| | | | Does the Trump + Kim Summit Equal China's Big Win? | | In the aftermath of Tuesday's Singapore summit and the weekend's G7 meeting, "this week's biggest winner is not Trump or Kim. It's China," writes Ian Bremmer for The Hill. As President Trump alienated the United States' traditional allies and promised to "end the military exercises with South Korea that keep the Chinese on edge," Bremmer says we can expect to see China seize upon new opportunities. "China can now take further steps to improve relations with the governments Trump seems determined to antagonize and worry less that events in Korea will spin out of control," as it pursues regional dominance. Opportunity is ripe for China, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is set to visit Beijing tomorrow. The Chinese, Jeremy Page writes for the Wall Street Journal, will be ready to negotiate new roles. "While China worried that its interests might get short-shrift in the Trump-Kim summit, the meeting unexpectedly proved favorable to Beijing." The lack of clarity in the denuclearization statement signed by President Trump and North Korean leader Kim "gives Beijing time to lobby Washington, Seoul and Pyongyang for a direct role in negotiations"—a notion President Trump has said he supports. What will be the Chinese strategy going forward? "Beijing wants to prevent the emergence of a unified, democratic and U.S.-allied Korea and would like to see a reduced American military presence in the South," Page says.
| | | President Trump's meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has some Iranians thinking that their own leaders "should make a move similar to Mr. Kim's and propose a meeting," reports Thomas Erdbrink for the New York Times.
"If Mr. Trump can sit down with the leader of such an isolated country, with its gulags, summary executions and stockpile of nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles, why not talk to Iran?"
"One reason," Erdbrink writes, "is that Iran's leaders are ideologically opposed to talking to the United States. Like North Korea, Iran has no diplomatic relations with the United States."
Erdbrink also argues that Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement "vindicated the America-hating hard-liners in Iran," who now avow that direct talks with the United States "brought only pain. Never again, they say."
But some Iranians see the Trump-Kim summit as a direct result of North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons—"We should've made a nuclear bomb," one Iranian source told Erdbrink, "then they would take us seriously."
| | Trump, NAFTA, and Democracy | | President Trump's performance at the G7 summit this weekend has earned some support from conservatives and general condemnation from liberals. But George Monbiot for The Guardian offers a progressive argument in favor of Trump's insistence on renegotiating NAFTA—a major source of concern for critics. According to Monbiot, small "d" democratic principles mean that any agreement should be subject to periodic re-evaluation by the voting public (in other words, that no document should be indefinitely binding). And "NAFTA provides a perfect illustration of why all trade treaties should contain a sunset clause." Why? Not for Trumpian reasons. Instead, Monbiot argues, NAFTA has had unexpected negative consequences for the environment.
NAFTA rules mean that the interests of foreign manufacturing and energy businesses may be put above public protections and environmental efforts, so its provisions actually prevent the Canadian government from pursuing its voluntary commitments to the Paris accords, Monbiot says.
| | A new environmentally friendly market for automobiles has sprung up in China—and it's not just about "new energy vehicles," writes Adam Minter for Bloomberg.
"China is finally getting into used cars." The boom in the sale of used cars reflects the fact that Chinese-made cars are improving in quality.
"All this is good for consumers," Minter predicts. "And, more importantly, for the environment."
The combination of new energy-efficient cars and "a burgeoning secondhand market should create a virtuous cycle." "It's a promising model—and suggests China may finally be on its way to a low-carbon future."
| | This Week in World Peace... | | The report, recently released by the Institute for Economics & Peace, says global peace has gone down for the fourth year in a row. Refugees and internally displaced persons now account for nearly 1% of the world's population—about 68 million people. Events and attitudes in America contributed to the overall downturn in peace levels, the authors say. "United States has declined for two consecutive years and is now at the worst level of any time since 2012." The report attributes this in part to the political instability caused by partisan politics. The US "has scored the maximum (worst) possible score" in "incarceration, external conflicts fought, weapons exports, and nuclear and heavy weapons." Similarly, "Europe, the world's most peaceful region, recorded a deterioration for the third straight year," reflecting, among other factors, political terror and internal conflicts. The Middle East & North Africa region remains at the bottom of the index. Political and economic pressure from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Bahrain led to Qatar undergoing "the single largest deterioration in peacefulness." So which country comes out looking the best? "Iceland remains the most peaceful country in the world, a position it has held since 2008." | | | | | | |
