President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. said he wanted to bring an end to a slogan that had come to define a United States that built walls and made working with allies an afterthought.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. makes no secret of the speed with which he plans to bury “America First” as a guiding principle of the nation’s foreign policy.

He says he will re-enter the Iran nuclear deal, assuming the Iranians are willing to reverse course and observe its limits.

He would sign up for another five years of the only surviving nuclear arms treaty with Russia and double down on American commitments to NATO after four years of threats from President Trump to withdraw from the alliance, which guided the West through the Cold War.

At the same time, Mr. Biden says he will make Russia “pay a price” for what he says have been disruptions and attempts to influence elections — including his own.

But mostly, Mr. Biden said in a statement to The New York Times, he wants to bring an end to a slogan that came to define a United States that built walls and made working with allies an afterthought — and, in Mr. Biden’s view, undermined any chance of forging a common international approach to fighting a pandemic that has cost more than 1.2 million lives.

“Tragically, the one place Donald Trump has made ‘America First’ is his failed response to the coronavirus: We’re 4 percent of the world’s population, yet have had 20 percent of the deaths,” Mr. Biden said days before the election. “On top of Trump embracing the world’s autocrats and poking his finger in the eye of our democratic allies, that’s another reason respect for American leadership is in free fall.”

But it is far easier to promise to return to the largely internationalist approach of the post-World War II era than it is to execute that shift after four years of global withdrawal and during a pandemic that has reinforced nationalist instincts. The world does not look remotely as it did when Mr. Biden last engaged it from the White House four years ago. Power vacuums have been created, and filled, often by China. Democracies have retreated. The race for a vaccine has created new rivalries.

So while foreign allies may find Mr. Biden reassuring — and smiled when they heard him say in a town-hall meeting that “‘America First’ has made America alone” — they also concede that they may never fully trust that the United States will not lurch back to building walls.

In interviews in the past several weeks, Mr. Biden’s top advisers began to outline a restoration that might be called the Great Undoing, an effort to reverse course on Mr. Trump’s aggressive attempt to withdraw to American borders.

“Whether we like it or not, the world simply does not organize itself,” said Antony J. Blinken, Mr. Biden’s longtime national security adviser. “Until the Trump administration, in Democratic and Republican administrations, the United States did a lot of that organizing, and we made some mistakes along the way, for sure.” Now, however, the United States has discovered what happens “when some other country tries to take our place or, maybe even worse, no one does, and you end up with a vacuum that is filled by bad events.”

Mr. Blinken acknowledged that for those allies — or opponents of Mr. Trump — looking to reset the clock to noon on Jan. 20, 2017, “it’s not going to happen.”

Those who have known Mr. Biden for decades say they expect him to move carefully, providing reassurance with a few big symbolic acts, starting with a return to the Paris climate accord in the first days of his administration. But substantive rebuilding of U.S. power will proceed far more slowly.

“He’ll inherit a situation which both gives him enormous latitude and, oddly, constrains him,” said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a longtime friend of Mr. Biden’s. “Clearly, what Trump did by executive order can be undone by executive order.”

But “any act that requires Senate approach or any new use of force, absent a clear provocation, will be pretty much off the table,” he added.

At 77, Mr. Biden has his own back-to-the-future vision of how to dispense with “America First”: “This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain,” he wrote in Foreign Affairs in March.

President Trump met with leaders of NATO countries in Herfordshire, England, last year. Mr. Biden would like to double down on American commitments to NATO.Credit…Al Drago for The New York Times

Yet in a campaign in which foreign policy was rarely mentioned, Mr. Biden was never pressed on how the current iteration of superpower competition differs from what he remembers from early in his political career.

He never stated what kind of “price” he had in mind for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to pay, though one of his longtime foreign policy advisers, Jake Sullivan, offered a bit of detail. Just before Election Day, he said that Mr. Biden was willing to impose “substantial and lasting costs on perpetrators of the Russian interference,” which could include financial sanctions, asset freezes, counter cyberattacks, and, “potentially, the exposure of corruption by the leaders of foreign countries.”

That would signify a hardening in U.S. policy. But it would also involve steps that the Obama administration considered taking in its last six months when Mr. Biden was vice president, and never carried out.

The sharp change on Russia offers a glimpse of the detailed planning that Mr. Biden’s transition team, organized late last spring, has engaged in to reverse Mr. Trump’s approach to the world. It has built a foreign policy team of formal and informal advisers, largely drawn from midlevel and senior Obama administration officials who are poised to return. There are timelines for opening negotiations, re-entering treaties, and early summit meetings.

But their plans show some notable breaks from the Obama administration’s strategy. Mr. Biden is clearly rethinking positions he took in the Senate and in the White House.

The most vivid example, officials say, will come in rethinking China strategy. His own advisers concede that in the Obama years, Mr. Biden and his national security team underestimated the speed with which President Xi Jinping of China would crackdown on dissent at home and use the combination of its 5G networks and its Belt and Road Initiative to challenge U.S. influence.

“Neither carrots nor sticks have swayed China as predicted,” Kurt Campbell, who served as the assistant secretary of state for Asia, and Ely Ratner, one of Mr. Biden’s deputy national security advisers, wrote in a Foreign Affairs article in 2018 that reflected this shift. “Diplomatic and commercial engagement have not brought political and economic openness. Neither U.S. military power nor regional balancing has stopped Beijing from seeking to displace core components of the U.S.-led system.”

American soldiers at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan last year. Mr. Biden argued during the early days of the Obama administration for a minimal force focused on a counterterrorism mission in the country.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times.

---

That assessment included Mr. Biden’s view on Afghanistan — where he argued, in the early days of the Obama administration in 2009, for a minimal force focused on a counterterrorism mission. Mr. Gates later recalled in his memoir that Mr. Biden was convinced that the military was trying to put the squeeze on the president to send more troops for a war the vice president thought was politically unsustainable.

Mr. Biden was overruled — by Mr. Obama, who nearly doubled the force size in Afghanistan in 2009 before moving to a drawdown.

But what was once a setback for Mr. Biden has now become something of a political asset: Mr. Trump’s effort to cast him as an advocate of “endless wars” fell flat. Mr. Biden, according to Mr. Sullivan, “wants to convert our presence to a counterterrorism capability” aimed at protecting the United States by keeping Qaeda forces or the Islamic State from establishing a base in Afghanistan.

“It would be limited and targeted,” Mr. Sullivan said. “That’s where he was in 2009, and that is where he is today.”

Confronting Russia

In the Cold War, Democrats were often portrayed as the party of appeasement to Moscow. Mr. Biden is the first Democrat to turn the tables: He is neither dismissive of the Russian threat as Mr. Obama was when he debated Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee in 2012, nor is he eager to bring a big red “reset” button to Moscow, as Hillary Clinton did in her opening days as secretary of state.

In the campaign, Mr. Biden seized on the U.S. intelligence assessment that Russia preferred Mr. Trump, telling reporters in Nevada that “Putin knows me, and I know him, and he doesn’t want me to be president.” He is probably right: After details of the extent of Russian interference in 2016 became clear, followed by Mr. Trump’s unwillingness to confront Mr. Putin, Democrats have become the party of Russia hawks.

For most of the campaign, Mr. Biden assailed Mr. Trump for “cozying up to dictators” and describing how, if elected, he was prepared to punish Russia. As president, Mr. Biden will have to deal with a Russia whose arsenal includes 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons and a raft of tactical nuclear weapons that it has been deploying freely, even before Mr. Trump exited the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

How would Mr. Biden end the downward spiral? He would start with a five-year extension of New START, Mr. Blinken said in an interview, since the treaty lapses 16 days after inauguration. Then he would seek to expand the treaty to other types of weapons and perhaps more countries. And he would play on Mr. Putin’s growing economic fragility.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, right, in St. Petersburg this week. Mr. Biden’s sharp change on Russia offers a glimpse of his transition team’s planning to reverse Mr. Trump’s approach to the world.Credit…Pool photo by Alexei Nikolsky

---

“We will deter, and impose costs for, Mr. Putin’s meddling and aggression,” Mr. Blinken said. “But there’s a flip side” to dealing with Moscow, he added. Mr. Putin is “looking to relieve Russia’s growing dependence on China,” Mr. Blinken said, which has left him in “not a very comfortable position.”

That suggests the Biden administration could try to use the suspicions that Moscow and Beijing have of each other to split the two superpowers — just as President Richard M. Nixon used it, in reverse, to win his opening with China nearly 50 years ago.

On Iran, a Resurgent Crisis

“Oh, goddamn,” Mr. Biden fumed in the Situation Room in the summer of 2010, according to participants in the meeting, as news began to leak that a highly classified effort by the United States and Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear program with a cyberweapon — later called “Stuxnet” — was about to be exposed because the computer code was being replicated around the world. “It’s got to be the Israelis. They went too far.”

A decade later, that effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear effort appears to be the birth of a new age of conflict, one in which Mr. Biden was a key player. He favored the covert effort because he was looking for any way to slow Iran’s progress without risking war in the Middle East. He later told colleagues that he believed the covert program helped bring the country to the negotiating table for what became the Iran nuclear deal five years later.

Now Mr. Biden says the first step with Iran is to restore the status quo — which means re-entering the deal if Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is willing to return to production limits announced in 2015. But it won’t be that simple. The Iranians have indicated there will be a higher price to pay for Mr. Trump’s breach. And some of the key restrictions on Iran begin to lift soon: The first phase of an arms embargo expired in October, clearing the way for the Russians and the Chinese to begin resuming sales. And there will soon be a new Iranian president, with unknown effects on potential talks.

Mr. Biden’s aides say that returning to the deal that Mr. Trump left “shifts the burden” back on Tehran.

“If Iran decides it’s not going to come back into compliance,” Mr. Blinken said, “we’re in a much stronger position to elicit support from allies and partners” who are now blaming Mr. Trump for starting the crisis by rejecting an agreement the United States had already made.

The China Challenge

In 2012, Mr. Biden was the host when Mr. Xi came to Washington. The vice president praised the guest from Beijing as a rising reformer who was “prepared to show another side of the Chinese leadership.” Mr. Biden was among those to celebrate China’s inevitable but “peaceful rise,” followed by assurance that trying to contain its power was a fool’s errand.

By this year, he had revised his view. “This is a guy who is a thug,” Mr. Biden said.

“This is a guy who is a thug,” Mr. Biden has said about President Xi Jinping of China.Credit…Mark Schiefelbein/Associated Press

---

So during the campaign, he went after Mr. Trump for “fake toughness” and argued that “Trump lost a trade war that he started.” What he meant was that the Trump-era tariffs on Chinese goods were ultimately underwritten by American taxpayers in the form of government subsidies to compensate farmers and others who lost sales.

Mr. Biden has said little about how he would push back. And even if he settles the long-running arguments over agricultural goods and the theft of intellectual property by Beijing, Mr. Biden will face challenges never discussed when Mr. Xi was visiting eight years ago: managing technological inroads by companies like Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, and TikTok, the app that has seized the imaginations and phones of 100 million Americans.

Mr. Biden has suggested that the Trump crackdowns may continue — though surrounded by more skillful diplomacy to bring European and other allies on board.

“God only knows what they’re doing with information they’re picking up off of here,” he said of the Chinese. “So as president, I will go into it very deeply. I’ll get the cyber experts in with me to give me what is the best solution to deal with it.”

Complicating the issue is Mr. Biden’s insistence that, unlike Mr. Trump, he will put values back at the center of foreign policy, including how to approach the United States’ relationship with China, a milder echo of Bill Clinton’s pledge in the 1992 presidential race to take on “the butchers of Beijing.”

Presumably, that means making China pay a price for Mr. Xi’s controls on dissent, including the national security laws that led to detention camps in Xinjiang, arrests of dissidents in Hong Kong, and the ouster of foreign journalists who were the last bastion of independent reporting in China.

---

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/biden-foreign-policy.html

[Disclaimer]

The post The End of ‘America First’: How Biden Says He Will Re-engage With the World first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Denuclearization is the key word as President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un met face-to-face Wednesday for the second summit in Vietnam.

Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass told FOX Business’ Liz Claman Opens a New Window.that there is “zero chance, not .001, but zero chance that Kim will bend to denuclearize.”

According to Haass, North Korea will not denuclearize because such weapons guarantees the Hermit Kingdom’s security and it’s their calling card.

He also added that the president should work towards dismantling a few facilities by demanding a full accounting of what the North Koreans have in its weaponry production facilities. Haass noted that it is vital to create a time schedule where North Korea would gradually get rid of their weapons in exchange for the United States relaxing sanctions.

Talks between Trump and Kim Jong-Un are scheduled to continue until Thursday.

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/zero-chance-kim-jong-un-will-denuclearize-cfrs-richard-haass

The post Zero chance Kim Jong Un will denuclearize: CFR’s Richard Haass first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

WASHINGTON — The United States withdrew on Tuesday from the world’s most important human rights body in protest of its frequent criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It was the latest effort by the Trump administration to pull away from international organizations and agreements that it finds objectionable.

It was the first time a member has voluntarily left the United Nations Human Rights Council. The United States now joins Iran, North Korea and Eritrea as the only countries that refuse to participate in the council’s meetings and deliberations.

“Earlier this year, as it has in previous years, the Human Rights Council passed five resolutions against Israel — more than the number passed against North Korea, Iran and Syria combined,” Nikki R. Haley, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said in a speech on Tuesday. “This disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel is clear proof that the council is motivated by political bias, not by human rights.”

“If the Human Rights Council is going to attack countries that uphold human rights and shield countries that abuse human rights, then America should not provide it with any credibility,” Ms. Haley said.

Human rights advocates denounced the decision.

“All this administration seems to care about when it comes to the council is defending Israel,” said John Sifton, an advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit organization. “If the Trump administration’s complaint is that the council is biased and flawed, they’ve just made it more so.”

In a series of posts on Twitter, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel welcomed the decision. “The U.S. decision to leave this prejudiced body is an unequivocal statement that enough is enough,” he wrote on Tuesday.

But Antonio Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, said through a spokeswoman that he would have preferred that the United States remained in the council. He noted that the United Nations’ human rights “architecture” plays an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.

Conservatives have been complaining about the council since its inception in 2006, and the administration of President George W. Bush refused to join the body, citing concerns of bias. Ms. Haley has been a fierce critic of the council since joining the Trump administration and is known to have pushed for a withdrawal.

Elliott Abrams, a former Republican diplomat and now a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the Human Rights Council’s bias against Israel was too much to ignore.

“There is always an argument for staying, which is that the United States will be in a better position to help defend Israel,” Mr. Abrams said. “But this council is hopelessly compromised, so leaving is the right choice.”

The withdrawal comes as the Trump administration faces condemnation by rights groups and governments worldwide for its decision to separate children from their families at the border. On Monday, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for human rights, called for an immediate end to the practice, describing such a tactic as inflicting “abuse on children” and “unconscionable.”

Mr. Trump has turned decades of American foreign policy on its head by attacking or undermining much of the rules-based order that the United States established after World War II. Previous administrations viewed the interlocking network of alliances, trade rules and international organizations as beneficial to the United States.

But Mr. Trump has ripped up the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal — both of which were negotiated under the strong influence of world powers. He has also imposed tariffs on the United States’ closest allies and left the Group of 7 summit meeting this month in chaos and recriminations after he denounced Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada as “very dishonest & weak.”

The Trump administration has made clear that it will not countenance the level of criticism and what it describes as slanted resolutions by the Human Rights Council that have historically been directed at the United States and Israel. On her first day as ambassador, Ms. Haley warned that “for those who don’t have our back, we’re taking names.”

Rob Berschinski, a senior vice president at Human Rights First, another nonprofit organization, conceded that no one believed the human rights council was perfect. But, he said, leaving it is a mistake.

“Countries like China, Russia and Venezuela will applaud this decision because we are freely giving up leverage over them that we previously had,” Mr. Berschinski said.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-israel-palestinians-human-rights.html

The post Trump Administration Withdraws U.S. From U.N. Human Rights Council first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Utility-scale solar installation in a field.(Photo: SunPower)

If I were President Trump’s trusted adviser, this is what I would tell him.

You can make America great again and beat China. It’s up to you. China is well on its way to becoming the renewable energy superpower of the future. We can still come from behind and take the lead — if you make it a national priority.

Since the 2015 Paris Accord, the whole world has been moving as quickly as possible toward a clean energy future. Last year a record capacity of renewable power was added worldwide, far outstripping new fossil fuel generating capacity, according to Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2018. China led by investing $126 billion in renewables — a 31% increase over 2016 and an impressive 45% of total global spending on renewable energy. That’s more than triple the total U.S. investment in renewables, which declined 6% from 2016 to 2017.

China has a winning strategic plan. “Beijing hopes to make itself an energy exporter to rival the United States” says Amy Myers Jaffe, Director of the Council on Foreign Relations program on Energy Security and Climate Change. The push not only gives other countries the chance to cut their reliance on foreign oil and gas, she says, it also allows China to cut its own carbon emissions and move toward its goal of replacing the U.S. “as the most important player in many regional alliances and trading relationships.”

More: Trump can’t stop our clean energy future: Sen. Bennet

More: Rick Perry’s new energy proposal works for nuclear energy and the environment

We don’t have to lose to China. Why not catch up and take the lead? When America lagged the Soviet Union in the space race, President Kennedy vowed, “We do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.” American astronauts were the first men to walk the moon less than 10 years later.

President Trump, you can follow in Kennedy’s footsteps if you insist on urgent public investment in clean energy and efficiency. What might we accomplish if you boldly call on all Americans to win the energy race?

To win, you must be strategic in your policies. In February you placed a 30% tariff on solar panels imported from abroad with the intention of helping American solar manufacturers who cannot compete with cheaper imports. The problem is that only 37,000 Americans manufacture solar panels while more than 260,000 work on solar projects. By increasing the cost of solar panels, your tariff will cause the loss of 23,000 solar jobs over the next year, according to Solar Energy Industries Association estimates.

“In a state like Indiana, our jobs in solar are overwhelmingly in the installation arena,” said Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council. He said the policy is “hurting the very people that the Trump administration had pledged to help.”

More: Trump’s renewable energy cuts put us on the ropes in fighting climate change

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Why not spur American innovation in solar manufacturing with investment instead of a tit-for-tat on tariffs that costs American jobs? If the government builds solar installations across the country, and promises to buy American, you will create jobs that cannot be outsourced. Meanwhile you can count on American ingenuity to achieve technological breakthroughs for manufacturing a product the whole world wants to buy.

President Trump, your recent weakening of fuel efficiency standards for American cars and light trucks will not make America great. You will simply make us less competitive in the global market. Other nations are in the process of phasing out gas and diesel vehicles. Britain aims for all cars to be zero-emission by 2040. India wants all new vehicles to be electric by 2030. China may soon propose a ban and currently requires automakers to ensure that 10% of car sales are electric vehicles by 2019.

Your fossil fuel-focused “America First” energy plan threatens to make America last instead.

President Trump, if you join the worldwide energy transition, you will create good-paying jobs for the American people. U.S. clean energy jobs already outnumber fossil fuel jobs by 5 to 1, according to the Department of Energy 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report. In addition, millions of sustainability jobs — such as weatherizing homes — cannot be sent offshore. Clean energy jobs pay wages above the national median and are available in every community, large or small. Solar installer is poised to become the fastest-growing occupation in the United States over the next 10 years.

America can either lead the clean energy revolution — or the world will move on without us.

Carrie Scherpelz is a marketing professional with a business based in Madison, Wis.

The post How Trump can beat China without a trade war: Make America a renewable energy superpower first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

BERLIN — German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron will attempt a pincer movement on Donald Trump, with China emerging as the likely target of their joint effort to avert a trade war with the United States.

The leaders of Europe’s two biggest economies will visit the president in Washington within days of each other this month as the clock ticks down to a May 1 deadline for European Union (EU) proposals to stop the U.S. from imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum.

A possible solution may lie in White House efforts to forge a “trade coalition of the willing” to stand up to China for what it calls unfair trade practices. The move is gaining favour with the government in Berlin as well as with the EU, which handles the bloc’s trade negotiations, while a bruising trip to China earlier this year may make Macron more likely to lend his support.

The EU is just one front in the U.S. attempt to rewrite international trade rules, with Trump on Thursday (April 5) threatening levies on US$100 billion (S$132 billion) of Chinese goods, shortly after Washington and Beijing outlined tariffs on US$50 billion of each other’s imported products. At stake for the EU are the metal tariffs that could take effect as soon as next month, threatening disruption to total trans-Atlantic trade worth some US$720 billion.

“The Europeans are going to have a very tough decision to make, which is, are they going to play this game,” Edward Alden, a Washington-based senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview. “That’s just anathema to the beliefs of Merkel and Macron.”

All the same, Merkel, in her fourth term as Germany’s leader, and Macron, elected France’s young president on a pro-EU ticket last year, are both under pressure to deliver something in their talks with Trump to calm trade tensions.

At home, Macron is navigating a raft of economic and labour reforms that will determine his fate. A deadly attack carried out in the German city of Muenster on Saturday was a reminder for Merkel of the domestic security agenda that is dominating her coalition’s early days, and which could topple her yet.

A common thread that is likely to feature leads to China. Merkel and Macron have both made China’s inexorable rise a policy priority, with Macron pledging in January at the end of a trip to China to seek more strategic coordination with officials in Berlin on the issue.

On the trade front, the EU took concrete action on Thursday, asking to join a U.S. dispute against China in the World Trade Organization over the Asian nation’s discriminatory technology licensing rules.

German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier said in an interview with Der Spiegel magazine that he is willing to take joint action with Washington against overcapacity in the steel market, and was looking for a unified approach against intellectual property theft. European Commission Spokesman Daniel Rosario said the EU was having high-level meetings with the U.S. that included discussions on overcapacity.

“One of our proposals to the U.S. side is that we should go into talks on how we can face probably unfair trade practices from China,” Juergen Hardt, who oversees trans-Atlantic coordination for Merkel’s government, told Bloomberg Television on March 23.

Top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Thursday that a deal on Chinese tariffs could be realised in part by convincing other major economies to call out the Asian nation for unfair trading practices. “Everybody in the world knows that China has not played by the rules for many years,” he said.

Europe is still steadfast in standing behind WTO rules. A response to the U.S. mustn’t involve “softening or weakening in the face of a unilateral decision” taken by Trump, French government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux told reporters in Paris on Wednesday.

A compromise is all the harder as Berlin and Paris have difficulty communicating with the U.S. due to the turnover of staff in the Trump administration. Macron, 40, may be in a better position for diplomatic maneuvering than Merkel, 63. Trump will host the French president and first lady at Mount Vernon, the Virginia estate of the nation’s first president, George Washington, as part of a state visit. Merkel’s trip to meet the president, while still to be firmed up, is understood to have come at her request.

The EU’s two most powerful leaders will aim to “shove the U.S. back into the box” of the global trade system even as Trump seeks concessions as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy with Europe, according to Alden. But in the end, Merkel and Macron “may have no choice but to do this on Trump’s terms,” he said. BLOOMBERG

Source: http://www.todayonline.com/world/trumps-trade-war-against-china-could-see-allies-macron-and-merkel

The post Trump’s trade war against China could see allies in Macron and Merkel first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.