US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping have set out starkly different visions for the future of global trade in speeches at a summit in Vietnam. In a defiant address, Trump told the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) meeting that the US would no longer tolerate “chronic trade abuses”. In contrast, President Xi said globalization was irreversible.
APEC brings together 21 economies from the Pacific region – the equivalent of about 60% of the world’s GDP. Since taking office, President Trump has pursued his “America First” agenda and pulled the US out of the regional Trans-Pacific Partnership – a major trade deal with 12 APEC nations – arguing it would hurt US economic interests.
In a speech in the Vietnamese port city of Da Nang on Friday the 10th November, President Trump railed against the World Trade Organization, which sets global trade laws, and said it “cannot function properly” if all members do not respect the rules. He complained about trade imbalances, saying the USA had lowered market barriers and ended tariffs while other countries had not reciprocated. “Such practices hurt many people in our country,” he said, adding that free trade had cost millions of American jobs. But he did not lay the blame on APEC countries, and instead accused earlier US administrations of not acting earlier to reverse the trend. He said America would make bilateral agreements with “any Indo-Pacific partner here who abides by fair reciprocal trade”, but only “on a basis of mutual respect and mutual benefit”.
Speaking minutes after his American counterpart, Chinese President Xi Jinping took to the podium to espouse his country’s credentials as the new champion of world trade. Globalization, he said, was an “irreversible historical trend” but the philosophy behind free trade needed to be repurposed to be “more open, more balanced, more equitable and more beneficial to all”.
In contrast to President Trump, the Chinese leader defended multilateral trade deals, which he said helped poorer nations to benefit. “We should support the multilateral trading regime and practise open regionalism to allow developing members to benefit more from international trade and investment.”
The total trade relationship between the USA and China was worth $648bn last year, but trade was heavily skewed in China’s favour with the US amassing a nearly $310bn deficit. Trump has in the past accused China of stealing American jobs and threatened to label it a currency manipulator, though he has since rowed back on such rhetoric.
During the US president’s visit, China announced it would further lower entry barriers in the banking, insurance, and finance sectors, and would gradually reduce vehicle tariffs. Deals worth $250bn (£190bn) were also announced, although it was unclear how much of that figure included past agreements or potential future deals.
Before the Beijing talks, Trump in Tokyo lashed out at Japan, saying it “has been winning” on trade in recent decades. Japan had a $69bn (£52.8bn) trade surplus with the US in 2016, according to the US Treasury department.
Trump has repeatedly referred to the region as “Indo-Pacific”, a term used to define America’s new geopolitical view of Asia.
The US president had travelled to Da Nang from Beijing, where he had also discussed America’s huge trade imbalance with China. There too, he said he did not blame the country for “taking advantage”.
President Trump was clear – he wants bilateral trade deals and large, multilateral arrangements don’t work for him. This was a speech saying that America is open for business, but on America’s terms.
Contrast that with China’s Xi Jinping, who spoke about the digital economy, quantum science, artificial intelligence – presenting a vision of the future that is connected, and comprehensive.
Increasingly whenever you see Xi on the international stage he is the poster child for free trade and globalization. Ironic, given that China itself has yet to become a fully free economy.
The US was the architect of many of the multilateral and free trade agreements for Asia. Under its tutelage, many of these countries opened up and reformed – playing by America’s rules.
But under Donald Trump, that role has gone into reverse which has left China with a gaping hole to fill – and one it is only more than happy to take on.
When the US president is served up soy sauce older than America itself, it makes you wonder what diplomatic messages Asian leaders were hiding in the stock when they fed Donald Trump. Japan’s PM Shinzo Abe has made no bones about becoming Trump’s best friend and when the pair shared an all-American hamburger lunch made with imported US beef (remember new India hates beef and kill those who eat beef or sell it because beef, according to the latest discovery of Hindutva, is god’s flesh), and accompanied by Heinz ketchup and mustard, the messaging was clear.
The US leader reportedly loves well-done steak and hates raw fish, so steak and a chocolate ice-cream sundae at a Tokyo teppanyaki restaurant was one of Trump’s first meals. But “Japanese style steak” was reportedly on the menu at the state dinner, as well as chawanmushi (steamed egg) with matsutake mushrooms, and he got a taste of local culture when he ate teriyaki chicken at a traditional Japanese restaurant.
In Seoul, politics was definitely on the table. A cooked prawn that was caught near the disputed Dokdo/Takeshima islands claimed by both South Korea and Japan was served up. And among the guests for the state dinner was Lee Yong-soo, a former “comfort woman” or wartime sex slave for Japanese soldiers – a contentious issue between South Korea and Japan. Trump was photographed giving her a warm hug
It might just be worth noting that Trump is not believed to share the same rapport with South Korean President Moon Jae-in as with Abe. Trump also used his dining choices to play politics with a calculated decision to eat with US and South Korean troops at Camp Humphreys, the largest overseas US military base, for “Taco Tuesday”.
It’s unclear whether Trump took a bite, but Japan was not pleased – a government spokesman later raised concerns about the significance of the prawn at a time when South Korea should unite with Japan to tackle North Korean issues
Beijing may have given Trump a lavish welcome, but dialled down the extravagance when it came to the state banquet, choosing instead to ease Trump into local cuisine with a classic Chinese dish familiar to many Americans – kung pao chicken.
The dish of chicken pieces stir fried with chillies originates from Sichuan province, as does another item on the menu, fish cooked in chilli oil.
Trump is currently on a five-nation Asia tour, with China one of his stops.
Trump also met Russian President Vladimir Putin at the summit. The two shook hands and exchanged a few words. Both were in blue shirt – similar or maybe made of the same cloth and maybe stitched by the same tailor.
After the summit, Trump pays a state visit to the Vietnamese capital Hanoi, before ending his 12-day Asian tour in the Philippines on 13 November.
A more effective labour market approach to fighting poverty
is still the most reliable way of escaping poverty. However, access to both
jobs and decent working conditions remains a challenge. Sixty-six per cent of
employed people in developing economies and 22 per cent in emerging economies
are in either extreme or moderate working poverty, and the problem becomes even
more striking when the dependents of these “working poor” are considered.
Thus, it is not just unemployment or inactivity that traps people in poverty, they are also held back by a lack of decent work opportunities, including underemployment or informal employment.
Appropriate labour market policies can play an important role in the fight to eradicate poverty, by increasing access to job opportunities and improving the quality of working conditions. In particular, labour market policies that combine income support for jobless people with active labour market policies (ALMPs).
The new ILO report What works: Promoting pathways to decent work shows that combining income support with active labour market support allows countries to tackle multiple barriers to decent work. These barriers can be structural, (e.g. lack of education and skills, presence of inequalities) or temporary (e.g. climate-related shocks, economic crises). This policy combination is particularly relevant today, at a time when the world of work is being reshaped by global forces such as international trade, technological progress, demographic shifts and environmental transformations.
that combine income support with ALMPs can help people to adjust to the changes
these forces create in the labour market. Income support ensures that people do
not fall into poverty during joblessness and that they are not forced to accept
any work, irrespective of its quality. At the same time, ALMPs endow people
with the skills they need to find quality employment, improving their
employability over the medium- to long-term.
New evidence gathered for this report shows that this combination of income support and active support is indeed effective in improving labour market conditions: impact evaluations of selected policies indicate how people who have benefited from this type of integrated approach have higher employment chances and better working conditions.
One example of how this combined approach can produce results is the innovative unemployment benefit scheme unrolled in Mauritius, the “Workfare Programme”. This provides workers with access to income support and three different types of activation measures; training (discontinued in 2016), job placement and start-up support. The programme was also open to those unemployed people who were previously working in an informal job. By extending coverage to the most vulnerable workers, the scheme has helped reduce inequalities and unlock the informality trap.
Another success came through a public works scheme implemented in Uruguay as part of a larger conditional cash transfer programme, the National Social Emergency Plan (PANES). The programme was implemented during a deep economic recession and carefully targeted the poorest and most vulnerable.
Beneficiaries of PANES were given the opportunity to take part in public works. In exchange for full-time work for up to five months, they received a higher level of income support as well as additional job placement help. This approach reached a large share of the population at risk of extreme poverty and who lacked social protection. The report indicates that providing both measures together was critical to the project’s success.
The effects of these policies on poverty eradication cannot be overestimated. By tackling unemployment, underemployment and informality, policies combining income support with ALMPs can directly affect some of the roots of poverty, while enhancing the working conditions and labour market opportunities for millions of women and men in emerging and developing countries.
CPEC vs IMF in Pakistan
International Monetary Fund (IMF) was created just after World War II (WWII) in 1945. The IMF is an organization of 189 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.
Pakistan has been knocking doors of IMF since 1958, and it has been 21 agreements with IMF. Generally, the IMF provides loans at very low-interest rates and provides programs of better governance and monitoring too. But for the last 6 decades, Pakistan has suffered a lot, in terms of good governance. Especially last 2 decades, corruption, nepotism, poor planning, bribery, weakening of institution, de-moralization of society, etc were witnessed. We may not blame the IMF for all such evils but must complain that the IMF failed to deliver, what was expected. Of course, it is our country, we are responsible for all evils, and wrongdoings happened to us. We have to act smartly and should have made the right decision and at right times.
IMF also dictates its terms and condition or programs like: devaluation of local currencies, which causes inflation and hike in prices, cut or draw-back of subsidies on basic utilities like fuel, gas, electricity, food, agriculture etc, which causes cost of life rather higher for local people, cut on development expenditures like education, health, infrastructure, and social development etc, which pushes the country even more backward. IMF focusses only on reducing expenditures and collection of taxes to make a country to meet the deadlines of payments. IMF does not care about the development of a country, but emphasizes tax collections and payment of installments on time, to rescue a country from being a default.
While CPEC is an initiative where projects are launched in Power Generation, Infrastructure development under the early harvest program. Pakistan was an energy trust country and facing a severe shortage of Electricity. But after completion of several power projects under CPEC, the shortfall of electricity has been reduced to a great extent. One can witness no load shedding today, while, just a few years back the load shedding was visible throughout the country for several hours a day. Several motorways and highways have been completed. Gwadar port has been operational partially. Infrastructure developments are basic of economic activities.
Projects under CPEC has generated jobs up to 80,000. CPEC was the catalyst to improve GDP by around two percent during 2015-2018. CPEC has lifted the standard and quality of life of the common man in Pakistan. CPEC was instrumental to move the economic activities and circulation of wealth in society. Under CPEC, early harvest projects, 22 projects have been completed at the cost of approximately 19 billion US dollars.
It is understood that early harvest projects were heavy investment and rather slow on returns. But, these projects have provided a strong foundation for the second phase, where Agriculture, Industrialization and Social Sector will be focused. Return on Agriculture and Industrial produce is quick and also generates more jobs. The second phase will contribute toward the social development of Pakistan as well as generate wealth for the nation. Pakistan’s agriculture sector has huge potential as cultivatable land is huge, workforce is strong and climate is favorable. Regarding Industrialization, Pakistan is blessed with an abundance of mines and minerals. The raw material is cheap and the labor cost is competitive. Pakistan has 70% of its population under the age of 40 years, which means an abundance of the work force. Pakistan’s domestic market is 220 million and the traditional export market is the whole of the middle-east and the Muslim world.
The major difference between the CPEC and IMF is that CPEC generates wealth, while IMF focuses on tax collection and reducing the developments and growth. China is the latest model of developments in the modern days, China is willing to replicate its experience with Pakistan for its rapid development.
Eurasian integration: From economics to creation of a center of power
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had every reason to congratulate his
Armenian colleague Nikol Pashinyan with the outcome of the summit of Eurasian
Economic Union (EAEU) leaders that was recently held in Yerevan, where many
promising decisions were made, bringing Iran, Singapore and Uzbekistan closer
to this international organization.
Creation of various economic associations amid the ongoing process of globalization and toughening competition is a global trend nowadays. And still, the reasons for this process in Eurasia are as much economic, as they are existential.
The “traitorous” decision by the Western Christian powers during the Crimean War to side with the Ottoman Empire, which was widely perceived as a force hostile to the Christian world, came as a shock for Russian society, and above all, for the elite of the Russian Empire, which, throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, had been working hard to expand “the window on Europe,” opened by Peter the Great. The Europeans’ deep-seated rejection of Russia as part of the European world, often spilled out into open hostility.
The Crimean War underscored Christendom’s split along ideological and political lines, which began with the separation of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches in 1054. The rapprochement between Russia and the European powers during and immediately after the Napoleonic wars proved a rather short-lived (and atypical) episode in the history of East-West relations. Before very long, however, Russian society managed to develop an “antidote” that cured the psychological trauma caused by the war: “Russia has only two allies: its army and Navy,” as Emperor Alexander III famously said. Moreover, the complex of “otherness” vis-a-vis Europe quickly turned into a matter of pride for many Russian thinkers, such as Nikolai Danilevsky (“Russia and Europe”), Leo Tolstoy (“War and Peace”), Alexander Blok (“Scythians”), to name just a few.
While Danilevsky presented Russia as the leader of the still emerging Slavic “cultural-historical type,” the classical “Eurasians” with their idea of “Russia-Eurasia” believed that the cultural code of the Russian people is closer to the Turkic than to the West-Slavic one. What the “Eurasians” failed to delve into, however, was religious difference between the Russian and Turkic peoples, most of the latter being Muslims.
The ambitious experiment of building communism on a planetary scale further alienated Russia from the West, but brought it closer to the countries of the “third world,” primarily those in Asia. During the 1990s, Russia once again reached out to the West, only to be cold-shouldered by it.
This is exactly the response the West gave Turkey at the turn of this century and, just like the Russians before them, the Turks transformed their own complex of rejection from the West into a matter of pride. Today, according to various polls, up to 94.5 percent of Turks view the United States a hostile country. Anti-Americanism (coupled with anti-Western sentiment) is similarly on the rise in much of the Eurasian continent – from China all the way to the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the “Eurasians” theorized about a fundamental idea the entire future of “Russia-Eurasia” was to be built on. Today, most of the Eurasian countries’ foreign policy paradigm is overshadowed by their postcolonial syndrome and their desire for a more equitable world economic order.
“The recurrence of arrogant neo-colonial approaches, where some countries have the right to impose their will on others, is rejected by an absolute majority of members of the world community,” who seek “a more meaningful role in taking key decisions,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov wrote in an article titled “The world at a crossroads, and the system of international relations of the future.”
This goal can only be achieved by joint efforts and closer integration in the Eurasian space, where complex supranational integration formats, such as ASEAN, SCO, the Customs Union and the Common economic space (Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan) are already being established. Despite the complexity of the search for a mutually acceptable combination of the interests of very dissimilar countries (unlike in the case of the European Union), which have different civilizational affiliations and some even have running conflicts, this process is still moving ahead.
And yet, despite all their specific features, these countries still have very much in common: as a rule, a powerful state (“public”) economic sector, a long tradition of statehood (unlike Europe, not necessarily national) and, as a consequence, a traditional view of state power as something bordering on sacrosanct. And also an inherent rejection of the Western worldview with its mass culture, “rational,” almost materialistic, religion, and the substitution of morality by the criminal code, as the harshest critics of the West claim. Comparing Russia and Europe, the Russian historian Mstislav Shakhmatov stated: “The state of truth and the state of law are two different worldviews: the former is characterized by religious pathos and the latter – by material aspirations (…). Almost a century later, this maxim still rings true with many Eurasian societies.
Integration in our pragmatic century should start with a search for shared economic interests (by the way, the European Union grew out of the European coal and steel association). Speaking at the 2016 international economic forum in St. Petersburg, President Vladimir Putin pitched the idea of creating a large Eurasian partnership which, besides the CIS countries, would also bring on board China, India, Pakistan, Iran, and other countries.
Russia, which is a melting pot of a plethora of ethnic groups and cultures, has every reason to claim the role of a “natural” driving force behind the process of Eurasian integration. According to Turkish political analyst Ferhan Bayir, today “even the ruling Justice and Development Party in Turkey, which is rooted in political Islam, is edging closer to Russia as it increasingly opposes the United States… Even more so Iran, which is not just getting closer to Russia, but is actually working together with it in many parts of the region.”
Europe became a self-sufficient (though flagging) power center even before it united politically, and Eurasia may well become another such center. Since political unity, including in future, is unlikely, the participants of this integration process could still learn how best to respond together to external challenges, just like Russia, Turkey and Iran managed to collaborate in the Syrian conflict.
It would certainly be great if all countries of the continent (like just anyone else too) could learn to be friends and work together, but awareness of common interests (and, in the era of globalization, of destinies too), can hardly extend to all of Eurasia. Therefore, when we talk about the hypothetical Eurasian community as a center of power, we would have to exclude China, which itself is a power center and the core of a separate civilization. As for India, it will hardly show much interest in close integration as Hindustani civilization is a vivid example of an introverted and self-contained one.
Putting aside the term “center of power,” creating a community of countries with shared economic interests in Eurasia is quite possible. This project will not be hampered by any political incumbrancers, if only its participants agree to find compromises as they go. It won’t be easy, but, as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step…
From our partner International Affairs
Landmark labour reforms signal end of kafala system in Qatar
Qatar has announced sweeping reforms to its labour market, with a view to ending the kafala system and marking a...
US Blacklist of Chinese Surveillance Companies Creates Supply Chain Confusion
The United States Department of Commerce’s decision to blacklist 28 Chinese public safety organizations and commercial entities hit at some...
The Turkish Gambit
The only certainty in war is its intrinsic uncertainty, something Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could soon chance upon. One...
A more effective labour market approach to fighting poverty
Gainful employment is still the most reliable way of escaping poverty. However, access to both jobs and decent working conditions...
Major Environmental Groups Call On Businesses To Lead On Climate Policy
Eleven leading environmental and sustainable business organizations published an open letter in the New York Times today, urging the CEOs...
Venezuela, Poland and Sudan amongst 14 new Human Rights Council members
14 new members were elected to the Human Rights Council on Thursday, following a secret ballot held in the General...
Strategy of Cyber Defense Structure in Political Theories
Since the principle of defense addresses a wide range of threats, it applies both in the field of justice and...
Africa3 days ago
Russia-Africa Summit: Welcome to Sochi!
Urban Development2 days ago
Cities Around the World Want to Be Resilient and Sustainable. But What Does This Mean?
Newsdesk2 days ago
Live Simulation Exercise to Prepare Public and Private Leaders for Pandemic Response
Newsdesk3 days ago
Election-related violence claims 85 lives in Afghanistan: UN report
Middle East2 days ago
Turkey and the Kurds: What goes around comes around
Newsdesk3 days ago
UNIDO and AfDB to foster Ethiopia’s agricultural modernization and rural industrialization
East Asia1 day ago
Semiconductor War between Japan and South Korea
EU Politics2 days ago
European Agenda on Migration four years on