“Half the alliance — 16 of the 29 countries — don’t even spend 1.5 percent (of gross domestic product) let alone 2 percent that we all agreed on four years ago (at a NATO summit) in Wales,” Michael Fallon, who served as secretary of state for defense from 2014 to 2017, said Tuesday.
“Four years on, and not enough European countries are making progress towards it and they need to do that and the president’s criticisms are quite valid.”
Trump is due to attend a NATO summit in Brussels on Wednesday and the thorny issue of how much the alliance’s individual members spend on defense is certain to arise. On Tuesday, Trump was still tweeting his annoyance.
In 2014, NATO members agreed to target spending 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, although the contributions remain voluntary. In 2017, only the U.S., U.K., Greece, Poland and Estonia reached the 2 percent target.
In 2017, the U.S. spent (at current exchange rates) an estimated $685.9 billion on defense, NATO data shows, the U.K. spent $55.3 billion and Germany $45 billion, compared to Canada’s $22.4 billion. The U.S. represented a 71.1 percent share of the alliance’s combined defense expenditure.
NATO collects defense expenditure data from each member’s defense ministry. The latest data from the organization, released Tuesday, estimated that for 2018 the U.S. will spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defense, while NATO Europe and Canada are expected to both spend 1.47 percent.
Hans Binnendijk, from the Center for Transatlantic Relations, and Magnus Nordenman, from the Atlantic Council think tank, concluded in a report entitled “NATO’s Value to the U.S.: By the Numbers” and published in April that the U.S.’ relationship “with its friends and allies is not a one-way street, where the United States makes, and the allies take.”
They noted that the specified NATO commitment of 2 percent of GDP “is the most visible metric used to measure allied political commitment to burden-sharing across the alliance. However, that metric does not measure the output and quality of allied defense contributions. It says even less about how NATO relates to broader U.S. security and economic interests.”
For instance, the writers noted: “France and the U.K. contribute about 30 percent of the total ballistic-missile-submarine deterrent fleet held by NATO members” and that “NATO countries also host sites for U.S. B-61 nuclear gravity bombs, and maintain dual-capable aircraft for nuclear delivery, which further enhance deterrence.”
With these other strategic interests in mind, Fallon said the U.S., which has 1.3 million military personnel with around 15 percent of these stationed outside the U.S., mainly in Europe and Asia, would not withdraw troops from NATO operations.
“There’s no sign of that. On the contrary, they’ve sent troops into Poland, they’re deploying more in Europe and they’ve been committing more to NATO operations, particularly in Afghanistan. So there’s going to be a lot of lively discussion, but I don’t see any sign of withdrawal.”
Few countries manage to pull off soft landings, and trade conflict makes the task even trickier. China's size means its domestic choices ricochet beyond its shores. If ever there was a test of China's readiness and willingness to be a global economic leader and not just a big economy, this is it.
There are signs that China is worried by the risk of too great a slowdown and is starting to tweak its monetary policy. The People's Bank of China declined to follow the Federal Reserve's increase in interest rates last month, contrary to the predictions of many economists. Then on June 24, the PBOC said it would lower the amount of cash some lenders must hold as reserves. For the better part of two years, China has been tapping the brakes on its $12 trillion economy. While gross domestic product grew almost 7 percent last year, the expansion is forecast to slow to about 6 percent over the next couple of years. That's still solid, but because China is the world's largest manufacturer and biggest exporter, and because it accounts for more than a third of global economic growth, the slackening matters. It's showing up in weaker euro-zone growth and a slide in South Korean exports.
The trade war will be another factor weighing on China as its expansion slows. Industrial production and retail sales fell short of forecasts in May, while investment in fixed assets like factories, roads, power plants and the like had its worst start to the year since data began to be published in 1999.
The meshing of the domestic and international challenges was perfectly illustrated by the cut in reserve requirements. While it was announced on June 24, the reduction was timed to take effect on July 5, the eve of Trump's imposition of the first $34 billion in tariffs on imports from China. The sequencing links the step to trade without explicitly saying so.
The easing was designed to achieve two things. Five hundred billion yuan ($75 billion) was unlocked for big banks to facilitate debt-for-equity swaps, which can reduce debt and help spruce up balance sheets. Another 200 billion was freed for smaller lenders to help small businesses. The PBOC was at pains to emphasize that this wasn't a vanilla-flavored loosening of policy.
The central bank said it will "keep implementing prudent and neutral monetary policy, and create a favorable monetary and financial environment for high quality development and supply-side reform." Translation: We aren't reversing course (yet), but we are alert to the risks and want to take out a bit of insurance. There's little prospect China will roll back on its tough overall line, given that President Xi Jinping has cited financial risks as a "critical battle," according to Hayden Briscoe of UBS Asset Management.
The U.S. president’s spontaneous approach to negotiations, and the inscrutable style of the Kremlin leader, make predicting the outcome of the summit with any accuracy close to impossible.
We do however, have a reasonable idea of the issues the two leaders and their aides will have mapped out before the meeting: the areas where they each want something from their counterpart, and the places they are willing to give ground.
ARMS RACE RHETORIC
Both Trump and Putin have been using bellicose rhetoric about their nuclear arsenals, drawing their countries closer to a new arms race. Trump has said the U.S. nuclear capability needs renewing. He told Reuters last year, “if countries are going to have nukes, we’re going to be at the top of the pack.” Putin in March this year unveiled an array of new nuclear weapons, and warned Western governments “now they need to take account of a new reality.” An arms race would be dangerous and expensive for both sides. An agreement to scale back the rhetoric would be a win for both Putin and Trump. Progress towards extending the New Start arms treaty, which expires in 2021, would give substance to that agreement.
Putin would like Trump to soften sanctions that Washington imposed over the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region and backing for separatists in eastern Ukraine, involvement in the Syrian civil war and allegations of Russian meddling in the U.S. elections in 2016. While a 2017 law bars Trump from easing many sanctions without Congress’ approval, he can offer some relief without a nod from Congress. The Republican president, who did not want to sign the law and has missed several deadlines for imposing sanctions included in it, could send a signal that the administration does not plan to expand the list of Russian firms and individuals subject to economic and travel restrictions. That would unfreeze much-needed investment and lending from international investors who, at the moment, are reluctant to commit to Russia for fear of the sanctions’ impact.
Washington ally Israel is anxious that, with the conflict in Syria entering its end game, Iranian and Iran-backed forces will be left gathered around Israel’s borders. At the summit, Trump may ask Putin, the most powerful outside player in Syria since Russia’s military intervention there, to use his influence with Tehran to curb Iran’s military presence. This would be tough to deliver for Putin: it would risk a rupture with his allies in Tehran, and could leave Russian forces having to do the lion’s share of the remaining fighting in Syria, a burden that Moscow does not want to shoulder.
Russia’s diplomatic presence in the United States, and the U.S. missions in Russia, are depleted after two rounds of tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions in the past two years. The first was over alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. election, and the second, this year, was in response to the poisoning in England of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Putin and Trump could agree in Helsinki to restore the full complement of diplomatic staff. That would not change the substance of the U.S.-Russia relationship, but it would be a symbol of a new start.
Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the NATO alliance has stepped up military exercises in eastern Europe. The aim, according to NATO leaders, is to reassure alliance members who fear a Russian incursion. That has angered Russia. It says NATO is bearing down on its backyard. The Kremlin has likened it to Russia stationing missiles in Mexico. If Trump scaled back the exercises, that would be a big win for Putin. Two senior NATO diplomats told Reuters they are prepared for a worst-case scenario that Trump would announce a freeze on U.S. military exercises or withdraw troops from the Baltics in a gesture to Putin. At the NATO summit in Brussels that precedes Helsinki, NATO states will seek Trump’s assurances that he will stand firm on the exercises.
Washington has stood by Ukraine’s pro-Western leaders in their stand-off with Russia. That has included the United States providing Kiev with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military aid. Helsinki would be a triumph for Putin if he persuaded Trump to drop that military aid. Ukrainian officials say they have assurances from Trump aides he won’t do this, but acknowledge anything can happen when Trump and Putin are in a room together. In return, the Russian leader could make concessions over eastern Ukraine, where pro-Moscow separatists control swathes of territory. Diplomats say there is a deal to be done allowing armed international peacekeepers to patrol the area. However, Putin will not contemplate any concessions over Crimea.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has an ambitious master plan for his country’s transformation into a wealthy, technology-driven global economic power. And U.S. companies need not apply.
On a deeper level, the standoff reflects an escalatingeconomic and military rivalry between a status quo power and one of the most remarkable growth miracles in history. It’s a clash between two divergent systems, (one state-directed, the other market-driven) with markedly divergent world views and national aspirations. That strategic tension seems likely to intensify, regardless of how the current brinkmanship over tariffs plays out.
It’s also a battle for global influence. Whereas the U.S. has long sought to spread democracy and free markets to other nations, China’s ruling Communist Party is just starting to pitch its heavy-handed growth model as an alternative for developing nations. And Xi is backing it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in loans for infrastructure projects from Asia to Europe and beyond.
In the U.S., a bipartisan consensus has begun to emerge that now is the time to stand up to China, even if many oppose President Donald Trump’s tactics. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, has attacked Trump for not being tougher on China, saying last week that failure to change Beijing’s behavior now could hurt the U.S. economy “for generations to come.”
The aim is to produce global champions -- not just national ones -- and Xi’s government is ready to use the commanding heights of its one-party state to steer subsidies and use preferential policies and ambitious local content rules favoring Chinese companies to get there. At stake are industries that make up about 40 percent of China’s value-added industrial manufacturing sector, according to an analysis by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing data by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.
China is the single largest foreign purchaser of U.S.-manufactured goods -- led by transportation, chemical, computer and electronics -- outside of North America, according to the National Association of Manufacturers. Chinese goods have also flooded across American shores, pushing up the U.S. trade deficit with China more than fourfold to $375 billion last year.
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis labeled China a “strategic competitor using predatory economics” in January as he unveiled the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy.
Xi views his economy’s shift into higher-tech manufacturing not only as a crucial part of its development, what with surging labor costs, a rapidly aging population and high corporate debt levels -- but also as a fulfillment of China’s destiny.
Talks to avoid a trade war have stalled in part over U.S. demands that China reduce state support for high-tech industries. While China has signaled a willingness to buy more American goods to balance out the deficit, it has refused to trade away what it views as an essential part of its economic future.
Some prominent academics are calling for more drastic measures to undercut China’s practice of trading market access for technology transfers, such as unwinding Asian supply networks in high-end tech sectors.
Harvard Business School Professor Willy C. Shih favors tax incentives, and even setting up import processing zones in the U.S. to repatriate offshore suppliers for the likes of Intel, Apple and Microsoft. “It would strengthen our ability to sustain the most advanced semiconductor fabs in the United Sates,” Shih said.
In the end, the U.S. and China economic rivalry probably won’t be decided by administrative law judges or trade negotiators, but in the global marketplace. Right now, the U.S. still enjoys a lead in many tech and manufacturing sectors, particularly aerospace and biotech.
Yet the days when China could be dismissed as merely a low-wage assembly center for Western manufacturers are long gone. This is a country on what it views as a historic mission to become a 21st century economic power, and the contest is just beginning.Click here to download a pdf of this article, Missile.pdf
“The tail risk of a Sino-US trade war is getting fatter,” said Chi Lo, greater China senior economist at BNP Paribas Asset Management in Hong Kong. “The two sides may misjudge each other’s intentions when patriotism takes over rationality, and push themselves into an escalating series of attacks and retaliation.”
President Donald Trump said the U.S. would begin charging additional duties of 25 percent on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports in response to what he says is theft of American intellectual property. That’s split into two rounds - $34 billion now and $16 billion later.
According to the commerce ministry’s Gao, $20 billion of the $34 billion in goods to be hit with U.S. tariffs from Friday are produced by foreign companies, including from the U.S.
In the scenario where the U.S. and China just stick to this round of tariffs -- $50 billion of imports -- and go no further, then the drag on China’s economy would be 0.2 percentage point of growth in 2019, according to Bloomberg Economics’ calculations.
If things escalate, then the hit will be bigger, cutting as much as half a percentage point from growth. China’s economy grew by 6.9 percent in 2017 and the government has set a target of 6.5 percent for the current year.Click here to download a pdf of this article, Missile.pdf
"After significant engagement with China Mobile, concerns about increased risks to U.S. law enforcement and national security interests were unable to be resolved," said the statement, which quoted David Redl, assistant secretary for communications and information at the U.S. Department of Commerce, which NTIA is part of.
China Mobile, the world's largest telecom carrier with 899 million subscribers, did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comment.
The U.S. government moved on Monday to block China Mobile from offering services to the U.S. telecommunications market, recommending its application be rejected because the government-owned firm posed national security risks.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should deny China Mobile's 2011 application to offer telecommunication services between the United States and other countries, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) said in a statement posted on its website.
China Mobile Communications, a state-owned firm, owned almost 73 percent of China Mobile, according to Thomson Reuters data as of December.
In its recommendation, the NTIA said that its assessment rested "in large part on China's record of intelligence activities and economic espionage targeting the US, along with China Mobile's size and technical and financial resources."
It said the company was "subject to exploitation, influence and control by the Chinese government" and that its application posed "substantial and unacceptable national security and law enforcement risks in the current national security environment".
U.S. senators and spy chiefs warned in February that China was trying, via means such as telecommunications firms, to gain access to sensitive U.S. technologies and intellectual properties.Click here to download a pdf of this article, Missile.pdf
The United States could get a new round of retaliatory tariffs worth as much as $300 billion, if it moves ahead with new duties on European cars, the Financial Times reported.
In a written statement to the U.S. Department of Commerce, seen by the news publication, the EU set out clear plans to respond to potential U.S. duties on European cars. According to the newspaper, European leaders are getting more convinced that President Donald Trump will put new tariffs on European cars.
The written submission sent by the EU also highlighted that European-owned car brands represented more than a quarter of U.S. car production. It added that this was mainly focused on exportation and any tariffs would fragment markets, raise prices for the American consumer and potentially lead to job losses.
Speaking to Fox News over the weekend, Trump said that the EU is “possibly as bad as China, just smaller” when speaking on trade deficits with other countries. He added: “It is terrible what they do to us.”
Click here to download a pdf of this article, Missile.pdf
“I’m not anxious about a policy-induced crisis on the currency but the signals really are quite confusing,” veteran global economist George Magnus said. Though the People’s Bank of China has repeatedly set the yuan’s reference rate against the dollar this week at stronger levels than analysts and traders had anticipated, other metrics show little sign of action to stem the sharp drop. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-29/yuan-s-set-for-7-as-slide-evokes-china-2015-turmoil-magnus-says The currency’s decline will only deepen as monetary policy on the mainland diverges from that of the Federal Reserve, Magnus said in a telephone interview this week. As for what’s going on right now -- the steepest drop for the yuan since the devaluation almost three years ago, and a bear market in stocks -- it reminds him of the 2015-16 selloff, and it’s hard to tell how officials will respond, he said.
“This is a double-edged sword and this is why it becomes uncertain or problematic for investors,” said Magnus, who served as chief international economist at major banks from the 1980s and is now a China Centre associate at the University of Oxford. “We’ve been here before, the situation is very similar to 2015-2016 when the exchange rate was under pressure” and the PBOC had to spend foreign-exchange reserves to prop it up, he said.
“My worry is that this 20 percent correction in stocks is no reason why you shouldn’t have half as much again,” said Magnus, who correctly said in July 2015 that Chinese stocks would slump further, and then accurately called the end of the rout in January 2016. “Not that there’s no floor, but we haven’t reached a bottom if the trade situation continues to deteriorate.”
China is slowing approvals for offshore bonds and considering whether to ban short-dated issuance in dollars, according to people familiar with the matter, moves that would reduce financing options for the debt-laden developers that sit at the center of the nation’s economy.
The National Development & Reform Commission is weighing a ban on the sale of dollar bonds with tenors of less than one year, said the people, who asked not to be named because they’re not authorized to speak publicly. The regulator is already restricting offshore issuance quotas for Chinese companies, people said.
The new measures threaten to further constrain cash-strapped property developers even as concerns about China’s financial risks ripple across markets. And it’s not just funding problems that are plaguing the industry: this week, the housing ministry escalated a crackdown on property speculation, while the nation’s policy banks tightened approvals on new lending for shanty-town redevelopment projects.
Selling bonds that mature in 364 days had become a popular financing tactic because it didn’t require pre-approval from the NDRC. The regulator has publicly signaled that it’s wary of the offshore issuance boom, saying in a Wednesday statement that developers are only allowed to use proceeds to refinance existing debt, that some companies are borrowing amounts that are out of proportion with their profits, and that many don’t have foreign-currency revenues to protect themselves against the yuan’s slide.Click here to download a pdf of this article, Missile.pdf
The White House will push Congress to strengthen an inter-agency panel that it will employ as its main tool to curb Chinese investments in sensitive U.S. technologies, Bloomberg News reports, citing senior Trump administration officials.
The strategy is a less confrontational approach toward China than many had expected. The administration had considered employing a little-used national emergency law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to curb prospective investments, people familiar with the plan said earlier this month.
© 2015 R.J. O'Brien & Associates LLC
Futures trading involves the substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not indicative of future results.