US foreign policy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden’s China investment ban: who’s targeted and what does it mean for the 2024 US election?

      by

      Joe Biden has moved to restrict US investment in Chinese technology, signing an executive order which focuses on a few, sensitive hi-tech sectors including semiconductors, quantum computing and artificial intelligence (AI).It is the latest in a series of measures taken by the US to restrict China’s access to the most advanced technology and comes as the president has embarked on a multi-state tour of the south-west to tout his plans to revive American manufacturing after decades of decline.The restrictions are expected to take effect next year – and come at a sensitive time in the US-China relationship. The Biden administration has launched diplomatic overtures to Beijing in recent months, seeking to mend ties after a series of incidents, while still attempting to bolster its position against China on military, economic and technological fronts.What are the latest restrictions?As a result of previous Biden administration measures, the US already bans or restricts the export to China of many of the technologies covered in these new measures. The aim of Wednesday’s executive order is to prevent US funds from helping China build its own domestic capabilities, which could undermine the existing export controls.Under the executive order, the US Treasury has been directed to regulate certain US investments in semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum computing and artificial intelligence.China, Hong Kong and Macau are listed as the “countries of concern”, but a senior Biden official has told Reuters other countries could be added in the future.The rules are not retroactive and apply to to future investments, with officials saying the goal is to regulate investments in areas that could give China military and intelligence advantages.Britain and the European Union have signalled their intention to move along similar lines, and the Group of Seven advanced economies agreed in June that restrictions on outbound investments should be part of an overall toolkit.Biden’s plan has been criticised by Republicans, many of whom say it does not go far enough.Republican Senator Marco Rubio has called it “almost laughable”, adding that the plan is “riddled with loopholes … and fails to include industries China’s government deems critical”, he said.How has China reacted?A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington said the White House had ignored “China’s repeated expression of deep concerns” about the plan.The embassy warned that it would affect more than 70,000 US companies that do business in China, hurting both Chinese and American businesses.The country’s commerce ministry said it reserved the right to take countermeasures and encouraged the US to respect the laws of market economy and the principle of fair competition.What part do these measures play in Biden’s re-election bid?As the executive order was made public, Biden was speaking in New Mexico, touting his government’s success in boosting manufacturing jobs in the renewable energy sector.“Where’s it written that America can’t lead the world again in manufacturing? Because we’re going to do just that,” Biden said at the groundbreaking of a new factory manufacturing wind turbine towers in the city of Belon.“Instead of exporting American jobs, we’re creating American jobs and we’re exporting American products,” he added.However, polling shows that for many, the perception of the president’s economic policies – “Bidenomics” as his communications team likes to call them – are at odds with a range of positive indicators. US inflation has dropped to the lowest levels since 2021 and the administration has repeatedly touted months of consistent jobs growth; despite this though multiple polls show that only a minority of Americans support Biden’s handling of the economy.The cornerstone of Biden’s refreshed bid to voters are two major bills he shepherded through Congress and signed into law a year ago: the Chips and Science Act – which pumps huge funding into semiconductor manufacturing, research and development – and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a law for megaprojects boosting green investment.The chips act aims to further freeze China’s semiconductor industry in place, while pouring billions of dollars in subsidies into the US chip industry.Both laws, along with the growing restrictions on Chinese industry, are positioned to win back portions of the working-class vote who felt left behind by globalisation and turned to Donald Trump at previous elections.What’s next?The ban is a step in a broad and ongoing push to undermine China’s efforts to achieve independence in a number of technological areas, in particular the development of advanced semiconductors.In recent months, the US government has signalled it still wants to close some loopholes Chinese businesses are using to get their hands on the most advanced semiconductors.In response to previous chip bans, Nvidia one of the world’s leading chip companies, has started offering a less advanced chip, the A800, to Chinese buyers. But new curbs being considered by Washington would restrict even those products.In possible anticipation of such a move China’s tech giants – including Baidu, TikTok-owner ByteDance, Tencent and Alibaba – have made orders worth $1bn to acquire about 100,000 A800 processors from the Nvidia to be delivered this year, the Financial Times has reported.The Chinese groups had also bought a further $4bn worth of graphics processing units to be delivered in 2024, according to the report.Reuters and Agence France-Presse contributed to this report More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      US and EU leaders urged to change tack on Kosovo-Serbia tensions

      by

      A group of influential politicians including the chair of the US, German and British parliamentary foreign affairs committees have written to US and EU leaders to urge them to reconsider their approach to easing tensions between Kosovo and Serbia.In a shot across the bows of those leading international efforts to normalise relations between the two countries, they have criticised the “lack of pressure placed on Serbia” and say the “EU-facilitated dialogue has yet to yield positive results”.The strongly worded letter reinforces Kosovan concerns, voiced behind the scenes, that the EU and the US are siding with the Serbian leadership.It comes two months after tensions flared in the north of Kosovo over mayoral elections that Pristina says followed the letter of the law but were marred by a boycott of Serbian voters resulting in a turnout of less than 4%.Kosovo’s prime minister blamed the violence in the north of the country on “fascist mobs” controlled by the government of neighbouring Serbia, and said he had rejected a US request to relocate recently installed mayors from their official offices.In turn, the Serbian president, Aleksandar Vučić, denounced the elections as invalid and accused Kosovo of refusing to enter a dialogue.The authors of the letter say EU and US efforts to resolve the crisis are not working and urge a rethink of approach. “Attempts to disrupt democratic elections in Kosovo by Serbia must be criticised publicly as foreign interference with tangible measures implemented to hold them accountable if they continue to undermine free and fair elections,” the letter said.It was sent to the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, and the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Josep Borrell, who has been leading recent efforts in Moldova and Brussels to de-escalate tensions between the two countries.“The current approach is not working,” the authors wrote. “We would ask that the international community learns from our past and ensure we do not adopt a Belgrade-centred policy for the Balkans.”The signatories include Bob Menendez, the chair of the US senate foreign relations committee, Michael Roth, chair of the foreign affairs committee of the German Bundestag, and Alicia Kearns, the chair of the UK’s foreign affairs committee, along with politicians from the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Ireland, Lithuania, Estonia and Iceland.The letter added that Kosovo had “faced significant repercussions” following the election of mayors in four municipalities in the north of the country, elections that the majority Serbian population of the area boycotted.By contrast, the letter said there was a “lack of pressure on Serbia” following the detention of three Kosovan police officers by Serbian authorities and “a failure to hold to account those responsible” for attacks on the peace-keeping KFOR force.That, the signatories wrote, “highlights the current lack of even-handedness in addressing such flashpoints”.Vučić subsequently called on Kosovo authorities to withdraw what he termed “alleged mayors” in northern Kosovo to defuse a crisis that prompted violence.He claimed at a meeting of European leaders in Moldova and later in Brussels that the Kosovan leadership had refused to enter dialogue to resolve the crisis.Behind the scenes, Kosovans have accused the US and the EU leadership of in effect appeasing Serbia amid fears Russia would involve itself in the western Balkans. An additional 41 members of national parliaments and the European parliament also signed the letter.A spokesperson for Borrell confirmed he had just received the communique but suggested it was not representative of member states.The official pointed out that the letter was from 56 MPs among “thousands of parliamentarians”, with foreign policy set by 27 governments in the bloc in “unanimity”.“The EU is a neutral facilitator in the dialogue on normalisation of relations between Kosovo and Serbia,” they said.It added that member states “are consulted on EU actions and the EU cooperates closely with its partners, particularly the USA”.“The EU is currently closely monitoring Serbia’s compliance to the EU’s requests and stands ready to take measures in case of non-compliance to these requests.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      John Bolton suggests US will leave Nato if ‘erratic’ Trump wins in 2024

      by

      Ex-national security adviser John Bolton issued harsh remarks against his former boss and the leading 2024 Republican presidential candidate, saying that the US will likely withdraw from Nato if Donald Trump wins the election.In an interview with the Hill on Thursday, Bolton criticized the former president’s foreign policy after an op-ed he wrote earlier this week called Trump’s behavior “erratic, irrational and unconstrained”.“Donald Trump doesn’t really have a philosophy, as we understand it in political terms,” Bolton said. “He doesn’t think in policy directions when he makes decisions, certainly in the national security space.”Bolton, who was Trump’s national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019, also lambasted Trump for his foreign policy legacy with regard to the alliance, saying in the interview: “He threatened the existence of Nato, and I think in a second Trump term, we’d almost certainly withdraw from Nato.”He also criticized Republicans who have praised Trump for his foreign policy positions. He said: “Those who make these claims about what Trump did in his first term don’t really understand how we got to the places we did. Because many of the things they now give Trump credit for, he wanted to go in the opposite direction.”In Bolton’s op-ed published on Tuesday, he said Trump “disdains knowledge” and accused him of “seeing relations between the United States and foreign lands, especially our adversaries, predominantly as matters of personality”.“Foreign leaders, friend or foe, are far more likely see him as ignorant, inexperienced, braggadocious, longing to be one of the big boys and eminently susceptible to flattery,” Bolton wrote. “These characteristics were a constant source of risk in Trump’s first term, and would be again in a second term.”Bolton condemned Trump for his decision-making, saying: “Beyond acting on inadequate information, reflection or discussion, Trump is also feckless even after making decisions. When things go wrong, or when he simply changes his mind subsequently (a common occurrence), he invariably tries to distance himself from his own decision, fearing negative media coverage or political criticism.”Following his firing in 2019, Bolton published a book, The Room Where It Happened, in which he strongly criticized Trump’s leadership. Earlier this year, Bolton called Trump’s 2024 presidential bid “poison” to the Republican party.Since March, Trump has been criminally charged in connection with hush money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, with his hoarding of classified documents at his Florida resort, and with allegedly having a hand in illegal efforts to overturn his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race.Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges filed against him. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Russian spy chief confirms call to CIA director after Wagner revolt

      by

      Russia’s foreign intelligence chief Sergei Naryshkin has said that he and his CIA counterpart discussed the shortlived mutiny a week earlier by Russian mercenary boss Yevgeny Prigozhin and “what to do with Ukraine” in a phone call late last month.Sergei Naryshkin, head of the SVR foreign intelligence service, told Russia’s TASS new agency on Wednesday that Bill Burns had raised “the events of June 24” – when fighters from the Wagner mercenary group took control of a southern Russian city and advanced towards Moscow before reaching a deal with the Kremlin to end the revolt.But he said that for most of the call, lasting about an hour, “we considered and discussed what to do with Ukraine”.The CIA declined to comment on his remarks.The New York Times and Wall Street Journal reported on 30 June that William Burns had called Naryshkin to assure the Kremlin that the United States had no role in the Wagner revolt.Ukraine, which was invaded by Russia in February 2022, says other countries should not negotiate its future on its behalf, and the United States has repeatedly backed this principle, described as “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”.Burns and Naryshkin have maintained a line of communication since the start of the Ukraine war at a time when other direct contacts between Moscow and Washington are at a minimum, with relations at their lowest point since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.Last November, the two spy chiefs held a rare face-to-face meeting in Ankara, after which US officials insisted that Burns was “not conducting negotiations of any kind” and “not discussing settlement of the war in Ukraine” – after a leak from the Kremlin in the aftermath of Ukraine’s recapture of Kherson.On Wednesday Naryshkin told TASS that negotiations on the war would become possible at some point. The agency did not specify whether this was part of his conversation with Burns.“It’s natural that negotiations will be possible sooner or later, because any conflict, including armed conflict, ends by negotiations, but the conditions for these still need to ripen,” TASS quoted him as saying.Asked about the report, Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak told Reuters: “Today, someone like Naryshkin has no leverage over how this war will end.”Podolyak said Russia was losing the war and there could be no negotiations with people like Naryshkin.“This Russian elite perceives events completely inadequately, so there is nothing to talk about with them.”Ukraine, which launched a long-expected counteroffensive last month, has said it will not enter talks at this point as this could effectively freeze the situation on the battlefield, where Russia has seized more than a sixth of its territory. More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on supplying cluster bombs: not just a ‘difficult’ decision, but the wrong one | Editorial

      by

      Twenty-thousand Laotians, almost half of them children, have been killed or injured by unexploded ordnance since the Vietnam war ended. It is half a century since the US stopped bombing Laos, having dropped more than 2m tons of cluster munitions; decades on, people then unborn are still paying the price. On one estimate, it will take another 100 years to fully clear the country.This is the true cost of cluster munitions. They are not only indiscriminate in showering dozens or hundreds of bomblets over a large area, but also have a lethal legacy because so many fail to explode, only to later be trodden on or picked up – often by curious children. For these reasons, more than 120 countries have signed the convention prohibiting their use, production, transfer and stockpiling.The US, Russia and Ukraine, however, have never been signatories. Russia has used them extensively in Ukraine, including in populated areas where no military personnel or infrastructure were evident. Kyiv has also employed them, more sparingly, but reportedly at the cost of civilian lives in Izium (though it denies they were used there). Now the US will supply more as part of a $800m (£625m) military aid package, at Kyiv’s request. Thankfully, the UK, which has signed the convention but still holds some of the munitions, has ruled out following suit. Joe Biden has said he made a “difficult decision”. No doubt. But the president has made the wrong one.Ukraine’s counteroffensive has failed to gain the traction it needs, and supplies of artillery shells are running low. The argument is that, however significant the risks and long-term costs of using cluster bombs, civilians will pay a far higher price where Russian forces prevail. Cluster munitions are effective in combating dug-in ground troops, like the Russian forces along the vast frontline. But the same, of course, could be said for chemical weapons, and the US rightly finished destroying its remaining stockpile of those on Friday. Efficacy is why bans on such arms are needed in the first place. Russia’s use of them is not a reason to further drag down international norms.Ukraine’s defence minister, Oleksii Reznikov, says it has given written guarantees that it will not use the US-supplied weapons in Russia, nor in urban areas where civilians might be killed or wounded. It will also record their use, to expedite demining when the conflict is over. The US claims its munitions are far safer than those used by Moscow, with dud rates “not higher than 2.5%” versus Russian devices that reportedly fail 30-40% of the time. Experts say test results don’t reflect real world conditions and that, in any case, the sheer number of submunitions still means a deadly aftermath.Invasion has forced Ukraine to make tough decisions about how to defend itself. The US was nonetheless wrong to meet its request. The decisions of the world’s most powerful country and military are key to determining global norms. Before Donald Trump took office, it had made some recent steps towards controlling cluster munitions. But it should never have deployed them, including in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s. It should not have rejected the convention banning them. And it should not be supplying them to Ukraine. Their use will have terrible long-term consequences for civilians there – and perhaps, through the example it sets, for civilians elsewhere too. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Cluster bombs to Ukraine will damage US moral leadership, Democrat says

      by

      The decision to provide cluster munitions to Ukraine risks costing the US its “moral leadership” in world affairs, the influential California Democratic congresswoman Barbara Lee said.“We know what takes place in terms of cluster bombs being very dangerous to civilians,” Lee said. “They don’t always immediately explode. Children can step on them. That’s a line we should not cross.”In 2001, Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the war in Afghanistan. She is running to replace the retiring Dianne Feinstein in the Senate next year.Speaking to CNN’s State of the Union, she added: “I think [Joe Biden] has been doing a good job managing … [Russian president Vladimir] Putin’s aggressive war against Ukraine, but I think that this should not happen. [Biden] had to ask for a waiver under the Foreign Assistance Act just to do it because we have been preventing the use of cluster bombs since I believe 2010.”Biden also spoke to CNN, an interview released as he traveled to the UK, then to the Nato summit in Lithuania.His host, Fareed Zakaria, said: “These are weapons that a hundred nations ban, including some of our closest Nato allies. When there was news that the Russians might be using it, admittedly against civilians, your then press secretary said this might … constitute war crimes. What made you change your mind?”Biden said: “Two things … and it was a very difficult decision on my part. And I discussed this with our allies, discussed this with our friends up on [Capitol] Hill. And we’re in a situation where Ukraine continues to be brutally attacked across the board by … these cluster munitions that have dud rates that are … very high, that are a danger to civilians, number one.”“Dud rates” refers to cluster munition “bomblets” that do not explode when fired or dropped but can do so later.Biden continued: “Number two, the Ukrainians are running out of ammunition … And so what I finally did, [I] took the recommendation of the defense department to … provide them with something that has a very low dud rate. … I think it’s one in 50, which is the least likely to be blowing [up] and it’s not used in civilian areas. They’re trying to … stop those tanks from rolling.”Biden said: “It took me a while to be convinced to do it. But the main thing is, they either have the weapons to stop the Russians now from … stopping the Ukrainian offensive … or they don’t. And I think they needed them.”Lee was asked if the US was at risk in “engaging in war crimes”.“What I think is that we would risk losing our moral leadership,” she said. “Because when you look at the fact that over 120 countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, saying they should never be used, they should never be used.“And in fact, many of us have urged the administration to sign on to this convention. And so I’m hoping that the administration would reconsider this because these are very dangerous bombs … and this is a line that I don’t believe we should cross.”Another influential Democrat, Tim Kaine, from Virginia and a member of the Senate armed services committee, also questioned Biden’s decision.“It could give a green light to other nations to do something different as well,” Kaine told Fox News Sunday, adding that he “appreciates the Biden administration has grappled with the risks”.A House Republican, Michael McCaul of Texas, chair of the foreign affairs committee, said he did not “see anything wrong” with supplying cluster bombs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSpeaking to CNN, McCaul said: “Russia is dropping, with impunity, cluster bombs in Ukraine … all the Ukrainians and [President Volodymyr] Zelenskiy are asking for is to give them the same weapons the Russians have to use in their own country, against Russians who are in their own country … they do not want these to be used in Russia.”McCaul criticized Biden, saying: “As you look at the counter-offensive, it’s been slowed tremendously because this administration has been so slow to get the weapons.”John Kirby, the national security council spokesperson, told ABC’s This Week: “We are very mindful of the concerns about … unexploded ordnance being picked up by civilians or children and being hurt … and we’re going to focus on Ukraine with de-mining efforts. In fact, we’re doing it right now and we will when war conditions permit.”Ukraine’s push for membership of Nato is another divisive issue.“I don’t think it’s ready for membership in Nato,” Biden said. “I don’t think there is unanimity in Nato about whether or not to bring Ukraine into the family now, in the middle of a war … we’re determined to [defend] every inch of territory that is Nato territory. It’s a commitment we’ve all made, no matter what.“If the war is going on, then we’re all … at war with Russia, if that were the case. So, I think we have to lay out a rational path for … Ukraine to be able to qualify to get into Nato.”Kirby said Ukraine needed to make reforms “necessary for any Nato ally to become a member … political reforms, economic reforms, good governance. Those kinds of things.”Zelenskiy also spoke to ABC. If there was no unity on an invitation for Ukraine to join Nato, he said, “Ukraine should get clear security guarantees while it is not in Nato and that is a very important point.”Adding that Ukraine “would like to have all the decisions to be made during this summit”, he said: “It’s obvious that I’ll be there and I’ll be doing whatever I can in order to, so to speak, expedite that solution. … I don’t want to go to Vilnius for fun if the decision has been made beforehand.” More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      US says it killed Islamic State leader Usamah al-Muhajir in Syria

      by

      The US military said on Sunday it conducted a strike that killed Usamah al-Muhajir, an Islamic State leader in eastern Syria.“The strike on Friday was conducted by the same MQ-9s that had, earlier in the day, been harassed by Russian aircraft in an encounter that had lasted almost two hours,” a statement from US Central Command said.It was not immediately clear how the US military confirmed that the person killed was Muhajir. Central Command did not give any more details about him.The statement said there were no indications any civilians were killed in the strike. The military was assessing reports that a civilian may have been injured.“We have made it clear that we remain committed to the defeat of Isis throughout the region,” Gen Erik Kurilla, commander of US Central Command, said in the statement.Washington has stepped up raids and operations against suspected Islamic State operatives in Syria, killing and arresting leaders who had taken shelter in areas under Turkey-backed rebel control after the group lost its last territory in Syria in 2019.The US-led campaign which killed former IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who declared himself the “caliph of all Muslims”, has since targeted surviving leaders, many of whom are thought to have planned attacks abroad.US military commanders say the IS remains a significant threat within the region, though its capabilities have been degraded and its ability to re-establish its network weakened.At its peak in 2014, the IS controlled one-third of Iraq and Syria. Though it was beaten back in both countries, its militants continue to mount insurgent attacks.The US air force earlier released video footage it said showed an encounter between the drones and Russian fighter jets on Wednesday, which forced the MQ-9 Reapers to take evasive action.US Air Forces Central said in a statement: “These events represent a new level of unprofessional and unsafe action by Russian air forces operating in Syria.”Lt Gen Alex Grynkewich, commander of Ninth Air Force in the Middle East, said one of the Russian pilots moved their aircraft in front of a drone and engaged the SU-35’s afterburner, reducing the drone operator’s ability to safely operate the aircraft.R Adm Oleg Gurinov, head of the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria, said the Russian and Syrian militaries had started a six-day joint training that was set to end on Monday.In comments carried by Syrian state media, Gurinov said Moscow was concerned about flights of drones by the US-led coalition over northern Syria, calling them “systematic violations of protocols” designed to avoid clashes between the two militaries. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      No Trade Is Free review: Trump’s man plots an unusually civil course

      by

      Robert Lighthizer, a veteran trade negotiator and sometime free-trade skeptic, became Donald Trump’s most senior trade official. Unlike the former president and his director of trade and manufacturing policy, Peter Navarro, Lighthizer is not now fending off prosecution. He did not pique the interest of the January 6 committee.But Trump and Lighthizer are still members of a mutual admiration society. No Free Trade, Lighthizer’s first book, comes with Trump’s endorsement. It is “a masterpiece that describes how my administration stood up to China and fought back against the globalists and communists that have been ripping off American workers for decades”, the former president gushed on Truth Social.Lighthizer, Trump added, was “the greatest United States trade representative in American history”.On the page, Lighthizer returns the favor. “Trump was a great boss,” he writes. In return, he recalls Trump saying: “Bob Lighthizer is great; I’ve heard it for years.”In 2016 and 2020, Lighthizer donated an aggregate of $3,950 to Trump’s campaigns. Talk about a return on investment.No Free Trade is replete with intellectual gymnastics. Lighthizer repeatedly delivers hosannas to the “liberal democratic” order and criticizes Vladimir Putin – but keeps mum about January 6 and Trump’s indictments. Nor does he have anything to say about the 45th president’s relationship with the Russian dictator or his tropism toward despots in general.As is to be expected, not everyone on Trump’s team was enamored with Lighthizer. In his own book, Taking Back Trump’s America, Navarro scolded him for refusing to appear on TV in the run-up to the 2020 election. The “Greta Garbo of the West Wing”, to quote Navarro, Lighthizer possessed savvy and presence – and refused to engage when the election hung in the balance.Back in the day, as a member of the Reagan administration, Lighthizer helped negotiate “voluntary restraints” on imports of Japanese cars and steel. The experience provided valuable knowledge of the trade playbook. After his stint in the executive branch, Lighthizer returned to Bob Dole’s orbit as treasurer to the Kansas Republican’s 1996 presidential campaign. The pair had backed the North America Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), enacted in 1994, when Bill Clinton sat in the White House.Over time, however, Lighthizer became a Nafta critic. He now writes that Ross Perot got it right when he warned of a middle-class job exodus if the agreement became law, of a “great sucking sound”, indeed. Along with the Iraq war and the opioid crisis, the downside of the free trade deal with Canada and Mexico helped drive lunch-bucket voters into Trump’s arms and transform the Democrats into an upstairs-downstairs coalition.Nafta “is no longer an acronym – it’s a noun and a profanity”, Salena Zito and Brad Todd caught an interviewee saying in The Great Revolt, their 2018 book about the forces that helped empower Trump.As a lawyer in private practice, Lighthizer represented the US steel industry. As Trump’s trade representative, he negotiated the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, aka the USMCA, to replace Nafta. He also clashed and negotiated with China.He now castigates the Biden administration for being insufficiently tough with Beijing, but observes that Trump’s tariffs against China have been maintained. Lighthizer calls Katherine Tai, his successor as US trade representative, “estimable”, lauding her efforts to protect American industry. He also has kind words for Nancy Pelosi and Richard Neal, Democrats now former House speaker and former chair of the tax and trade committee. Lighthizer was once chief of staff to the Senate finance committee. He maintains respect for Capitol Hill.He testified there recently, about the danger posed by China.“I believe that China is the most dangerous threat that we face as a nation,” he told a House select committee. “Indeed, it may be the most perilous adversary we’ve ever had.”Whatever the danger posed by China, Lighthizer has indirectly invested there himself. His 2019 and 2020 executive branch personnel public financial disclosures show ownership of between $2m and $10m in the Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund. Tencent, the Chinese technology and entertainment conglomerate, is one of the fund’s largest holdings.Irony abounds. In August 2020, Trump issued an executive order to “address the threat posed by WeChat”, seeking for it to be banned. WeChat is “a messaging, social media and electronic payment application” owned by … Tencent.Predictably, Lighthizer trashes “globalists”, the Koch-funded Cato Institute and other ideological free-traders. He takes aim at Larry Summers, a veteran of the Clinton and Obama administrations and former president of Harvard. Summers called for tariff cuts to reduce the sting of inflation. Lighthizer calls him “China’s favorite former treasury secretary”.Lighthizer neglects to examine how free trade became a Republican orthodoxy – until it wasn’t. In 1962, Milton Friedman, of the University of Chicago, wrote in Capitalism and Freedom, his best-known work, that the US should scrap tariffs.“It would be far better for us to move to free trade unilaterally, as Britain did in the 19th century when it repealed the Corn Laws,” Friedman urged. “We are a great nation, and it ill behooves us to require reciprocal benefits from China, Mexico or Europe before we reduce a tariff on products from those countries.”In August 1980, Friedman repeated that call. A decade later, George HW Bush did the heavy lifting on Nafta. More Republicans than Democrats backed that agreement.In Lighthizer’s eyes, Friedman fairs better than Summers. Lighthizer takes issue with the Nobel-winner’s take on floating exchange rates but ignores his legacy on trade. Likewise, he goes easy on Bush.Beyond all that, No Trade Is Free is an accessible and readable chronicle of US trade history and policy over the past half-century.
      No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America’s Workers is published in the US by HarperCollins More