Different Points of View: The Mexico Trade Deal....

(We occasionally will present and contrast view points that differ in insight. From time to time we will feature them here. Please read the 2 articles below)

-Source-CNBC-

Now that U.S. President Donald Trump has bagged a political victory in the form of a trade deal with Mexico, the country's ongoing dispute with China looks set to drag on, experts said.

Mexico is "an important trading partner" of the U.S. and the deal offers Trump "some wins from a political perspective that the administration can point to ahead of the mid-terms", said John Woods, chief investment officer for Asia Pacific at Credit Suisse.

That's "not necessarily positive" for China, Woods told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Tuesday.

He explained that based on the latest trade talks between the two largest economies in the world, the U.S. now wants China to commit to structural reforms rather than simply reducing the imbalances between the two countries. That makes any quick solution less likely, Woods said.

"I suspect that (Trump) will hold out on negotiating a settlement with China for the time being. I suspect it could even run through the mid-term elections in November," he said.

Woods' sentiment is shared by economists from Dutch bank ING, who wrote in a note on Tuesday that "as far as China and Asia are concerned, this new Mexico deal solves nothing."

However, the trade agreement "strengthens the US position to play hardball with China," they said.

"There is, right now, no visible interest from the US administration in pursuing talks with China over trade, and there will likely not be either unless China proposes some far-reaching changes to issues such as intellectual property protection and forced technology transfer," the economists wrote.

That means the additional $200 billion in U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods will likely come into effect in September, they all said. China will also likely retaliate to the extent that they can and worsen the dispute, they added. Read more

---

Article 2: Different Points of View: An issue of National Security?

Source-Salon-

On May 31, when President Donald Trump levied tariffs on steels and aluminum imports from the European Union, Mexico and Canada, most observers were less surprised by his actions than by his justifications for the move. Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Trump asserted that he was issuing the tariffs on national security grounds – the first usage of this power since 1983. What does this move say about the Trump administration’s view of trade strategy? Does the president seriously view international trade as a security threat to the United States?

President Trump is waging war on free trade like no other American president has done in recent memory. As the 2016 campaign revealed, the president views the trade practices of key international commercial partners as a threat to national security and is levying tariffs on their exports in response. Such a move fittingly reflects Trump’s zero-sum understanding of international politics, but also risks altering the manner in which the United States conducts international trade, by making trade a security priority – a shift that could have significant consequences for the future of U.S. alliances and the American economy moving forward.

The term national security is inherently ambiguous and, as a result, no statutory definition exists in the United States, affording the president a significant degree of latitude in defining what constitutes a threat to the nation’s security. Since World War II, the principle of open international trade has been a key feature of American foreign policy – a vehicle through which the United States could enhance bilateral and multi-lateral relations through cooperation and mutual interests and, as a result, create an international system of like-minded, trade-friendly states – but has not been seen as a threat.

This framework has laid and continues to lay the foundation for an international order that strengthens national and international security through the cultivation of cooperative relationships that draw states closer economically, culturally and defensively. Trump’s approach to international trade, rather, is a departure from this perspective, and has explicitly identified trade as a “threat” to national security, rather than a medium for advancing security interests through positive-sum commercial relationships.

In the mid-1990s, political scientist Ole Wæver and his colleagues at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute laid out a new theory of security that sought to challenge classical security studies thinking. They coined it “securitization theory.” They argued that the concept of “national security” is simply the construct of “securitizing actors” – those in positions of authority on security issues – who could shift a national security agenda and legitimize it through rhetoric and a captive intended audience. In essence, this theory is a version of hyper-politicization in the form of national security planning and agenda-setting. Securitization is not necessarily good or bad, but rather the exercising of power by influential actors to transform national security policy to their liking.

Read more