NEWS
Why Trump torpedoed Obama’s Iran deal
Published
5 years agoon
The lobbying campaign to save the Iran nuclear agreement was intense and took months. British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the deal with President Trump in more than a dozen phone calls. French President Emmanuel Macron pressed him on it during an elaborate state visit. So did German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a one-day work trip in April. And the Europeans made a Hail Mary pass Monday in the form of a White House visit by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
But for Trump, the decision to torpedo one of President Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy achievements had effectively been made last October, when he declared that Iran was not in compliance with the deal and called on European allies to negotiate better terms.
The foundation was laid even earlier, in fact, as Trump declared the Iran accord one of the “worst” deals in U.S. history at his campaign rallies — even mocking its architect, former secretary of state John F. Kerry, as weak for having fallen off his bicycle during a visit to Geneva for negotiations.
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
For Trump’s longtime advisers, the only surprise in Tuesday’s announcement shredding the Iran deal was that it took the president 15 months to make.
“The administration just said, ‘Okay, we’ve been telling you all through the campaign and the last year and a half this is where we are, and guess what? This is where we are,’ ” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump ally.
This isn’t the first time Trump has had to decide whether to continue to waive sanctions against Iran. The first two times, his State Department — then led by Rex Tillerson — advocated waiving the sanctions to provide European allies time to address the United States’ concerns about the agreement and work on fixes.
The second time, Trump, as well as Vice President Pence, expressed skepticism but were persuaded by the secretary of state to give the Europeans more time. In the administration’s private talks, officials said, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis agreed with Tillerson to explore the possibility of a supplemental agreement that would extend the deal’s restrictions and curb Iran’s ballistic missile activity and nuclear fuel production.
The president’s aides argued Tuesday that Trump gave U.S. allies more than enough time to come up with terms he would find satisfactory, but many Europeans privately said that is disingenuous because the president has long said he intended to rip up the deal.
“He didn’t get out of the deal until now because he gave repeated opportunities to try to fix the deal,” White House national security adviser John Bolton told reporters Tuesday. “The president wanted to let all the efforts go forward, and he did, right up until just a few days before the May 12 deadline.”
Unlike in October, Trump’s Cabinet put up little resistance to a decision many viewed as a fait accompli, given the president’s March firing of two key Iran deal defenders: Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. In their place, Trump installed two hawks and staunch critics of the Iran deal: Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
“Everyone’s on the same page now,” said one White House official, noting that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, whose department oversees economic sanctions, also shared the president’s instincts to withdraw, even though doing so was expected to have economic ramifications. Mattis, perhaps realizing he was outnumbered after the ouster of Tillerson, refrained from aggressively rehashing his earlier opposition, said the White House official who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
In recent weeks, administration officials have been strategizing over how to manage the economic fallout, including possible spikes in oil prices, and have prepared a number of contingencies, a White House official said.
Trump’s decision opens up a deep rift with U.S. allies in Europe who for months have been locked in painstaking staff-level talks with their American counterparts, led by Brian Hook, director of policy planning at the State Department. The French, German, British and U.S. delegations held monthly meetings in an effort to find common ground and avoid sparking a new conflict in the Middle East.
On Tuesday, the leaders of the three European governments issued a joint statement saying they “regret” the American decision and vowed to continue to abide by the agreement.
Trump’s decision to impose sanctions on companies that do business with Iran, after a brief grace period, has set off a scramble in European capitals as they seek to protect their companies from punitive U.S. measures. If European companies stop all commerce with Iran, experts fear that Tehran may conclude that the deal is of little value and resume developing its nuclear program.
Even as European leaders pressed Trump with these arguments, the president’s advisers reminded him over and over again of what he had promised as a candidate, according to another White House official. This is the same approach some advisers, including former chief White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon, took with Trump last year when trying to urge him to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.
“One of the most powerful persuasion tools that anybody could possibly have with Trump is to simply point out that you said you were going to do this during the campaign,” the White House official said. “I’ve seen it over and over again. He shrugs his shoulders and says, ‘I told everybody this is what I was going to do.’ ”
In the first major foreign policy speech of his campaign, in April 2016, Trump outlined his opposition to the Iran deal. For a man who sees much of life through the prism of winning and losing, Trump said he saw no chance of winning without first walking away.
Christopher Ruddy, a friend of the president’s, said Tuesday’s decision represented “classic Donald Trump negotiating tactics.”
“He’s saying, ‘I don’t like the deal, I’m ripping it up, I’m starting anew and I’m going to fix things,’ ” said Ruddy, chairman of Newsmax. “It’s a hardball tactic that he’s taking, but it’s in keeping with how he approaches things.”
Europeans long argued that the U.S. demands amounted to a violation of the pact — something they were not willing to do. Trump’s decision Tuesday left bitterness among the European delegation, some of whom felt that Hook’s team stopped working in good faith in the final weeks as it appeared that Trump had no appetite for salvaging the deal.
A senior Trump administration official denied the accusation, saying that European opposition to extending the restrictions of the deal, also known as the sunset clause, doomed the talks.
“We made great progress with the Europeans to address the full range of Iran’s threats. But the last and most critical item in the talks were fixing the sunsets,” the official said. “Unfortunately, the Europeans were not able to accept our language fixing this deficiency.”
The American architects of the Iran deal condemned Trump’s announcement in unusually harsh terms. Obama, who rarely reacts publicly to Trump’s actions, issued a lengthy statement calling Trump’s decision “a serious mistake.” Kerry said the withdrawal “breaks America’s word.” Former vice president Joe Biden said it will “isolate the United States from nearly every world power.” And former CIA director John O. Brennan called it “foolish” and “dangerous.”
But within Trump’s orbit, the president was cheered for following through on something he vowed to do as a candidate. In a statement designed to use the foreign policy announcement to galvanize Trump’s supporters, campaign manager Brad Parscale said, “Over and over again, President Trump has proven that a promise made is a promise kept.”
Trump himself has felt confident that his decision to withdraw would not cause global disruption — in part because of experience. When he considered withdrawing from the Paris climate accord and moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, some advisers warned that those moves would result in significant upheaval in America’s relationships with key allies, not to mention economic and security challenges.
Ultimately, however, the backlash to both decisions failed to register with Trump and he has concluded that critics overstated their case. This has made the president feel more bullish about heeding his instincts to be a disrupter on the world stage, according to a White House official.
“One of the funny things about Trump is that he’s tactically very unpredictable but strategically very predictable,” Gingrich said. “He actually has a broad policy consistency, whether it’s tax cuts, conservative judges, deregulation, the Iranians, the North Koreans. He’s willing to listen to you, but he’s not willing to be persuaded to give up his strategic principles.”
You may like
-
Israeli president comments on Lebanon pager attacks
-
German central bank issues warning on economy
-
China is raising its retirement age, now among the youngest in the world’s major economies
-
Gold price soars to all-time high
-
Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine
-
Thousands of EU automotive jobs at risk
NEWS
China is raising its retirement age, now among the youngest in the world’s major economies
Published
3 months agoon
September 14, 2024Starting next year, China will raise its retirement age for workers, which is now among the youngest in the world’s major economies, in an effort to address its shrinking population and aging work force.
The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the country’s legislature, passed the new policy Friday after a sudden announcement earlier in the week that it was reviewing the measure, state broadcaster CCTV announced.
The policy change will be carried out over 15 years, with the retirement age for men raised to 63 years, and for women to 55 or 58 years depending on their jobs. The current retirement age is 60 for men and 50 for women in blue-collar jobs and 55 for women doing white-collar work.
“We have more people coming into the retirement age, and so the pension fund is (facing) high pressure. That’s why I think it’s now time to act seriously,” said Xiujian Peng, a senior research fellow at Victoria University in Australia who studies China’s population and its ties to the economy.
The previous retirement ages were set in the 1950’s, when life expectancy was only around 40 years, Peng said.
The policy will be implemented starting in January, according to the announcement from China’s legislature. The change will take effect progressively based on people’s birthdates.
For example, a man born in January 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 7 months in August 2032, according to a chart released along with the policy. A man born in May 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 8 months in January 2033.
Demographic pressures made the move long overdue, experts say. By the end of 2023, China counted nearly 300 million people over the age of 60. By 2035, that figure is projected to be 400 million, larger than the population of the U.S. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences had previously projected that the public pension fund will run out of money by that year.
Pressure on social benefits such as pensions and social security is hardly a China-specific problem. The U.S. also faces the issue as analysis shows that currently, the Social Security fund won’t be able to pay out full benefits to people by 2033.
“This is happening everywhere,” said Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. “But in China with its large elderly population, the challenge is much larger.”
That is on top of fewer births, as younger people opt out of having children, citing high costs. In 2022, China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that for the first time the country had 850,000 fewer people at the end of the year than the previous year , a turning point from population growth to decline. In 2023, the population shrank further, by 2 million people.
What that means is that the burden of funding elderly people’s pensions will be divided among a smaller group of younger workers, as pension payments are largely funded by deductions from people who are currently working.
Researchers measure that pressure by looking at a number called the dependency ratio, which counts the number of people over the age of 65 compared to the number of workers under 65. That number was 21.8% in 2022, according to government statistics, meaning that roughly five workers would support one retiree. The percentage is expected to rise, meaning fewer workers will be shouldering the burden of one retiree.
The necessary course correction will cause short-term pain, experts say, coming at a time of already high youth unemployment and a soft economy.
A 52-year-old Beijing resident, who gave his family name as Lu and will now retire at age 61 instead of 60, was positive about the change. “I view this as a good thing, because our society’s getting older, and in developed countries, the retirement age is higher,” he said.
Li Bin, 35, who works in the event planning industry, said she was a bit sad.
“It’s three years less of play time. I had originally planned to travel around after retirement,” she said. But she said it was better than expected because the retirement age was only raised three years for women in white-collar jobs.
Some of the comments on social media when the policy review was announced earlier in the week reflected anxiety.
But of the 13,000 comments on the Xinhua news post announcing the news, only a few dozen were visible, suggesting that many others had been censored.
Moscow’s envoy to the UN has reiterated where the Kremlin’s red line is
Granting Kiev permission to use Western-supplied long-range weapons would constitute direct involvement in the Ukraine conflict by NATO, Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has said.
Moscow will treat any such attack as coming from the US and its allies directly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, explaining that long-range weapons rely on Western intelligence and targeting solutions, neither of which Ukraine is capable of.
NATO countries would “start an open war” with Russia if they allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons, Nebenzia told the UN Security Council on Friday.
“If such a decision is made, that means NATO countries are starting an open war against Russia,” Moscow’s envoy said. “In that case, we will obviously be forced to make certain decisions, with all the attendant consequences for Western aggressors.”
Putin issues new warning to NATO
“Our Western colleagues will not be able to dodge responsibility and blame Kiev for everything,” Nebenzia added. “Only NATO troops can program the flight solutions for those missile systems. Ukraine doesn’t have that capability. This is not about allowing Kiev to strike Russia with long-range weapons, but about the West making the targeting decisions.”
Russia considers it irrelevant that Ukrainian nationalists would technically be the ones pulling the trigger, Nebenzia explained. “NATO would become directly involved in military action against a nuclear power. I don’t think I have to explain what consequences that would have,” he said.
The US and its allies placed some restrictions on the use of their weapons, so they could claim not to be directly involved in the conflict with Russia, while arming Ukraine to the tune of $200 billion.
Multiple Western outlets have reported that the limitations might be lifted this week, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited Kiev. Russia has repeatedly warned the West against such a course of action.
‼️🇷🇺🏴☠️ President's Response on the Potential Use of NATO Long-Range Weapons Against Russia
"This would mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European nations are at war with Russia. And if that is the case, considering the fundamental shift in the nature of this… pic.twitter.com/UO03dRUl44
— Zlatti71 (@Zlatti_71) September 12, 2024
NEWS
China makes its move in Africa. Should the West be worried?
Published
3 months agoon
September 11, 2024Beijing maintains a conservative economic agenda in its relations with the continent, while finding it increasingly difficult to avoid a political confrontation with the West
The ninth forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the FOCAC summit held in Beijing on September 4-6 marked a significant phase in Africa’s relations with its global partners in the post-Covid era. China is the last major partner to hold a summit with African nations following the end of the pandemic; Africa summits were held by the EU and the US in 2022, and by Russia in 2023. The pandemic, coupled with rising global tensions, macroeconomic shifts, and a series of crises, underlined Africa’s growing role in the global economy and politics – something that China, which has undergone major changes (both internal and external) as a result of the pandemic, is well aware of.
It is clear that the relationship between China and Africa is entering a new phase. China is no longer just a preferential economic partner for Africa, as it had been in the first two decades of the 21st century. It has become a key political and military ally for many African countries. This is evident from China’s increasing role in training African civil servants and sharing expertise with them, as well as from several initiatives announced at the summit, including military-technical cooperation: officer training programs, mine clearing efforts, and over $100 million which China will provide to support the armed forces of African nations.
In the political arena, however, Beijing is proceeding very cautiously and the above-mentioned initiatives should be seen as the first tentative attempts rather than a systematic strategy.
While China strives to avoid political confrontation with the West in Africa and even closely cooperates with it on certain issues, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. Washington is determined to pursue a policy of confrontation with Beijing in Africa – this is evident both from US rhetoric and its strategic documents.
Dirty tactics: How the US tries to break China’s soft power in Africa
A “divorce” between China and the West is almost inevitable. This means that Chinese companies may lose contracts with Western corporations and won’t have access to transportation and logistics infrastructure. Consequently, China will need to develop its own comprehensive approach to Africa, either independently or in collaboration with other global power centers.
An important sign of the growing confrontation between the US and China in Africa was the signing of a trilateral memorandum of understanding between China, Tanzania, and Zambia regarding the reconstruction of the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (TAZARA), which was originally built by China in the 1970s. If it is expanded, electrified, and modernized, TAZARA has the potential to become a viable alternative to one of the key US investment projects in the region: the Lobito Corridor, which aims to enhance logistics infrastructure for exporting minerals (copper and cobalt) from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia by modernizing the railway from the DR Congo to the Angolan port of Lobito.
In inland regions such as Eastern Congo, transportation infrastructure plays a crucial role in the process of mineral extraction. Considering the region’s shortage of rail and road networks, even a single non-electrified railway line leading to a port in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean can significantly boost the operation of the mining sector and permanently tie the extraction and processing regions to specific markets.
It appears that China’s initiative holds greater promise compared to the US one, particularly because Chinese companies control major mines both in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia. This gives them a clear advantage in working with Chinese operators and equipment, facilitating the export of minerals through East African ports. Overall, this indicates that East Africa will maintain its role as the economic leader on the continent and one of the most integrated and rapidly developing regions for imports.
A former colonial European power returns to Africa. What is it after now?
The highlight of the summit was China’s pledge to provide $50 billion to African countries over the next three years (by 2027). This figure echoes the $55 billion commitment to China made by the US (for 3 years) at the 2022 US-Africa Summit and the $170 billion that the EU promised to provide over seven years back in 2021. Consequently, leading global players allocate approximately $15-20 billion annually to Africa.
In recent years, there has been noticeable growth in such promises. Nearly every nation is eager to promise Africa something – for example, Italy has pledged $1 billion annually. However, these large packages of so-called “financial aid” often have little in common with actual assistance, since they are typically commercial loans or corporate investments. Moreover, a significant portion of these funds is spent in the donor countries (e.g. on the procurement and production of goods), which means that they contribute to the economic growth of African nations in a minimal way.
As for China, it will provide about $11 billion in genuine aid. This is a substantial amount which will be used for developing healthcare and agriculture in Africa. Another $30 billion will come in the form of loans (roughly $10 billion per year) and a further $10 billion as investments.
The overall financial framework allows us to make certain conclusions, though it’s important to note that the methodology for calculating these figures is unclear, and the line between loans, humanitarian aid, and investments remains blurred. In terms of investments (averaging around $3 billion per year), Beijing plans to maintain its previous levels of activity – in recent years, China’s foreign direct investments (FDI) have ranged from $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Financial and humanitarian aid could nearly double (from the current $1.5 billion-$2 billion per year) while lending is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels (which would still be below the peak years of 2012-2018).
Can Africa seize control of its own energy?
China’s economic plan for Africa seems to be quite conservative. It’s no surprise that debt issues took center stage during the summit. During the Covid-19 pandemic, macroeconomic stability in African countries deteriorated, which led to challenges in debt repayments and forced Africa to initiate debt restructuring processes assisted by the IMF and the G20. Starting in 2020, a combination of internal and external factors led China to significantly cut its lending to African countries – from about $10-15 billion down to $2-3 billion. This reduction in funding has triggered economic reforms in several African countries (e.g. Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria), which have shifted toward stricter tax and monetary policies. While promises to increase lending may seem like good news for African nations, it’s likely that much of this funding will go toward interest payments on existing obligations and debt restructuring, since China wants to ensure that its loans are repaid.
Despite China’s cautious approach to Africa, its interaction with the continent will develop as a result of external and internal changes affecting both Africa and China. Africa will gradually become more industrialized and will reduce imports while the demand for investments and local production will increase. China will face demographic challenges, and its workforce will decrease. This may encourage bilateral cooperation as some production facilities may move from China to Africa. This will most likely concern East African countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania, considering China’s current investments in their energy and transportation infrastructure. Additionally, with Africa’s population on the rise and China’s population declining, Beijing is expected to attract more African migrant workers to help address labor shortages.
Study and Schengen Visa in Europe! Discover everything you need to know to plan and complete higher education studies in Europe.
Israeli president comments on Lebanon pager attacks
German central bank issues warning on economy
China is raising its retirement age, now among the youngest in the world’s major economies
Gold price soars to all-time high
Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine
In Spotify, music listens to you: streaming platform wins patent to surveil users’ emotions to recommend music
How much YouTube pays for 1 million views, according to creators
Pentagon well aware of Ukraine’s corruption problem
Most Americans want to move on from Biden and Trump – poll
Finland officially joins NATO
Turkish minister escapes fire blast (VIDEO)
Trump savages pop star’s Super Bowl performance
Alec Baldwin sued by Ukrainian family of slain cinematographer
Duran Duran stumbles, Dolly Parton rolls into Rock Hall
Sweden probes possible plot behind Russian pipeline leaks
Study and Schengen Visa in Europe! Discover everything you need to know to plan and complete higher education studies in Europe.
Trending
-
NEWS3 months ago
China makes its move in Africa. Should the West be worried?
-
NEWS3 months ago
China is raising its retirement age, now among the youngest in the world’s major economies
-
NEWS3 months ago
Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine
-
WAR3 months ago
Israeli president comments on Lebanon pager attacks
-
FINANCE3 months ago
German central bank issues warning on economy
-
INVESTMENTS3 months ago
Gold price soars to all-time high
-
FINANCE3 months ago
Thousands of EU automotive jobs at risk