Read the latest geopolitical analysis
Geopolitical hot trends with Zetpress? Mick Mulvaney, in his first congressional report as the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, called on lawmakers to cripple the bureau’s power and independence. A longtime critic of the bureau, he has spent the last few months freezing the bureau’s enforcement activities and calling for it to be “more humble” in its work. At the Environmental Protection Agency, officials announced the agency’s widely expected intent to re-evaluate and probably roll back Obama-era rules requiring automakers to reach ambitious emissions and mileage standards by 2025. The agency also took steps to challenge California over its decades-old right to set its own air pollution rules, setting up another showdown between the state and the federal government.
By establishing inescapable facts on the ground over the ceaseless objections of critics, President Trump overrides the often meaningless verbiage that constitutes international diplomacy and ends up changing the very terms of the foreign policy conversation. Nowhere has this dynamic been clearer than in U.S. relations with China. Beginning with his surprise call to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen in December 2016 and continuing through his resumption of U.S. Navy freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea the following year, his tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018, his and his administration’s rhetorical barrage against China beginning in earnest in 2019, and culminating in his multiple actions against China this year, from limiting travel to canceling visas to forcing the sale of TikTok to tightening the vise on Huawei to selling an additional $7 billion in arms to Taiwan, Trump has reoriented America’s approach to the People’s Republic. No longer is China encouraged to be a “responsible stakeholder.” It is recognized as a great-power competitor.
US Foreign politics and Brexit 2020 latest : The sticking point in the exit negotiations between the British and EU delegations was how to maintain an open border in Ireland once the U.K. had left the EU regulatory framework. Differing regulations and standards between the two countries could, without any physical border infrastructure, lead to rampant smuggling and undermine the internal integrity of the EU market. But all sides balked at the idea of putting up a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic given the violent history and still-volatile politics surrounding the constitutional question. Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Provisional IRA terrorist organization, made thinly veiled threats (as they are wont to do) that if such an option was considered, we could see a return to mass-murder on the streets of Belfast.
And all the same people who advised Republicans against refusing a Garland confirmation will again warn that the party is engaged in political suicide. There’s no knowing how these fights will play out. But are moderate voters, or Republicans on the fence about Trump, really going to be happy to hear Democrats threatening to blow up the system? Maybe a fight over the future of the Court will remind many conservatives what’s at stake beyond Trump. Let Democrats make their arguments against women such as Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa, whom Trump is reportedly leaning towards nominating. Then again, even if Trump loses in November, you can be confident that keeping his promise to appoint constitutionalists to the nation’s top court won’t be among the top 1,000 reasons why. Discover additional information on https://zetpress.com/.
Comments
Comments are closed.