Asia Pacific

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      How will the outcome of the US election affect Australia, Aukus and our region?

      by

      More people have gone to a ballot box in 2024 than in any other year in human history. Billions have cast votes across scores of countries, including some of the largest, most powerful democracies on Earth.But America’s remains the world’s global election, the most forensically examined, the most consequential all over the world. America matters.“The US is still the most powerful actor in the international system,” Dr Michael Fullilove, executive director of the Lowy Institute, told the Guardian this week. “It is the richest company, with the biggest military, the biggest economy.“It is the only country that runs a truly global foreign policy, the only country that can project power anywhere on Earth.“It is the democratic, meritocratic superpower … it still attracts so many people around the world … the whole world is remarkably well-informed about the US election.”And Australia’s future is bound up in America’s electoral decision. As one of America’s closest allies – supporters might argue for “staunchest”, opponents might claim “uncritical” – Australia’s economic, security and multilateral landscape is tied to that of the US and the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.How could the election of a second Donald Trump presidency impact Australia? Or how might the quasi-continuity of Vice-President Kamala Harris ascending to the White House?Trump, neccesarily, is the object of much of Australia’s focus. Harris, as Joe Biden’s vice-president, is the continuity candidate – promoting policy positions in line with the current administration – meaning a Trump victory would raise many more questions.The election too, will be keenly fought over a host of domestic issues which have no direct – though some peripheral – impact on Australia. This includes issues such as reproductive rights (the overturning of Roe v Wade by the supreme court and a mooted national abortion ban), migration (particularly on the country’s southern border), gun control and law and order – issues excluded in this piece.Watching the crescendo of an increasingly vituperative election campaign, Fullilove said that politically “America is running a high temperature at the moment”.“My real hope for the election is that there is a clear result, that the loser accepts defeat, that the transfer of power is peaceful – that might sound like a low bar – but it is critical, for America and for the world.”Values and democracyResponding to the unpredictability of Trump’s first presidency, Australian politicians repeated the refrain that the Australian-US alliance runs deeper than a president or prime minister and that it is one founded on shared values and democratic principles.Trump has said he would not be a dictator, “except on day one”. He said he would seek retribution on his political opponents: “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections”.As commander-in-chief, he said he would consider using the military to attack domestic enemies: “It should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by the national guard, or if really necessary, by the military”.Trump’s former chief of staff, Gen John Kelly, said this week Trump was a “fascist” who “certainly prefers the dictator approach to government”. Trump has repeatedly lied that he won the 2020 election and mused on “terminating” the constitution.He told a rally in July that if he was elected president again, “you won’t have to vote any more”.“In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going have to vote.”Harris has denounced Trump as a “fascist” who wants “unchecked power” and a military personally loyal to him.In her speech to the Democratic National Convention, she cited the supreme court’s split decision in July stating Trump enjoyed broad immunity for official acts taken while in office.“Consider the power he [Trump] will have, especially after the United States supreme court ruled he will be immune from prosecution,” she said. “Imagine Donald Trump with no guardrails.”ClimateClimate change is “one of the greatest scams of all time”, Trump said last month. “We will drill, baby, drill,” he told the Republican National Convention when accepting the party’s nomination. “We will do it at levels that nobody’s ever seen before.”He has said he would prohibit, by executive order, all offshore wind projects on the first day of his presidency, saying they kill whales.In his first term, Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement (the US rejoined under Biden). But his campaign has indicated a second Trump presidency might re-abandon the Paris agreement, as well as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which underpins it. 198 countries have committed to the UNFCCC: none has left it.The withdrawal of the US – the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter and the country that has contributed the largest share of historical emissions – would increase political uncertainty around the transition to net zero and deter investment. It would weaken the influence of the so-called umbrella group – of which Australia is a member – and give succour to climate laggards, such as the petrostates, to further slow global reduction efforts.Some have argued that much of the impetus and funding for global emissions reductions is locked in and emissions reductions efforts are working on timescales far longer than a four-year presidential cycle.But Michael Mann, distinguished professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, has argued “a second Trump term is game over for the climate”.Harris has called climate change an “existential threat”. As attorney general in California, she prosecuted oil companies for breaches of environmental laws. As vice-president, she was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided about US$370bn to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.But during Harris’s vice-presidency, the US produced and exported the most crude oil of any country at any time in history, according to the US Energy Information Administration’s figures. Crude oil production averaged 12.9m barrels a day in 2023, breaking the previous global record of 12.3m, set in 2019.Trade and the economyTrump is a fierce economic nationalist, hostile to free trade and intensely focused on America’s trade deficit, which he regards as a sign of weakness. He has pledged to impose a 10% tariff on all imports to the US, with a 60% tariff on all Chinese imports and a 100% tariff on Chinese cars.Economists argue the policy will lead to higher prices and lower growth. The nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated the proposed tariffs would lower the incomes of an average American household by US$1,700 a year: poor Americans would be more affected than the rich.In September, Trump said: “Together, we will deliver low taxes, low regulations, low energy costs, low interest rates and low inflation so that everyone can afford groceries, a car and a home”. He has promised to reduce regulation and cut taxes, but some economists argue his tax cuts would benefit America’s wealthiest while hurting the poorest.Australia is not dependent on direct trade with the US, but the majority of Australia’s trade is with China. If China’s economy, already weak, is damaged further by a trade war with America, Australia will be exposed.Harris has criticised Trump’s tariff policies, arguing they would act as a “sales tax on Americans” and lead to higher prices and inflation. But the Biden administration – of which she has been vice-president – has extended Trump-era tariffs and used tariffs to influence trade on industries it sees as strategic – particularly in relation to China. The administration extended tariffs on solar panels in 2022, and in May this year, increased tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to 100%.As a senator, Harris opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement (involving Australia) negotiated by President Obama and from which Trump withdrew.Defence and AukusWhile Trump has been critical of Nato, he has not criticised Australia as a military ally or the Aukus deal, a tripartite agreement (between the US, UK, and Australia) for Australia to acquire up to eight nuclear-powered submarines between now and the mid-2050s, the first in the 2030s.Australia’s deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, said his government believed Trump would honour the agreement: “Every engagement we’ve had with the Trump camp in the normal process of speaking with people on both sides of politics in America, there is support for … Aukus,” he said.

      Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email
      But John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser – now a fierce critic of the former president – said of Aukus: “I think it could be in jeopardy”.Fullilove asked Trump’s vice-presidential candidate JD Vance this year for his position on the agreement. Vance replied he was “a fan of Aukus”.“I suspect that Aukus would be safe under Trump too,” Fullilove told the Guardian.“Australia is an example of an ally that is contributing to deterrence and contributing to the US industrial base. You could imagine Trump threatening to unpick it, but my conclusion is it is safe.”Aukus was signed by the Biden-Harris administration. The administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy commits to the deal, but does not give a timeline: “Through the Aukus partnership, we will identify the optimal pathway to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to the Royal Australian Navy at the earliest achievable date.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAirbases in Australia were used for US airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen this month. The defence department confirmed Australia provided support for the US strikes “through access and overflight for US aircraft in northern Australia”.Israel-GazaBoth Trump and Harris have declared their support for Israel and reiterated support for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.The US continues to supply Israel with billions of dollars of weapons and munitions as Israel carries out its bombardment of Gaza, Lebanon, and, this week, strikes on Iran.The US is, by far, the largest supplier of arms to Israel: 69% of Israel’s imports of major conventional arms between 2019 and 2023 came from America, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The US has signed an agreement to provide Israel with $3.8bn in annual military aid under a 10-year-agreement.1,200 Israelis died in the 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas. More than 42,000 people have died in Gaza since, including more than 16,000 children.Trump has expressed his support for Israel’s invasion and bombardment of Gaza. He has also urged Israel to “finish up” the war because it is losing support.“You have to finish up your war … you’ve got to get it done,” he told Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom. “We’ve got to get to peace. You can’t have this going on, and I will say Israel has to be very careful because you are losing a lot of the world. You are losing a lot of support.”Trump said of Harris: “She hates Israel. If she’s president, I believe that Israel will not exist within two years from now.”In his first term, Trump released a peace proposal he called a blueprint for a two-state solution: it would not have created an independent Palestinian state and was seen as strongly favouring Israel.“Israel has a right to defend itself,” Harris said in September’s presidential debate.She continued: “How it does so matters. Because it is also true far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Children. Mothers. What we know is that this war must end. It must end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a ceasefire deal and we need the hostages out.”Harris has consistently reiterated support for a two-state solution.The war in UkraineNearly three years on since Russia invaded Ukraine – and a decade since its initial assault on Crimea – the US remains the largest backer of Ukraine’s war effort. It is by far the single biggest contributor of money and materiel, outspending the next largest contributor, Germany, by five to one.Trump has made it abundantly clear he wants the war over – or, more precisely, he wants to stop paying for it.He told a rally: “I think [Ukrainian president Volodymyr] Zelenskyy is maybe the greatest salesman of any politician that’s ever lived. Every time he comes to our country he walks away with $US60bn.”Influencing Republican allies in Congress, Trump stalled the last funding package from passing for months while Ukrainian forces – critically short of ammunition and artillery – struggled to hold back Russian advances. Trump’s manoeuvring was criticised as essentially backing Vladimir Putin’s irredentism.Trump has also repeatedly claimed if re-elected he would end the war in a day – “I’ll have that done in 24 hours” – without detailing how. It is presumed a deal to stop the conflict would involve the ceding of Ukrainian territory to Russia.Trump’s disposition towards Ukraine has broader implications for the collective security principle underpinning Nato. Trump has compared Nato to a protection racket and said he would not protect “delinquent” allies.“In fact, I would encourage them [the Russians] to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay! You gotta pay your bills.”Trump has repeatedly upbraided European countries for failing to live up to their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence.Harris has pledged to continue Biden’s support for Ukraine and for the Nato alliance. She said as vice-president “I helped mobilise a global response – over 50 countries – to defend against Putin’s aggression.“And as president, I will stand strong with Ukraine and our Nato allies.”Harris, however, has wavered on Ukraine being admitted as a member to Nato, saying the question was among the “issues that we will deal with if and when it arrives at that point”.China“Trump and Kamala Harris are two bowls of poison for Beijing. Both see China as a competitor or even an adversary,” Prof Zhao Minghao, from the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, told the Financial Times.Trump was hawkish towards China in his first term, confronting Beijing over what he argued were a suite of unfair practices and abuses such as intellectual property theft, currency manipulation and economic espionage. He pledged to “completely eliminate dependence on China in all critical areas,” including electronics, steel, pharmaceuticals, and rare earths. And he has flagged new laws to stop US companies from investing in China and a ban on federal contracts for any company that outsources to China.His first administration rejected Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea, condemning Beijing’s “campaign of bullying” of other countries.Harris spoke on China in September, saying her government would work to ensure the US “is leading the world in the industries of the future and making sure America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century”.“China is not moving slowly … if we are to compete, we can’t afford to, either.”She condemned Trump as having “constantly got played by China” and said his administration shipped advanced semiconductors to China, allowing them to upgrade their military.“I will never hesitate to take swift and strong measures when China undermines the rules of the road at the expense of our workers, our communities, and our companies.”The PacificClimate change is an urgent existential threat for the islands of the Pacific. Trump does not mention the climate crisis in his platform, nor is it mentioned in Agenda47.The Heritage Foundation – the conservative thinktank behind the Trump-linked Project 2025 – has urged for partnership with the Pacific islands, but on American terms and in its interests. “The US must adopt a clear-eyed approach about putting American interests and objectives in the Pacific islands first,” it said.The Biden-Harris administration have held two Pacific islands-US summits which have been big on ambition – with commitments of more than $1bn to resilience regionalism and sustainable development – but seen as lacking, so far, in application and results.The 2022 US-Pacific partnership declared a shared vision for “a resilient Pacific region of peace, harmony, security, social inclusion, and prosperity”.Fullilove said while Harris sits within the mainstream traditions of US foreign policy over recent decades, “it’s hard to get a really accurate fix on what she thinks about the world”.“At a broad level, she believes in American leadership, she believes in alliances, she prefers democracy to dictators, she more pro-trade than Trump. But beyond that, it’s very hard to know how she will approach Asia, the part of the world Australia is in, because she hasn’t been a prominent foreign policy voice in the Biden administration.”Read more about the 2024 US presidential election:

      Presidential poll tracker

      Harris and Trump policies

      What to know about early voting More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Taiwan and trade: how China sees its future with the US after the election

      by

      Deciphering the obscure machinations of elite politics is a pursuit that western China-watchers are all too familiar with. But as the US election approaches, it is analysts in China who are struggling to read the tea leaves on what differentiates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump when it comes to their stance on the US’s biggest geopolitical rival.Commentators are calling it the vibes election. For Beijing, despite the cheers and whoops of Harris’s campaign, her vibes are largely similar to Trump’s.“Harris will continue Biden’s policies” on China, says Wang Yiwei, a professor of international studies at Renmin University in Beijing. What are Biden’s policies? He is a “Trumpist without the Trump”, says Wang.Harris has done little to dispel the belief that her stance on China will be largely the same as Biden’s, should she win the election in November. In her headline speech at the Democratic national convention on 22 August, China was mentioned just once: she promised to ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century”.Harris has little foreign policy record to be judged on. But in an economic policy speech on 16 August, she emphasised her goal of “building up our middle class”, a vision that Biden has used to justify placing high tariffs on Chinese imports, extending Donald Trump’s trade war.Beijing fundamentally does not see there being much difference between a Democratic- or Republican-controlled White House. Indeed, hawkishness on China has become one of the few bipartisan issues in US politics.In a recent piece for Foreign Affairs, leading foreign policy commentators Wang Jisi, Hu Ran and Zhao Jianwei wrote that “Chinese strategists hold few illusions that US policy toward China might change course over the next decade … they assume that whoever is elected in November 2024 will continue to prioritise strategic competition and even containment in Washington’s approach to Beijing.” The authors predicted that although Harris’s policymaking would likely be more “organised and predictable” than Trump’s, both would be “strategically consistent”.Jude Blanchette, a China expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, also says that US-China relations would remain strained, no matter who was in the White House. “The US-China relationship is trending negative irrespective of who assumes office next January, but a Trump 2.0 would likely bring significantly more economic friction owing to an almost certain trade war,” Blanchette said.Even in areas where US-China co-operation used to be more fruitful, such as climate policies, there are concerns that such exchanges are on thin ice. In a recent briefing, Kate Logan, associate director of climate at the Asia Society Policy Institute, noted that China “seems to be placing a greater emphasis on subnational cooperation”: provincial- or state-level dialogues rather than negotiations between Washington and Beijing. This is partly driven by a concern that should Trump be re-elected, national-level climate diplomacy could be in jeopardy.Harris’s nomination of Tim Walz, the governor of Minnestoa, has also been a curveball for China’s America-watchers. Having taught in China in 1989 and 1990, and travelled there extensively in the years since, Walz has more China experience than anyone on a presidential ticket since George HW Bush. But other than Walz’s sustained support of human rights in China, it is unclear how he could or would shape the White House’s China policy if Harris were to win in November.More impactful would be the national security team that Harris assembles. Her current national security adviser, Philip Gordon, is a likely pick. In 2019, Gordon signed an open letter cautioning against treating China as “an enemy” of the US. Some analysts have speculated that his more recent experience inside the White House may have pushed him in a hawkish direction. But in a recent conversation with the Council on Foreign Relations, a thinktank in New York, Gordon refrained from describing China as an enemy or a threat. Instead, he repeatedly referred to the “challenge” from China – one that the US should be worried about, but that could be managed.High on China’s own agenda is Taiwan, which in January elected Lai Ching-te, who is detested by Beijing, as president. Lai is from the pro-sovereignty Democratic Progressive party. For Beijing, a red line in its US relations is Washington’s support for “separatist forces”, and it see Lai as an agent of these forces.Beijing puts adherence to its version of the “one China” principle – the notion that Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China’s rightful territory – at the centre of its international diplomacy. In China’s official readout of President Xi Jinping’s meeting with Biden in November, the Taiwan issue was described as “the most important and sensitive issue in Sino-US relations”.Certain members of the Chinese foreign policy establishment welcome the idea of a second Trump term, because they see Trump as a business-minded actor who would not be inclined to provide US resources or moral support to the cause of Taiwanese sovereignty. Wang, the Renmin University professor, says that Trump has less respect for the international alliance system than Biden, which works in China’s favour. “His allies don’t trust him very much … Taiwan is more worried about Trump,” Wang said.

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      But Trump is also unpredictable. In the event of a Trump presidency, Blanchette notes, “he will be surrounded by advisers who are hawkish on China and very likely pro-Taiwan. That won’t determine his decisions, but it will shape them.”Early in his presidential term, Trump was actually quite popular in Taiwan because of his tough stance on China. But opinions have cooled, especially after his recent comments suggesting Taiwan should pay the US to defend it. Local headlines likened him to a mobster running a protection racket.Those same outlets have latched on to Walz, focusing on his time spent in both China and Taiwan, and his support of Tibet and Hong Kong. Some describe him as the friendly “neighbourhood uncle”.According to a recent Brookings Institution poll, 55% of people in Taiwan think that the US will aid Taiwan’s defence, regardless of who is in the White House.Among analysts and diplomats, there’s tentative agreement, with some saying that while the rhetoric would be very different under Trump, actual policies wouldn’t change so much.“Obviously, the personalities are dramatically different, but US national interests are not,” said Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew school of public policy.“Either administration is going to come in and recognise Taiwan’s innate value to the US as a democratic partner in a tough neighbourhood, as a major security partner, major trading partner, and critical supplier of ICT [information and communication technology] goods.”Contingencies are being prepared in Taipei, but in reality, US support for Taiwan is hard-baked into laws like the Taiwan Relations Act and – deliberately – quite hard for a single administration to change on a whim.But improving cross-strait relations probably aren’t high on Trump’s agenda, and he is unlikely to expend political capital on Taiwan.“I think the bigger US interest, if Trump were going to expend political capital to engage Xi Jinping, would be the US economy, not to broker cross-strait peace,” said Thompson.Experts think that a similar, America-first case could be made to Trump regarding tensions in the South China Sea: the US and the Philippines have a mutual defence treaty and the US formally recognises the Philippines’ claims to waters and islets disputed with China (as did an international tribunal in 2016). But, although there are fears about Trump’s fickle attitude towards international alliances, the previous Trump administration’s stance on the dispute was largely in line with the Biden administration’s, and the fact that about 60% of global maritime trade passes through the contested waterway makes stability there important to the US economy.For normal people in Taiwan, the election feels like an event that could shape their futures, despite the fact that they have no say in it. Zhang Zhi-yu, a 71-year-old shopkeeper in Hualien, a city on Taiwan’s east coast, says that Trump is “crazy and irresponsible”.But, she concludes, “It’s no use worrying about war … we’re just ordinary people. If a foreign country wants to rescue Taiwan, people like us won’t be rescued first”. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump vows to impose tariffs as experts warn of price hikes and angry allies

      by

      Donald Trump doubled down on his promise to levy tariffs on all imports in a bid to boost American manufacturing, a proposal that economists say would probably mean higher prices for consumers while angering US allies.“To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariffs’,” Trump said in an often-combative conversation with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, at the Economic Club of Chicago on Tuesday. “It’s my favorite word.”Trump was grilled on the potential impacts of tariffs, and often dodged questions about the tangible impacts of the levies on inflation and geopolitics. Trump is proposing an at least 10% blanket tariff on all imports, with tariffs as high as 60% on goods from China.“You see these empty, old, beautiful steel mills and factories that are empty and falling down,” Trump said. “We’re going to bring the companies back. We’re going to lower taxes for companies that are going to make their products in the USA. And we’re going to protect those companies with strong tariffs.”

      Don’t miss important US election coverage. Get our free app and sign up for election alerts
      Though speaking in Chicago, Trump repeated many of the claims he made at the Detroit Economic Club last week. At the time, Trump bashed the city, saying it has a high crime rate and few job opportunities.“We’re a developing nation, too,” he said on Tuesday. “Take a look at Detroit.”Trump centered the auto industry, claiming that tariffs would encourage car manufacturers to build plants in the US – an assertion some economists have suggested amounts to wishful thinking.“The higher the tariff, the more you’re going to put on the value of those goods, the higher people are going to have to pay,” Micklethwait told Trump.“The higher the tariff, the more likely it is that the company will come into the United States and build a factory,” Trump said in response, to applause from the audience.Micklethwait pointed out that economists have estimated Trump’s economic proposals would add $7.5tn to the US deficit, twice the amount as Kamala Harris’s proposals. He also pointed out that the tariffs would also be targeting American allies.“Our allies have taken advantage of us, more so than our enemies,” Trump said.When asked whether he had talked to Vladimir Putin after the end of his presidency, Trump said that he doesn’t “comment on that, but I will tell you that if I did, it’s a smart thing”.“If I’m friendly with people, if I can have a relationship with people, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing,” he said.Trump was also asked about his stance on the Federal Reserve, specifically on comments he has made against Fed chair Jerome Powell, whom Trump first appointed in 2018.“I think if you’re a very good president with good sense, you should at least get to talk to [the Fed],” Trump said. “I think I have the right to say, as a very good businessman … I think you should go up or down a little bit.“I don’t think I should be allowed to order it, but I think I have the right to put in comments as to whether or not interest rates should go up or down.”Even a recommendation from the White House as to what the Fed should do with interest rates would amount to a significant step away from the central bank’s long-established independence.Trump frequently made personal jabs at Micklethwait, saying “I know you’re an anti-tariff guy” and at one point: “This is a man who has not been a big Trump fan.” More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump says Xi Jinping wrote him a ‘beautiful note’ after rally shooting

      by

      Donald Trump has said China’s president wrote him a “beautiful note” after the assassination attempt a week ago, as he continued to court leaders whom Joe Biden has criticised as dictators.In his first campaign rally since narrowly escaping the attempt on his life in Pennsylvania, Trump told a crowd in Michigan on Saturday: “[President Xi Jinping] wrote me a beautiful note the other day when he heard about what happened.”The Republican presidential nominee recalled how he described Xi as “a brilliant man, he controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist”, adding that the Chinese leader makes people like Biden look like “babies”.As well as familiar attacks on Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris, Trump also used the rally in Grand Rapids to hail Xi and Vladimir Putin as “smart, tough” figures who “love their country”, echoing praise he gave in 2022 of the Russian president’s strategy to invade Ukraine. In that same 2022 speech, at a rally in Georgia, Trump called North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un “tough”, and said of Kim and Xi: “The smartest one gets to the top.” On Saturday, Trump said he “got along very well” with both leaders.Still wearing a small wound dressing a week after the shooting, Trump also publicly supported the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, saying he was right in saying that “we have to have somebody that can protect us”. Orbán was this week accused by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, of betraying European leaders after he travelled to Moscow for what he called a “peace mission”, holding a joint press conference with Putin in which the Russian leader told Kyiv to give up more land, pull back its troops and drop its efforts to join Nato.After meeting Trump recently in Florida, Orbán flagged the likelihood of a Trump victory, and urged European leaders to reopen “direct lines of diplomatic communication” with Russia and “high-level political talks” with China.Trump’s reference to a “beautiful note” from Xi echoes the now-famous “love letters” he received from North Korea’s Kim. In September 2018, Trump told a rally in West Virginia: “We fell in love. No, really. He wrote me beautiful letters.”The Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward later obtained 25 letters between Trump and Kim for his second book on the Trump presidency, Rage.In one letter, about a meeting in Singapore in June 2018, Kim wrote: “Even now I cannot forget that moment of history when I firmly held Your Excellency’s hand at the beautiful and sacred location as the whole world watched.”After a summit in Vietnam in February 2019, Kim wrote that “every minute we shared 103 days ago in Hanoi was also a moment of glory that remains a precious memory”.The summits did not reduce tensions with North Korea.With Reuters More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-Trump security adviser backtracks on proposal to send all Marines to Asia

      by

      Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Robert O’Brien – tipped to play a leading role if the ex-president returns to the White House – backtracked on parts of his proposal to sever US-China economic ties, an aspect of which called for sending the entire US Marine Corps to Asia.O’Brien, who recently submitted a 5,000-word article outlining his thinking to Foreign Affairs, explained on Sunday that instead of the “entire US Marine Corps”, it would be only the “fighting force”. And he said some Marines would still be stationed at bases like California’s Camp Pendleton and North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune.“We want to stop a war, and the way to stop the war is through strength,” O’Brien said on Sunday’s edition of CBS Face the Nation. “Moving the Marine Corps to the Pacific and moving the carrier battle group to the Pacific would show the kind of strength needed to deter a war.”In the essay, titled The Return of Peace Through Strength, O’Brien argued for the US to help expand the militaries of Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam; increase military assistance to Taiwan; and boost missile defense as well as fighter jet protection in the region.He also called for renewed plutonium and enriched uranium production – as well as the resumption of live nuclear-weapons testing.O’Brien cites concerns over an aging US nuclear arsenal as his primary argument in favor of abandoning the current nuclear testing moratorium.The military expansion would go beyond the measures Joe Biden has taken to counter Chinese ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region as the president seeks re-election against Trump in November.And on Sunday, Trump’s hawkish foreign policy adviser from 2019 to 2021 appeared to echo an earlier diplomatic strategy when Trump threatened to pull the US out of Asia and Europe unless its strategic partners met defense spending targets.O’Brien said US allies have fielded “some, but not enough” of the cost of housing US troops in their countries, and he called on them to “step up to the plate”.The US currently stations nearly half of all American military deployed abroad in Japan, South Korea and Guam, along with small detachments in Taiwan and the Marshall Islands.“We need our allies to step up,” O’Brien said. “America can’t do this alone.“Sometimes you have to be tough, you have to show tough love to your allies. And just like with family members sometimes you have to be tough with your family members.” More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Putin and Kim: an alarming new pact needs close attention | Editorial

      by

      A shiny, sanctions-busting Russian limousine for Kim Jong-un. A fawning, rapturous reception for Vladimir Putin. These grand gestures may be welcomed by the North Korean and Russian leaders, but are intended as much for their global audience as for each other. The real prize is the strategic partnership treaty that they signed during Mr Putin’s first visit to Pyongyang since 2000. The question is what it will mean in practical terms.The relationship has been reinvigorated by events outside Asia, but hopes of containing it lie within the region. The proximate cause is evidently Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: an isolated and impoverished Pyongyang is already believed to have supplied millions of artillery shells in return for cheap oil, food and other sorely needed goods. Russia might also benefit from North Korean manpower, though much more likely for labour than combat.Further back lies Donald Trump’s disastrous wooing and dismissal of Mr Kim. Entirely predictably, by handing him a top-level summit without any realistic strategy to improve relations in the long term, the then president ensured Mr Kim gave up on improving relations with the US and looked elsewhere. He also prompted Mr Putin and Xi Jinping, who had kept Mr Kim at a distance, to hug him closer.The revival of a Soviet-era pledge of mutual support against “aggression” sounds primarily symbolic given North Korea’s nuclear prowess. More disturbing is Mr Putin’s remark that the partnership could include “military technical cooperation”. US intelligence officials have said that they believe Russia is providing nuclear submarine and ballistic missile technology, though it is likely to extract a high price for such expertise and to have mixed feelings about North Korea’s advances. At a minimum, Russia – which signed up to sanctions in the Obama years – is now obstructing diplomatic action to restrain North Korea.The west has long feared a stronger relationship between Pyongyang, Moscow and Beijing. The launch of the Australian, UK and US (Aukus) security pact, a reaction to China’s growing forcefulness in the Asia-Pacific region, has in turn raised Beijing’s hackles. But China does not regard the others as peers and does not want to be seen as part of a trilateral axis with two pariah states, hence the lack of a Beijing stop on Mr Putin’s Asian tour itinerary. It would also like to retain primacy in managing North Korea, and to limit its weapons development. It does not want the US to become more active in the region and is concerned that it is growing closer to Japan and South Korea, which are also increasing their defence capabilities. Mr Kim’s shift from the long-held commitment to unification with the South to stressing hostility has not helped.South Korea also said explicitly that it will consider sending arms to Ukraine in reaction to the Russian-North Korean deal, spelling out the message to Moscow. Until now, Seoul has limited direct support to non-lethal supplies, though it has signed hefty arms deals with allies of Kyiv. Russia, which has also ramped up its own arms manufacturing at speed, may in the longer term seek to rekindle relations with South Korea and Japan anyway; their large economies compare strikingly to the limited attractions of North Korea. That too offers hope that this deal could be constrained both in extent and duration. The danger is how much damage is caused in the meantime. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Experts dismiss Kristi Noem’s ‘dubious’ claim to have met Kim Jong-un

      by

      The South Dakota governor, Republican vice-presidential hopeful and self-confessed dog-killer Kristi Noem’s bizarre claim in a new book to have met the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has been dismissed by experts as “dubious” and not “conceivable”.The Dakota Scout first reported Noem’s claim, which is in her forthcoming book, No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong With Politics and How We Move America Forward.The book will be published next week. Last week, the Guardian obtained a copy and reported how Noem describes killing Cricket – a 14-month-old dog she said she “hated” – after deeming her uncontrollable and a danger to people, and a goat she said was “nasty and mean”, smelled “disgusting, musky, rancid”, and bothered her children.Noem has repeatedly defended the story as illustrative of the harsh realities of farm life. But it set off a political firestorm, by most assessments dynamiting the governor’s chance of being named running mate to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president.The Scout reported that Noem’s book also contains “at least two instances in which she recounts meetings with world leaders that are in dispute”.In one, Noem writes: “Through my tenure on the House armed services committee, I had the chance to travel to many countries to meet with world leaders.“I remember when I met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. I’m sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants (I’d been a children’s pastor, after all).”But the Scout quoted one “longtime, high-level Capitol Hill staffer” who worked on the armed services committee when Noem was on it, between 2013 and 2015, as saying: “It’s bullshit.”“That staffer was among a dozen staffers … who said they had no knowledge of the meeting, or who said Noem had never mentioned it before,” the paper said.It quoted experts saying Noem’s claim to have met with Kim, the autocratic leader of a pariah state who did not even meet with Barack Obama – the US president for the first five years of Noem’s time in the US House – was unlikely.“I don’t see any conceivable way that a single junior member of Congress without explicit escort from the US state department and military would be meeting with a leader from North Korea,” George Lopez of Notre Dame University, an expert on North Korea, told the Scout.“What would have been so critical in his bag of tricks that he would have met with an American lawmaker, this one distinctively?”Another North Korea expert, Benjamin Young of Virginia Commonwealth University, called Noem’s account of meeting Kim “dubious”.“There’s no way,” Young told the Scout. “There’s no way.”Noem also claims to have canceled a meeting with Emmanuel Macron, the president of France. She writes of being in Paris, “slated to meet” the French president.“However, the day before we were to meet he made what I considered a very pro-Hamas and anti-Israel comment to the press. So, I decided to cancel. There is no place for pro-Hamas rhetoric.”Macron’s office told the Scout no direct invitation to Noem was issued, though it did say Noem and Macron might have been scheduled to attend the same event last 10 November.Noem spoke at a conference in Paris that day, the same day Macron called for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war.Noem’s spokesperson did not comment to the Scout before it published its story.After the story went live, the paper said, it was told: “The publisher will be addressing conflated world leaders’ names in the book before it is released.”Trump did meet Kim: in Singapore in 2018, in Hanoi in 2019, and in the Demilitarised Zone between North and South Korea later the same year. No lasting diplomatic progress was made.
      This article was amended on 3 May 2024 to correct the title of the newspaper cited. It is the Dakota Scout, not the South Dakota Scout as first reported. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden signs $95bn foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan

      by

      Joe Biden has signed into law a bill that rushes $95bn in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, a bipartisan legislative victory he hailed as a “good day for world peace” after months of congressional gridlock threatened Washington’s support for Kyiv in its fight to repel Russia’s invasion.The Senate overwhelmingly passed the measure in a 79 -18 vote late on Tuesday night, after the package won similarly lopsided approval in the Republican controlled House, despite months of resistance from an isolationist bloc of hardline conservatives opposed to helping Ukraine.“It’s going to make America safer. It’s going to make the world safer,” Biden said, in remarks delivered from the White House, shortly after signing the bill.“It was a difficult path,” he continued. “It should have been easier and it should have gotten there sooner. But in the end, we did what America always does. We rose to the moment, came together, and we got it done.”The White House first sent its request for the foreign aid package to Congress in October, and US officials have said the months-long delay hurt Ukraine on the battlefield. Promising to “move fast”, Biden said the US would begin shipping weapons and equipment to Ukraine within a matter of hours.Biden admonished “Maga Republicans” for blocking the aid package as Ukrainian soldiers were running out of artillery shells and ammunition as Iran, China and North Korea helped Russia to ramp up its aerial assault on Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure.Rejecting the view that Ukraine is locked in an unwinnable conflict that has become a drain on US resources, Biden hailed Ukraine’s army as a “fighting force with the will and the skill to win”.But the president also pressed the case that supporting Ukraine was in the national security interest of the US.“If [Vladimir] Putin triumphs in Ukraine, the next move of Russian forces could very well be a direct attack on a Nato ally,” he said, describing what would happen if article 5 of the alliance’s charter, which requires the collective defense of a member in the event of an outside attack.“We’d have no choice but to come to their aid, just like our Nato allies came to our aid after the September 11 attacks.”He also promoted the bill as an investment in America’s industrial base, spurring the production of military equipment in states like Alabama, Arizona, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where some of the factories are located.The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who had pleaded for help replenishing his country’s emptying war chest during a December visit to Washington, expressed gratitude to the president and lawmakers for pressing ahead with the security bill despite its long odds.“I am grateful to the United States Senate for approving vital aid to Ukraine today,” he wrote on X, adding: “Ukraine’s long-range capabilities, artillery, and air defense are critical tools for restoring just peace sooner.”The aid comes at a precarious moment for Ukraine, as the country’s beleaguered army attempts to fend off Russian advances. Zelenskiy has said Ukraine badly needed air defense systems and “long-range capabilities”.Shortly after the president signed the foreign aid bill, the Pentagon announced plans to “surge” $1bn in new military assistance to Ukraine. The package includes air defense interceptors, artillery rounds, armored vehicles, and anti-tank weapons.In total the legislation includes $60.8bn to replenish Ukraine’s war chest as it seeks to repel Russia from its territory; $26.3bn for Israel and humanitarian relief for civilians in conflict zones, including Gaza; and $8.1bn for the Indo-Pacific region to bolster its defenses against China.In an effort to attract Republican support, the security bill includes a provision that could see a nationwide ban on TikTok. The House also added language mandating the president seek repayment from Kyiv for roughly $10bn in economic assistance in the form of “forgivable loans”, an idea first floated by Donald Trump, who has stoked anti-Ukraine sentiment among conservatives.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlthough support for the package was overwhelming, several Democrats have expressed their concern with sending Israel additional military aid as it prosecutes a war that has killed more than 34,000 people in Gaza and plunged the territory into a humanitarian crisis. Three progressive senators, Bernie Sanders, Peter Welch of Vermont and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, voted against the bill for its inclusion of military support to Israel.On Wednesday, Biden called the aid to Israel “vital”, especially in the wake of Iran’s unprecedented aerial assault on the country. Israel, with help from the US, UK and Jordan, intercepted nearly all of the missiles and drones and there were no reported fatalities. The attack had been launched in retaliation against an Israeli strike on an Iranian consular site in Syria.“My commitment to Israel, I want to make clear again, is ironclad,” Biden said. “The security of Israel is critical. I will always make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Iran and terrorists who it supports.”Biden’s abiding support for Israel’s war in Gaza has hurt his political standing with key parts of the Democratic coalition, especially among young people. As he spoke, students at some of the nation’s most prestigious universities were demonstrating against the war.Biden emphasized that the bill also increases humanitarian assistance to Gaza, touting his administration’s efforts to pressure Israel to allow more aid into the devastated territory. But House Republicans added a provision to the bill prohibiting funds to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Unrwa, a “lifeline for the Palestinian people in Gaza” that Israel has sought to disband.An independent review published this week said that Israel had yet to present evidence of its claims that employees of the relief agency are affiliated with terrorist organizations.“We’re going to immediately secure that aid and surge it, including food, medical supplies, clean water, and Israel must make sure all this aid reaches the Palestinians in Gaza without delay,” Biden said.Biden’s signatures marks the conclusion of the grueling journey on Capitol Hill. It was not clear whether the bill had a path forward amid the opposition of the newly installed House speaker, Mike Johnson, who holds a tenuous grip on his party’s vanishingly thin majority.Under pressure from his right flank, Johnson initially refused to allow a vote on Ukraine aid unless it was paired with a border clampdown. But then Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, derailed a bipartisan border bill that included significant concessions to hardline conservatives, determined not to hand Biden an election-year victory on an issue that plays to his political advantage.Lobbied by the White House, European allies and pro-Ukraine Republicans, the House speaker finally relented, risking his job to bypass rightwing opposition and pass the foreign aid bill with the help of Democrats.Biden noted the absence of the immigration reform measure, which he called the “strongest border security bill this country has ever seen”, and committed to returning to the issue at another time.Despite the dysfunction in Washington, Biden said passing the bill proved a guiding principle of his presidential campaign: that there was enough goodwill left to forge compromise where it matters.“This vote makes it clear,” he said. “There is a bipartisan consensus for that kind of American leadership. That’s exactly what we’ll continue to deliver.” More