US President Donald Trump in his first annual address to the Congress “on the state of the country” on January 30, assessed the state of the US economy, opposed the cut of the military budget, declared the need to modernize the country’s nuclear arsenal and noted that Russia and China threaten the interests of the United States.
In the Budget Message of the President to the Congress released recently Donald Trump “requests $24 billion to modernize and sustain the three legs of the nuclear triad—land, sea, and air—as well as nuclear command, control, and communications systems”. The overall budget of the DOD for 2019 should be $686 billion – 13 % more than in 2017. China and Russia are again mentioned as a problem to America’s security.
A year ago, Donald Trump won the presidential elections claiming the USA is going the wrong way, and it was mainly about economic, tax and social policy. “America first” – then sounded his famous and victorious slogan. His foreign policy precepts were also largely reduced to economic issues. Now, a year later, in his statements about the future prosperity of the United States under his leadership we clearly witness a call for strengthening the country’s military component. He stated that the idea of a nuclear-free world is unattainable in modern conditions (which one can agree with!), there are a lot of enemies and rivals around the world, and they threaten the welfare of America. What has changed in the US foreign policy since Donald Trump’s inauguration to the White House a year ago?
At home and overseas many acknowledge that the foreign policy rhetoric of the White House has become more aggressive and at the same time more reckless. Trump has set a course for active interference in the policies of other countries, claiming he is ready to use military force where necessary without hesitation. His first objects of attention were such countries as Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea. He stubbornly follows this path, threatening to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran, pointing to the possibility of using force against the regime in North Korea and transferring troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Threatening Russia with new sanctions the United States has plans to impose new sanctions against North Korea as well.
It is understandable that the current aggressive presidential rhetoric and increased attention to foreign policy issues are Trump’s response to his domestic problems -the investigations that have been initiated with regard to his electoral past. His one-year- after growing anti-Russian stance is used as a tool of defense in the exhausting struggle with his multiple opponents.
At the same time Trump’s attitude towards the possible use of nuclear weapons has raised more concerns among Americans about the President’s authority to order a nuclear attack. Many experts believe that as a result Trump will inevitably begin to lose the votes of his supporters within the country.
“..a poll commissioned by the Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy revealed that nearly 71 percent of Americans want their representatives in Congress to constrain Washington’s interventionist impulses. Americans believe that war is a last resort. They desire “clearly defined goals to authorize military engagement overseas, including a timeline and what will contribute victory; [and] oversight and accountability from Congress in regards to where troops are stationed and what is being accomplished abroad.”A solid majority of Americans, according to the poll, also want assurances that weapons and equipment provided to others are not used in ways that harm innocent civilians”- writes Christopher A. Preble in the National Interest.
But these warnings do not stop the White House. Domestic problems force the administration to constantly “pedal” the bike of external threats and need for an American response to them.
“The Pentagon released a new nuclear arms policy” – Paul Sonne writes in the Washington Post, – “….that calls for the introduction of two new types of weapons, effectively ending Obama-era efforts to reduce the size and scope of the U.S. arsenal and minimize the role of nuclear weapons in defense planning”.
The US intends to modernize its nuclear arsenal in order to deter Russia, – says the new nuclear strategy of the Pentagon. In Moscow, such plans were considered confrontational, also noting that Washington’s intentions would lead to the launch of a new arms race, which has many direct and indirect consequences. Trump already receives warnings from many experts that the possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict is not a toy with which to play and throw away. The inevitable response on the part of the opponents of the United States can transform this conflict from regional to global one. History teaches us that wars are easily unleashed, but they end very hard.
” In dealing with our Middle East adversaries—and China, Russia and especially North Korea—President Trump ought not to assume that they will respond to his bluster and blandishments in the same way partners and rivals in the business world did ” – warns George C. Herring and Michael C. Desch in the National Interest.
A year has passed, but Trump, in contrast to his predecessors, until today has never taken any initiative on nuclear arms control. It can be assumed that his administration’s strategic report, which paints a gloomy picture of America’s weaknesses, only strengthens the President’s opinion that the nuclear component should be urgently strengthened, Europe included. But European experts are hesitant on the issue, worrying about the danger of being an unwitting victim in a confrontation unleashed by the US far from its borders. In a new possible nuclear arms race, Europe may find itself in the middle, as a potential region of military tension, which causes concern for many EU countries.
In an article in Neue Zürcher Zeitung journalist Andreas Rüesch writes: “There are enough vulnerabilities along NATO’s Eastern border, but it is the issue of conventional arms. Strengthening tactical nuclear capabilities can be not only a false signal, but also a waste of money, which at a time of limited military budget the United States need in other areas”, – sums up the author.
Moreover, Russia, apparently, is not going to get involved in this “game of the past.” “The nuclear doctrine of the United States is an attempt to draw Russia into an arms race and to confirm the USA superpower status” – says Vladimir Shamanov the Chairman of the Russian Duma Defense Committee. According to him, by this doctrine “the Americans are trying to restore their superpower status quo as a result of the next round of the arms race. President (Putin) has already said how we are going to react. We have our own strategy: it is balanced and reasonable. The most important for us is not to repeat the mistakes of the Gorbachev period, not to get involved in the arms race, but to implement our own concepts and evaluate what is happening in a balanced manner, effectively at the same time,” – Shamanov told TASS Agency.
In this regard the main question arises: is the United States ready for the extension of existing arrangements in the field of nuclear arms control? Signals on this issue are different. Uncertainty is in the air. The START treaty is valid till February 2021, and if agreed upon, and the period of validity may be extended for up to five years, until 2026, – the nuclear doctrine of the United States says.
There are no serious threats to the implementation of the current agreements within the START framework, and over the past seven years the parties have already made the arms reductions stipulated in the Treaty, Russian political scientist Alexey Arbatov believes. “The only threat to START – is the break of the Agreement on medium-range and short-range missiles: if it will collapse, START will collapse too”, – the expert believes. As for the extension of the agreements, the situation is uncertain. “Earlier, Donald Trump was critical of the START, however, the nuclear doctrine mentions the possibility of extending the Treaty until 2026,” – said Arbatov.
American experts also agree that the recent statements of the US administration on nuclear weapons do not make the world safer. Andrew C. Weber, an assistant defense secretary during the Obama administration who directed oversight of the nation’s nuclear arsenal, called “the new plan a dangerous folly that would make nuclear war more likely”.
In their turn analysts Michael McFaul and Jon Wolfsthal write in the Washington Post: “That’s a mistake. The lessons of the Cold War are that nuclear wars must not be fought and that arms races cannot be won. Of course, we must preserve a strong and effective nuclear deterrent to protect us and our allies. The United States’s nuclear forces and planned modernization are already more than capable of sustaining that deterrent for decades. But arms control agreements such as the New START treaty, also advance U.S. security interests….We cannot predict whether new arms-control talks will produce results, let alone what the next arms-control agreement might look like. But we know what happens when we lack the predictability and transparency that verified treaties provide. And we know that the next deal will not happen without direct negotiation with our Russian counterparts”.
Besides there is evidence that the US military distort facts in an attempt to get bigger budget.
“Pentagon chart misleadingly suggests the US is falling behind in a nuclear arms race”- says the title of the article by Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post.
He continues: “The chart purports to show that Russia, China and North Korea have raced ahead of the United States in developing new nuclear systems since the last NPR was released in 2010……..
The chart clearly was ginned up to cast the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the worst possible light. By dint of its timeline and its exclusion of U.S. life extensions and future systems, the chart offers a highly misleading picture of the U.S. strategic position, suggesting the United States has allowed its delivery systems to atrophy. The chart should be replaced with a more accurate representation of the facts — and officials such as Mattis should not cite it in congressional testimony to claim a 34-to-1 advantage for adversaries over the United States. From such flimsy statistics bad policies may be born”.
It seems very likely that the current US administration is again trying to win the next round of the global game and get the “Superpower Cup”. But for this, in the current circumstances, they do not have the main thing – geopolitical and economic superiority. In the 21-st century we know – it’s this, rather than the number of nuclear missiles and other weapons that allowed the US to win the cold war and try rule the world for a while complacently. Much has changed since then. More countries possess nuclear weapons and their delivery systems nowadays, the United States is divided into two camps of opponents and supporters of the current administration, its European allies do not share Washington’s new foreign policy, do not understand and do not believe in its ally in many respects. China is on the verge of economic victory and tries on the role of a superpower, Donald Trump, mindlessly destroying NAFTA, loses friendship of American neighbors, and Russia is not going to repeat its mistakes of the past in the field of the arms race, stubbornly and successfully overcoming economic difficulties of the post-sanction period. It’s for this reason that the old-script game, apparently, will not take place.
In conclusion, it makes sense to recall the statements of two famous characters of the past. “War is a continuation of politics by other means,” said the famous Prussian military commander Karl Clausewitz. And this has a direct bearing on the US current foreign policy. But the German writer Thomas Mann decided otherwise. “War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace time” – he said. And it’s a much more precise definition of what President Trump is trying to do – to solve problems by force. But there is another way to solve the “problems of peace time.” And it is well known.
First published in our partner International Affairs
Possible Directions for U.S. Policies in the Biden Era
Authors: Chan Kung and He Jun
On January 20, 2021, a new page will be turned in the history of the United States when Joe Biden becomes the 46thPresident. What will happen to U.S. domestic and foreign policy as a result of the transition from the “Trump Era” to the “Biden Era”? What will be the impact of this on the U.S., the world, and China? After the tumultuous Trump Era, we believe that this is an issue of great concern to international governments and markets.
The “ANBOUND 100+” high-end discussion platform and the macro team have been continuously tracking the news of the imminent Biden Era and possible policy changes. To this, we have made a number of key predictions. In the historic moment when Joe Biden is about to take office, it is important to review and summarize the relevant research to understand the changes that the new U.S. President will bring.
First, we shall look at the American political landscape in the Biden Era.
An overall judgment is that Democrats are taking control, but “Trumpism” is still unlikely to disappear from U.S. politics any time soon. The ANBOUND team had judged on November 11, 2020, that Donald Trump’s various policies had in fact left Biden with a number of political and diplomatic “legacies”, and that Biden actually had considerable autonomy over whether to “inherit” these “legacies”. Objectively, whether inherited or not, these “legacies” can be used as a bargaining chip for the Biden administration. On the issue of Trump himself, ANBOUND once said on December 20 that Trump will be in trouble because he had “gone too far” and that the future Biden team might carry out a complete reckoning with Trump and his team. Judging by the fact that Trump is facing a second impeachment and the investigation into the storming of the Capitol, such a reckoning is happening. In this regard, ANBOUND has summed up Trump’s influence remains and its trajectory to be: Trump -> Trumpism -> Trumpism without Trump.
In the Biden Era, the two-party political landscape in the U.S. will be unbalanced, with the Democrats dominating U.S. politics and rapidly gaining the upper hand, and the Republicans facing an internal split, as ANBOUND judged on January 10, 2021. On this basis, we believe that there is a clear trend towards “bipartisanship”, with the Democrats becoming the dominant party in this cooperation. In this context, the Biden administration is likely to complete domestic integration faster and turn its focus to foreign policy sooner. It is also possible that with less resistance at home, the Democrats will give more focusat home, and the U.S. society will become more integrated than in the past, with some of the major domestic issues, such as welfare and environmental protection, to likely make significant progress over the next four years.
Then, there are the U.S. economic issues and economic policies in the Biden Era.
The United States faces many problems in the economy, but the core problem lies in the distribution of wealth, which is the cause of many social problems. The research team of ANBOUND pointed out in November 2019 that the wealth of the United States is still in the process of being accumulated in large quantities, and the real problem of American society lies in the distribution of wealth. Part of the backlash against globalization in the U.S. is also related to the distribution of wealth in American society. On this basis, we believe that welfare will be an important aspect of U.S. economic policy that needs to be addressed in the future. On November 22, 2020, we further pointed out that the transition to a welfare state could usher in a new super-boom for the United States. Contrary to the view of many that welfare is a “simple spending” policy, we believe that welfare, if properly used, will create new consumption space. In terms of health insurance, education, and consumption in the United States, we expect that a full-scale welfare transition in the U.S. would create a USD 10 trillion mega-consumer market that would potentially bring the U.S. into a new phase of rapid development while resolving social tensions.
Based on the above analysis, we believe that the core of the so-called “Bidenomics” is about the distribution of wealth and the “welfarization”. From what has been observed so far, the basic logic of “Bidenomics” is to solve the public health crisis, save jobs, reconfigure the industrial chain, overhaul infrastructure, promote an environmental agenda, build a better social security system, and promote social equality. This logic is likely to be the “core” of economic policies in the Biden Era. There were similar signals that emerge before Biden officially took over the presidency. Biden has proposed USD 1.9 trillion stimulus package to deal with the impact of the pandemic on the U.S. economy and society. Biden’s Treasury Secretary nominee Janet Yellen also called on the U.S. Congress to act more aggressively to deliver economic aid without worrying too much about the debt. “Neither the president-elect, nor I, propose this relief package without an appreciation for the country’s debt burden. But right now, with interest rates at historic lows, the smartest thing we can do is act big,” Yellen said. “I believe the benefits will far outweigh the costs, especially if we care about helping people who have been struggling for a very long time,” Yellen added. Yellen also stressed the need to rebuild the U.S. economy “so that it creates more prosperity for more people and ensures that American workers can compete in an increasingly competitive global economy.”
Concerning the foreign policy issues in the Biden Era, as mentioned above, Biden will not completely abandon Trump’s diplomatic “legacies”, rather he would build on it with some kind of “pullback”. In this process, institutionalization and systematization will be the most prominent characteristics of American diplomacy in the future. A top foreign policy priority for the Biden administration will be to rebuild relations with its allies, particularly Europe, restoring stability to the transatlantic alliance and healing the rifts that have emerged over the past few years. We believe that such rapprochement will certainly play a role and the U.S.-EU strategic alliance will not change, but it will be difficult to fully restore to the levels of the past. On many issues, such as economy and trade, market space, security, and digital sovereignty, the EU will have a stronger “sense of autonomy”. As for U.S.-China relations in the Biden era, we have argued that we should not expect the U.S. government to adjust its hardline position on China, but that the Biden administration would be more predictable in its approach to policy games, returning to the character of “the establishment”. In fact, as early as October last year, the ANBOUND’s research team pointed out in its outlook on U.S.-China relations in the Biden era that the Biden administration’s approach to several aspects of domestic and foreign affairs would generally differ from that of the Trump administration, and that while its strategic positioning of China and the policy of inhibiting the rise of China in the long term would remain unchanged, in terms of specific approaches, the Biden administration would seek a certain degree of order and geopolitical discipline to implement and enforce its policies.
In regard to the Korean Peninsula issue, we believe that in the Biden Era, it is possible for the United States and North Korea to reach a phased nuclear abandonment agreement. On Iran, the main concern is still the Iranian nuclear issue. We believe that the United States will amend Trump’s extreme policies on the issue of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear agreement, and some adjustment will take place. However, even if the United States can return to the Iran nuclear agreement, Iran may have to make certain concessions on the 2015 version. One of the key points may be that Iran needs to further restrict its support to the militia in the Middle East on the basis of the original version. This means that Iran’s influence in the Middle East will be significantly reduced. Regarding the issue of returning to Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), we believe that returning to CPTPP is quite attractive to the Biden administration, but it is also quite difficult. Fluctuations in U.S.-China relations will affect the process of the United States returning to CPTPP; the worse the U.S.-China geopolitical relationship gets, the less resistance the United States will have to return to CPTPP.
In addition, ANBOUND’s researchers also believe that looking from the standpoint of historical development, the Biden administration may be a transitional period for the United States to return to “normal” from the Trump Era. From Biden’s personality, age, situation and environment, we tend to think that the Biden administration is likely to be a “presidential accountability system under the leadership of Secretaries”. In such a government, it is the Secretaries of various departments, the Department of State, and the new cooperation pattern of the two parties in Congress that play a key role, rather than relying mainly on the President. In particular, Janet Yellen, the new Treasury Secretary who had served as the Chairperson of the Federal Reserve, could very well have crucial impact on the U.S. economic policy in the Biden Era.
Final analysis conclusion:
With the transfer of executive power, the United States will bid farewell to the “Trump Era” and usher in the “Biden Era”. The United States under Joe Biden will undergo considerable adjustments and changes, which are reflected in many aspects of the United States’ domestic politics, international geopolitics, economy, and foreign policy. The world will watch the new changes in the United States, and China will see a new pattern of U.S.-China relations. Changes in the United States will not only affect the world but also China’s development strategy.
Removed Diplomacy: Why U.S. Sanctions Against Russia Have Gone Stale
Since 2014, Russian and American diplomacy has been defined by economic sanctions. This has become the default, expected option for U.S. policymakers—but Russia has refused to concede, repent and ask for forgiveness. The U.S. had hoped Russia would experience just enough economic hardship that they would revert their course, retract their reunification with Crimea, and end any involvement in Eastern Ukraine. Almost seven years later, there is no evidence to suggest that Russia has any intention of buckling under the pressure and denying its national interests.
What the United States has failed to realize is that sanctions work on highly dependent countries. Russia is an independent country and has become more economically autonomous as a result of U.S. sanctions. The Russian domestic industry has flourished since sanctions were first imposed. Sanctions imposed by the United States are predicated on some combination of the following: either the United States has enough of an economic relationship prior to sanctions, so the loss of the United States as a trade partner alone is hugely detrimental to the target economy, or the United States can influence other countries who share a more extensive economic relationship with the target country to carry out the same policies.
Venezuela is a country that has been grievously affected by U.S. sanctions, as one would predict, given the country’s dependence on the exportation of crude oil, particularly to the U.S. With oil comprising roughly 95 per cent of exports and their petroleum industry making up 25 per cent of overall GDP, Venezuela is considered very resource dependent when engaging in international trade. Venezuela has also been plagued by Dutch Disease, which has largely prevented its economy from diversifying for the past century. In 2013, the United States brought in 29.5 per cent of Venezuelan exports and delivered 23 per cent of the county’s imports. Strangely, despite the sanctions imposed in 2014, Venezuela has grown more dependent on the United States. By 2018, 39.2 per cent of Venezuelan exports and 52.9 per cent of Venezuelan imports were in trade with the U.S. With this increased dependence on the United States after the implementation of U.S. sanctions. It is no wonder that Venezuela has been increasingly devastated beyond comprehension since sanctions were first imposed in 2013. Venezuela’s trade balance through this period has consistently been in surplus. However, the volume of trade has shrunk USD 101.9 billion, from USD 143.76 billion in 2013 to USD 41.86 billion in 2018. The country has been rocked by astronomical inflation, reaching as high as 344 509 per cent. Is it the same case for Russia? No, which is due, in part, to Russia’s Soviet legacy. The vast territory and harsh climate have also helped the Russians develop a much more diverse and independent economy. Additionally, the United States is simply not one of Russia’s main trade partners.
As illustrated by data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity, Russia and Venezuela couldn’t be more unalike. Russia’s largest trade partners for the past 20 years have been Germany and China. In 2014, when the sanctions were first imposed, Russia’s economy and international trade figures were at an all-time high. In that year, Russia exported USD 454 billion and imported USD 296 billion, a trade surplus of USD 158 billion. This year, the United States only accounted for 5.58 per cent of Russia’s imports and 3.87 per cent of Russia’s exports. In 2018, with even stricter sanctions imposed, Russia exported USD 427 billion and imported USD 231 billion, increasing the trade surplus from USD 158 billion in 2013 to USD 196 billion in 2018. Russia’s trade balance from 2013 to 2018 still experienced a shrink of USD 92 billion. A key difference between Russia and Venezuela is that from 2014 to 2018, Russian trade decreased by just 12 per cent, compared to Venezuela’s loss of 71 per cent. What does Russia have working to its advantage that Venezuela is lacking? Remember, for sanctions to work, they require high economic dependence from either the country issuing the sanctions.
Russia and Germany have an interesting codependency on one another. The Nord Stream project has been a source of tension between the U.S. and Germany; a recent Bloomberg article points out that there is an anticipated clash between newly elected president Biden and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The German chancellor openly supports the completion of the second pipeline because the project is a means for securing German influence over Western Europe, as they will maintain their status as energy distributors once the pipe project is complete. Merkel also understands that the German economy depends on Russian energy. Nord Stream has become the only option since the Ukrainian pipelines have gone cold. Merkel has received criticism from those close to her, including from Norbert Röttgen, the head of the foreign affairs committee in German parliament. In September of 2020, he is quoted saying, “We need to respond with the only language that Putin understands, the language of natural gas,” Meaning the one thing that Germany has at its disposal is the ability to back out of the Nord Stream deal to pressure the Kremlin into correcting their behaviour to satisfy western leaders. The only problem is that Germany is dependent on Russian natural gas. Germany has been falling behind other European countries in environmental efforts and has grown more dependent on coal power to supplement energy demand when renewable sources fail to meet the needs of the German people.
It’s important to consider is the continuation of oil trade between the Netherlands and Russia. If the West is so concerned about preserving its ideals, why hasn’t this trade been pressured? Likely because Nord Stream 2 is a relatively recent development, but the arrangement between the Dutch and Russia has been around for some time. What is odd, however, are the numbers. Between the Netherlands and Russia, there is hardly a difference in the dollar value of Russian exports in various petroleum products. It has maintained an average of about USD 33 billion for the past decade. This spans time both before and after sanctions. How does the West expect itself to be taken seriously if it is hyper selective about the battles it chooses to fight even when concerning sanctions. What is more comical about this particular deal is that the Netherlands supplies much of Western Europe’s oil. Henceforth, further defending the point of Western Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.
In conclusion, Russia has proven to be very resilient over the past six years. It shouldn’t be implied that the sanctions have not affected the Russian economy. However, Russians have faced pervasive negative externalities, such as inflation and decreased average national income, despite the sanctions having been designed only to affect a select group of individuals. Even so, the Russian economy is growing and proving to be insulated and resilient against increased trade barriers. At first, the sanctions appeared to have a tremendous effect on the Russian economy, shrinking it by 44 per cent from USD 2.292 trillion in 2013 to USD 1.272 trillion in 2016. Since 2016, however, the GDP has steadily stabilized and gained back 42 per cent of losses from 2013 figures at USD 1.7 trillion as of 2019. It can be surmised that if the U.S. continues to impose sanctions on Russia for years to come, the Russian economy will continue to grow, develop, and become more independent.
From our partner RIAC
The World Should Get Rid of “Trump Inertia”
Authors: He Jun and Chan Kung
A new chapter is about to begin for the politics of the United States as the “Trump Era” will soon give way to the “Biden Era”. As the United States still has major global influence, any shift in the American politics would therefore inevitably change the global geopolitical landscape as well as international investments and the trade environment. After four years of extreme policies in the Trump Era, coupled with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world hope to see change and a return to relative normalcy.
However, the end of the Trump Era does not spell the end of “Trumpism.” The many marks, characteristics, and ideological trends brought about by Donald Trump will continue to influence the world for some time. However, in the real economic field, countries may need to startridding itself of the environment characterized by unilateralism, America First, and the politicization of economic issues. Researchers at ANBOUND call these remaining Trumpist characteristics and their effects on countries’ behavior “Trump Inertia”.
“Trump Inertia” has many specific manifestations. The deterioration of the relationship between Australia and China is a clear example of this. Australia followed the Trump administration’s side by choosing and adopting many extreme politicization practices against China despite China being Australia’s largest trading partner, largest export destination and largest source of imports. In 2019, Australia-China trade volume totaled approximately US$158 billion; Australia’s trade surplus with China was approximately US$48.83 billion, and its exports to China totaled US$103.90 billion, accounting for 38.2%
During the Trump Era, Australia followed the United States in adopting antagonistic approaches against China, which is understandable. Yet, though the Trump Era is coming to an end, Australia’s attitude towards its largest trading partner is still considerably arrogant and hostile. While it is true that there are differences in ideology and values, such paranoia is still unreasonable and there is a lack of political insight in recent shift of international exchanges.
China too, has retaliated against Australia. On the one hand, it has adopted countermeasures in economic and trade, and imposed trade restrictions on the import of coal and a variety of agricultural products. On the other hand, China has also adopted tit-for-tat approaches against Australia in diplomacy.
With the withdrawal of Trump from the political arena, it is puzzling as to why there are lingering disputes between Australia and China as theirrelationscontinue to deteriorate. Trump might even feel proud if he sees that the two countries are still at odds even after he steps down. For China and Australia, this means that they have fallen into the quagmire of “Trump Inertia”.
Though being a member of the Five Eyes alliance (FVEY) like Australia, New Zealand’s approach is far different. Damien O’Connor, New Zealand Minister of Trade and Export Growth and Minister of Agriculture, stated that strong global demand for dairy products, especially in the Chinese market, will offset the adverse effects of weak dairy prices. It is estimated that in the year ending June 2022, New Zealand’s dairy products export revenue is expected to reach NZ$ 20.1 billion. At the same time, forestry exports are showing a recovery trend. The New Zealand Government’s Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries (SOPI) report predicts that in the year to June 2021, the export revenue of primary industries will exceed NZ$47.5 billion; in the year to June 2022, this figure will reach the NZ$ 49.2 billion record. It is worth noting that New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta also publicly stated that New Zealand is willing to help China and Australia achieve peace talks.
The policies and flexibility shown by New Zealand which differs from Australia’sreflect a normal response of a rational country. This is also something that China should learn from. In the current situation, geopolitical relationship between China and Western countries is tense, and this is seen as the most “successful” part of the Trump administration, all due to “Trump Inertia”. For both Western countries and China, it is necessary to get rid of “Trump Inertia” as soon as possible.
Though the attitudes of other countries cannot be controlled by China, China is able to adjust and change its own actions. As the Biden Era is approaching, all countries need to adjust to the new changes and find new consensus points in terms of diplomacy, trade, multilateral cooperation, and global climate change. China is a major power with huge national interests. For that reason, it should have long-term visions and goals. China will need to adjust certain foreign policies and practices in accordance with the overall national situation and long-term interests to pave the way for its future development.
Final analysis conclusion
The Trump Era is about to end, but Trumpism will still linger for some time to come. In the face of the “political switch” in the United States, China and many Western countries need to adjust their strategies, get rid of “Trump Inertia” as soon as possible, and return their diplomacy to a rational and normal track.
Sea transport is primary route for counterfeiters
More than half of the total value of counterfeit goods seized around the world are shipped by sea, according to...
Lao PDR: New Project to Protect Landscapes and Enhance Livelihoods
The World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors today approved a US$57 million project to help Lao PDR promote sustainable forest...
As Georgians Fight Each Other, Russia Gleefully Looks On
Earlier today, the leader of Georgia’s major opposition party – United National Movement (UNM) – was detained at his party...
Policy Measures to Advance Jordan’s Transition to Renewables
A new report published today by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has identified a series of policy measures that...
‘No place’ for coups in today’s world
On the opening day of a new UN Human Rights Council session on Monday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres reiterated his “full support to the people of Myanmar”, three weeks after the...
Possible Directions for U.S. Policies in the Biden Era
Authors: Chan Kung and He Jun On January 20, 2021, a new page will be turned in the history of...
EEU: An Irrelevant Anachronism or a Growing Digital Enterprise Dynamo?
A commonwealth of interests The search for a stable Eurasia depended on the effectiveness of a durable system for the...
Europe3 days ago
Why Is Europe Hostile Towards Russia?
East Asia3 days ago
A brief history of Sino-Australian political relations from 1949 to 2020
Africa3 days ago
Russia–Zimbabwe: Time-Proven Friendship
International Law2 days ago
How nations states are limited
Economy2 days ago
China’s Emerging Diamond Industry
Energy3 days ago
The EV Effect: Markets are Betting on the Energy Transition
Economy2 days ago
The EU as a Significant Initiator of Sanctions
Africa2 days ago
Russia offers 300 million doses of Sputnik V vaccine to Africa