our leaders wait until a murderous war of attrition has killed an entire generation of Ukrainians, and left Ukraine in a weaker negotiating position than it was in April 2022, before they respond to the international call for a return to the negotiating table? 

Or must our leaders take us to the brink of World War III, with all our lives on the line in an all-out , before they will permit a ceasefire and a negotiated peace? 

Rather than sleepwalking into World War III or silently watching this senseless loss of lives, we are building a global grassroots movement to support initiatives by leaders from around the world that will help to quickly end this war and usher in a stable and lasting peace. .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The World Presses to End the War in Ukraine: Can the US Agree? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Clubs such as the G7 itself and the “climate club” envisaged by the German presidency are often able to make quicker decisions and act faster than more inclusive multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Despite this, a speedboat, for all its pace and maneuverability, cannot cross the ocean on its own. So, too, the G7 cannot tackle any global challenges alone.

Time for a Sober Look at the Ukraine Crisis

READ MORE

The German G7 presidency has thus announced in its program that it intends to forge close links with the UN and the G20 in particular, with the goal of achieving a “fair and rules-based multilateralism.” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also underscored the importance of pioneering initiatives and partnerships within the framework of an “inclusive and networked multilateralism.”

In his , “Our Common Agenda,” building on the commitments in the  adopted by the member states on the occasion of the UN’s 75^th  anniversary, Guterres develops numerous ideas for how to strengthen international cooperation. He  for progress to be made wherever there are common interests.

So, is what belongs together growing together? Unfortunately not (yet), as the G7 program is rather abstract and dutiful in its references to the UN. However, the German G7 presidency has an opportunity to change this and implement shared priorities on a collective basis.

Tether “Strong Alliances for a Sustainable Planet” to the UN

Both the G7 and the UN are opting for pioneer projects and partnerships with non-governmental stakeholders, such as the COVAX vaccination drive and the G7 initiative for infrastructure projects in poor countries. It is positive to see the UN secretary-general not shying away from dealing with these formats and advocating for their greater use in order to implement global goals, most notably those of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 2015 Paris climate agreement. While many UN member states may support such partnerships, there is no  on this kind of multilateralism beyond mere inter-governmental relations.

In order to achieve the greatest possible impact, it is important for the G7 that as many states as possible consider its initiatives to be beneficial and legitimate. To this end, it would be worthwhile to tether these initiatives to the UN system, which would ensure that partnerships meet human rights standards, are transparent in their design, monitored on an ongoing basis and further developed in line with the needs of the target groups.

The UN secretary-general has proposed strengthening the existing UN Office for Partnerships, which is not currently in a position to carry out the aforementioned tasks. After the failure of earlier reform attempts, due not least to financing issues, digital solutions are now to be employed. The G7 should support the development of an effective UN hub and link its own initiatives through this hub. This could help the G7 generate acceptance and, at the same time, galvanize other partners. By subjecting partnerships to this kind of quality control, the UN could strengthen its central role in global governance.

“Investing in a Better Future” — With the UN

Like the German G7 presidency, the UN secretary-general places a particular focus in his report on future issues in conjunction with matters of justice. The world organization needs to become far better at avoiding shipwreck — that is the UN must respond more inclusively and justly to acute and future transnational crises. Developing greater strategic foresight, taking increased account of the interests of young people and future generations, and bringing key players together quickly in the event of the outbreak of new crises — these are the ambitious proposals for placing the UN further into the center of global problem-solving.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Here, too, the member states are divided when it comes to the increase in authority and knowledge for the UN that would go hand in hand with these measures. The issue of upgrading the UN is also contested within the G7 due to concerns about effectiveness and sovereignty and given the influence of states such as China and Russia.

In view of overlapping interests with regard to major concerns for the future, the G7 should, nonetheless, insist upon pooling the existing capabilities of the UN system more effectively, while at the same time supporting the targeted development of the UN’s strategic capacities politically and financially. This can be done via voluntary contributions or, beneficially in some cases, the  of the regular budget. In 2021, the G7 committed in the  to make crisis management more effective and fair in the future. This year, the G7 should discuss the role of the United Nations in this.

Currently, member states are  in the UN General Assembly which of the secretary-general’s proposals they intend to support, while preparation processes for the G7 summit are also underway. It is time to consider processes as one whole and bring them together for a future-proof multilateralism.

*[This  was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions relating to foreign and security policy.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How the G7 and UN Can Make Multilateralism Sustainable appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Why the sudden bipartisanship? China. The $250 billion investment into semiconductor production, scientific research, space exploration and the like is intended to decrease dependency on inputs from China and maintain a US lead in critical technologies.

Does the World Need to Contain China?

READ MORE

The Biden administration is now eager to replicate that experience on the global level. At last week’s G7 summit in the UK, the United States again used China as a threat to forge transnational solidarity around a global infrastructure deal. Despite some misgivings from Germany and Italy, President Joe Biden managed to steer the group toward something called the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative, which incidentally sounds a lot like Biden’s 2020 campaign slogan. But that slogan itself echoed a catchphrase adopted by the UN in 2015 to characterize its response to humanitarian disasters. So, B3W can sound both authentically multilateral and distinctively Bidenesque at the same time.

In the face of the global tragedies of the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change — not to mention the sustained attacks by Donald Trump and other right-wing populists on the global order — it was entirely appropriate for the G7 to come up with a bold approach to addressing global economic inequities in a sustainable manner. Alas, B3W raises as many questions as it addresses.

For instance, is B3W more than just a fancy name attached to already committed financing and existing institutions like the Blue Dot Network? Isn’t the World Bank supposed to be closing the infrastructure gap between the have-lots and the have-littles? And shouldn’t China be a collaborator in this effort rather than its chief antagonist?

Improving Upon Belt and Road?

China launched its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013. Its aim has been thoroughly Keynesian: to pump money into the economies on China’s borders — as well as some further away — in order to sustain China’s own economic growth. The more these economies are dependent on Chinese financing, Chinese inputs and Chinese know-how, the more they will ultimately contribute to China’s global economic dominance.

Is China creating some kind of global alternative to capitalism like the Soviet Union’s old Comecon? No, Beijing is thoroughly capitalist in its orientation, though it pushes a version that rubs many laissez-faire purists the wrong way.

Is China determined to use BRI to consolidate an anti-democratic bloc of nations? Although Beijing may well prefer to deal with more predictable partners — and democracies can elect some pretty outrageous wildcards — it is ultimately agnostic about the political governance of its BRI collaborators. There are  participating in the BRI, including 18 countries in the European Union. For every Belarus and Cuba, there’s an Estonia and a Chile.

Well, then, isn’t China using BRI to build a kind of covert military bloc? Critics, for instance, have pointed to the deal China negotiated with Sri Lanka around the port it helped to finance in Hambantota. Struggling with loan repayments in 2017, Sri Lanka signed a 99-year lease arrangement with a Chinese firm. Couldn’t Beijing now turn this port into a military base?

In fact, Sri Lanka  to own the facility, though the Chinese commercial firm operates much of the port and thus gets much of the profit. Despite US government , China is not and doesn’t seem to have any intention of conducting military business at Hambantota. Two Chinese subs entered the port before the 2017 deal, and Sri Lanka has  such visits ever since.

The Sri Lankan example has often been used as exhibit A in the case of China’s use of the “debt trap” to advance its global objectives. According to this scenario, Beijing extends loans through BRI, the target country defaults, and China grabs the assets. It sounds plausible. Except that there’s no  that China actually operates that way, including in the Sri Lankan case.

The Belt and Road Initiative has many flaws, to be sure. It has facilitated large-scale corruption, for instance, in . It has promoted , including 240 coal projects and billions of dollars in oil and gas investments.

But it’s not as if China is the only country with dirty hands. Corruption is endemic in infrastructure projects, accounting for as much as 45% of costs. And when it comes to fossil fuels, the US was the largest oil  in the world last year as well as the fourth-largest exporter of .

So, why did the G7 think it was so important to come up with an alternative to China’s Belt and Road rather than work with Beijing to build back better together?

Beat ‘em Rather than Join ‘em?

The United States likes being number one. The success of Trump’s political campaign and his various hyperbolic slogans testify to the endurance of American exceptionalism. The stridency of these exceptionalist claims, however, introduces a measure of doubt. Front-runners who are anxious about their status generally compensate by raising their voices and thumping their chests harder. In this way, we betray our simian origins.

China has challenged the US status by growing what is now, measured by purchasing power parity, the world’s largest economy. Thanks to its performance in 2020 during the pandemic, China will likely become the world’s undisputed number one economy sometime 2026.

But China is also challenging the global economy by establishing its own institutions parallel to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The BRI, by encompassing so much of the world, is just the kind of grand initiative that number-one economies set up to maintain their dominance.

The United States is not so enthusiastic about relinquishing its top status. Ditto all the countries that have hitched themselves to the US economic locomotive. With Trump out of the White House, Washington has eschewed machismo in favor of multilateral and moral arguments against the Belt and Road Initiative: China is throwing developing countries into debt dependency; China is bolstering the power of authoritarian leaders; China is fostering unacceptable work environments including forced labor.

Those criticisms ring hollow. The developing world is already in debt dependency to the G7 and its financial institutions. The World Bank and IMF worked closely with dictators for decades. Western corporations long turned a blind eye to horrifying working conditions in the countries where they set up operations.

And the $40 trillion infrastructure gap between have-lots and have-littles that B3W is supposed to bridge? It’s because of this gap that China was so successful in reaching out to the Global South in the first place. In charge of the global economy since 1945, the richest countries failed miserably to achieve a modicum of global economic equity — because that was never really their goal.

But Can It Help?

For the sake of argument, let’s put all this history aside. Regardless of the mixed intentions of its backers, can B3W actually help countries that want to catch up to the rest of the world in a way that doesn’t further accelerate the climate crisis?

The experience of the Blue Dot Network is not encouraging. Established by Japan, Australia and the US in 2019 — after a series of failed infrastructure initiatives like the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor and the Trilateral Partnership — the Blue Dot Network  a Good Housekeeping seal of approval for infrastructure deals that meet more stringent requirements around governance, finance, labor conditions and the like. But here’s the problem: The Blue Dot Network doesn’t actually provide credit-hungry countries with access to any new pots of money.

B3W looks like it might be a similar example of grand rhetoric and few resources. It is articulating the same kind of criteria for investments as the Blue Dot Network. As for the financing, the G7 has promised to mobilize private sector funding — in other words, they aren’t ponying up any money of their own. This is no surprise. The Biden administration is hard-pressed to pass its own domestic infrastructure bill. Fat chance it can get Republicans on board to send similarly earmarked funds abroad, even under the rubric of challenging China.

Nevertheless, the White House is : “B3W will collectively catalyze hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure investment for low- and middle-income countries in the coming years.” The word “catalyze” sounds very dynamic, but frankly, it’s just a fancy way of saying: We will beg and wheedle and maybe twist an arm or two, but frankly we can’t promise much of anything. As Reuters wryly  in its article on the initiative, “It was not immediately clear how exactly the plan would work or how much capital it would ultimately allocate.”

The bottom line is that the world desperately needs a green B3W. It needs to find a way to close the infrastructure gap by providing the funds and financing for the developing world to leapfrog into a clean energy future. At the moment, the Belt and Road Initiative does not do that. And neither does B3W.

So, how about it, Washington and Beijing? Why not get together to see if you can turn two wrongs into a right and collaborate on a global Green New Deal?

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How the G7 Intends to Build the World Back Better appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The usual way of describing disagreements between nations involves a choice between incident, crisis, conflict, confrontation and a few other words. Reporting on the G7 summit in Canada, offers the surprisingly accurate term spat to describe the state of play between Donald Trump and the other six members.

“The spat drew in Germany and France, which sharply criticized Trump’s decision to abruptly withdraw his support for a Group of Seven communique hammered out at a Canadian summit on Saturday, accusing him of destroying trust and acting inconsistently.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Spat:

A verbal fight between two or more people considered to be intimate, usually initiated by an immature personality prone to exhibit petulant behavior

Contextual note

The linguistic outcome of the G7 summit turned out to be far more impressive than the that was intended to present a consensus, but which Trump refused to acknowledge.

Attempting to be witty (and failing) Trump , “Fair Trade is now to be called Fool Trade if it is not Reciprocal.” It sounds as if Trump thinks this might be a pun, but puns, to be successful, require a higher degree of homonymy. Capitalizing the first letter of “reciprocal” presumably serves as a cue or prompt to shout the word.

Trump continues with, “Then Justin acts hurt when called out!” referring to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. This is the language of an authentic school playground spat. Sissies act hurt when called out. True men (i.e. bullies) do the calling out.

The US president then complains about “protecting many of these same countries that rip us off.” Accusing allies with whom one is working collaboratively of a rip-off, even when engaged in negotiation with them, is closer to barroom ranting than diplomatic positioning.

Trump’s advisers quickly followed suit. Larry Kudlow this: “[Trudeau] really kind of stabbed us in the back.” Perhaps he was thinking of Julius Caesar and Marc Antony’s evoking “the most unkindest cut of all,” the wound inflicted by Brutus. More likely he was just uttering a banal cliché to indicate betrayal, as if Trudeau were Trump’s vassal.

Trade adviser Peter Navarro waxed theological when he pronounced that “there is a special place in hell for any leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy.” Navarro elevates Trump from Roman emperor (or would-be emperor) to the lord of the last judgment. But again, this is less of a creative metaphor than a banal hyperbolic cliché, the same who didn’t support Hillary Clinton in 2016.��

Historical note��

Erik Nielsen, chief economist at Unicredit Bank, up the historical importance of this “spat.” “The world as we know it, namely the U.S.-led rules-based multilateralism, is now in serious danger of unraveling.” Describing the current system as both “rules-based” and “US-led” reminds us that the geopolitical world we live in was created in the aftermath of World War II, that it prospered during the Cold War and took on a new dimension after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is when believed that an apparently benevolent capitalist system was capable of homogenizing the entire world.

We’re now discovering that the idea that a system could, like a game or sporting event, be “rules-based” was a factor of civilization and growth. But at the same time, and long before Trump, we’ve had the opportunity to discover that if the rules are defined and enforced by a single culture, they will undermine the very balance they were intended to create.

A level playing-field is the first rule of a “rules-based” system. During the Cold War, an artificial balance between capitalism — both a commanding economic force and an ideology — and communism maintained the illusion of a level playing field, if only because there were two teams on the ground. After the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the conversion of China to state capitalism, a financial, industrial and military culture defined in and enforced exclusively by the US changed the perception of the meaning of “rules-based.” The players of one team had assumed the authority of referees. When they created a crisis — whether it was in the Middle East (2003) or on Wall Street (2007-08) — the rest of the world (including America’s own citizens) had no choice but to play the role of helpless spectator, as well as accept to pay for all the damages.

Pundits analyze the economic, political and military aspects of these events, but they rarely acknowledge or assess the cultural dimension. The made-in-USA financial and military culture that had initially defined the rules weakened under the strain of crises it could no longer manage or solve. The superficially seductive culture of personal success, glamor, celebrity and conspicuous consumption that the US had relied on to maintain the aspirational adhesion of the rest of the world progressively lost its power of persuasion.

Donald Trump embodies that glitzy and largely irresponsible, unaccountable culture, to the point of caricature. He didn’t invent it, but he is a master of displaying it. Today’s spat is both a symptom of a longer evolution and an indicator of the urgent global need both to revise the rules and radically rethink their cultural basis.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,��, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Updated: June 13, 2018, at 12:51.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post The Daily Devil’s Dictionary: The G7 “Spat” appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Most normal people have an aversion to war. It brings on death, suffering, destruction and incalculable loss. We avoid it usually by diplomacy and negotiation in which all sides manage to get something while also giving something up.

Trade wars aren’t much different. The biggest casualties in trade wars tend to be smaller nations, their economies and their workers’ jobs. With their backs to the walls, they may be forced to take more drastic action, often siding with like-minded larger states, ultimately forcing a fighting war, as happened in World War I. But again, diplomacy and negotiations — every bit as tough as those involved to avert fighting wars — helps us avoid the nearly equally destructive effects of trade wars.

Donald Trump isn’t like most people. In fact, he thinks trade wars are “.” No modern-day economist, trade negotiator, banker, business leader or reasonably well-informed person could agree with such a ludicrous statement. President Trump’s political party, the Republicans, used to hold free trade as an article of faith. But blind allegiance to an apparently clueless leader has now obscured that core logic.

What is it that Trump sees in a “good” trade war that hardly anyone else does? “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” The quote variously attributed to Albert Einstein and Alexandre Dumas may seem the only explanation.

Out with Mercantilism, In with Mercantilism

Through the 18th and 19th centuries and into the early 20th century, the world’s major trading nations followed a mercantilist approach to trade. Maximizing one’s exports while minimizing imports allowed states to amass wealth, which in turn led to the creation of military might and global power. Even smaller nations, in order to protect their already disadvantaged economies, turned to protectionism. Under this model, the major nations of Europe prospered. In such a system, there were only winners and losers.

Adam Smith and David Ricardo changed all of this. They showed that real national wealth doesn’t come from amassing wealth. Real economic progress and wealth result from boosting productivity — i.e., making goods or offering services more efficiently.��Increasing productivity increases quality of life. And a better quality of life of its citizens — such as improved educational opportunity, health care, housing, more leisure time, etc. — is the real wealth of a nation.

Smith and Ricardo, as well as economists who followed, argued that by specializing in what it does well and continuing to perfect itself in that area, a nation can not only trade more but grow in wealth. It trades with nations adept in other areas. So, America produces abundant agricultural crops, develops sophisticated software, manufactures state-of-the-art aircraft and satellites, and trades for cars, cellphones, shoes and clothing, goods produced more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere in places such as Japan, China, Germany, Mexico and Sri Lanka.

America: The Former Champion of Open Trade and Global Prosperity

After World War II, the United States, the world’s lone super power, effectively “imposed” Smith and Ricardo’s theories on the world. At Bretton Woods, along with other nations, it created GATT, the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, with the objective of lowering tariffs and other trade barriers and boosting trade worldwide. And it wasn’t for just American trade and wealth, but global trade and wealth.

According to noted trade historian , “the time seemed right to establish a new world order based on inclusiveness and the rule of law.” Countries to concentrate “on the cooperative creation of wealth [rather] than on appropriating it all to themselves.”

Most importantly, the US recognized that if the world were to avert a repeat of the twin tragedies of the first half of the 20th century, as well as the calamity of the Great Depression, then a more open and transparent system of trade would be critical. The US and those other nations who signed onto GATT in 1947 and to its successor, the World Trade Organization, in 1993 understood that the overarching goal of free trade was not to maximize any one nation’s wealth. Rather, it has been advancing greater economic integration and supporting global peace and stability through increasing the wealth of all nations’ citizens. Economic prosperity of individual nations as well as that of the planet became essential to that goal. Trade was a vital component.

Trump the Disruptor

While some nations eschewed this enlightened course — the Soviet Union and other former communist nations and even China to a certain degree today — the vast majority of the world’s governments have signed on to this approach, though sometimes reluctantly. Big trading states (e.g., China) have now embraced it, though with conditions that have brought us to the state we’re in at present. (More on that later.)

Major trading powers like the US, the European Union and Japan have continued to champion not just the specific rules of the WTO, but more importantly its overarching principles and goals. Free trade agreements and free trade areas have boosted the impact and advantages of free trade. This led to a fairly robust global economic system, even under circumstances like the 2008 recession. Most of the nations of the world benefited from it, despite the internal dislocations that globalized trade and finance have inflicted on certain displaced groups within countries, including among the most developed nations. All saw the underlying good of the system and accepted and abided by it.

Until now. President Trump, drawing from the pages of Europe’s early 19th century trade policy playbook, is now defending mercantilism. He has on steel and aluminum products from the EU, Canada and Mexico — some of America’s stoutest allies and most cooperative trading partners — and threatened also to and parts. He apparently believes that in this world of global supply chains, nanosecond financial transactions and , America’s economy and its workers are best served by 19th-century trade practices.

His logic actually would seem to make sense. In “Trumponomics,” the only useful economic yardstick is GDP and the trade balance. Superficially, protectionism might seem to work… if we were in the 19th century. But ultimately, it flops in the 21st century even when invoking his absurdly irrational “national security” rationale — technically permitted under the WTO but patently ridiculous when considered in light of the nations targeted, most of whom are NATO members or close US allies.

The imported goods that have been targeted account for less than 2% of total US imports and just 0.2% of total economic output. If the Trump administration follows through with other threatened tariffs — e.g., on autos — however, the impact on total US imports might reach as high as 15%.

As writer , “even mercantilists of the 18th and 19th centuries knew that if you were trying to use tariffs to boost your trade surplus, you wanted to tax imports of finished��goods, not the��intermediate goods��that the domestic industry needs to make those high-value, finished-good exports.” Taxing intermediate goods or inputs only increases the prices of domestically produced goods that require those inputs.

So, imposing tariffs on goods utilizing steel and aluminum such as cars, food and beverage cans, and construction materials made in the US will raise the cost of those US-made items. Those price increases will ripple throughout the American economy. So, it not only raises the likelihood of inflation, but also depresses the volume of those goods sold. Fewer of those goods sold means lower revenue, less production and, ultimately, job cuts.

Economists at Barclays in March that steel and aluminum tariffs, by reducing trade volumes and boosting inflation, could reduce US growth by 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points.��The research firm estimates that steel and aluminum tariffs by themselves will lead to net job losses of 70,000 in the US manufacturing sector — with 10,000 new jobs in the metal-producing sector offset by 80,000 jobs lost in metal-consuming sectors.

The Wrong Target

Trade disputes are nothing new, even among friends and allies. The US and the EU have had their differences. But as members in good standing within the WTO and as allies, those were nearly always resolvable through negotiations. So, the tariffs Trump levied on those countries’ exports to the US were simply wrong and bullheaded.

China poses a different trade problem. Though also a member of the WTO, it is known to illegally purloin American intellectual property, from software to machine blueprints. Moreover, it has imposed undue requirements on US firms seeking to invest in China. The latter, known as TRIMS for Trade Related Investment Measures, are intended to force US companies to share their intellectual property or license it without adequate compensation. It’s a “.” These trade practices are violations of WTO rules. Those are areas where America should be concentrating its trade efforts, especially if Trump’s criterion is trade imbalance.

Moreover, nations of the EU as well as other US trade partners and allies are suffering similar problems with China and doubtlessly would have joined the US in a comprehensive effort to get China to change its practices. America’s rose to over $500 billion in 2017. That’s with the EU.

But those countries are not about to sign on to such a joint initiative when they’re under attack by their supposedly best friend. Meanwhile, China gets a free ride. So, apparently, trade wars are a good thing for some.

The biggest tragedy in Trump’s tariff decisions is not the actual act of imposing the tariffs, as foolish and self-defeating as that will be. Rather, the nation that led the world to a more open, effective and successful globalized trade regime has abandoned one of its founding economic principles. And by so doing, it is losing the many friends, allies and partners it had managed to gain.

The world’s bridge builder has moved into the demolition business.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post America under Trump: From Global Bridge Building to Demolition appeared first on 51�Թ�.