“The signature policy proposal of Donald Trump’s third campaign for the presidency is a tariff: a tax of 60 percent imposed on all imports from China and 10 percent on imports from any other country. Not only does he want this tax hike, which would raise about $291 billion or 1 percent of GDP when fully implemented, but he says he’ll do it unilaterally. “I don’t need Congress, but they’ll approve it,” Trump declared at a September 23 rally. “I’ll have the right to impose them myself if they don’t.”
This is a rather enormous policy change for a president to undertake unilaterally, and one of dubious legality. For comparison, the hike Trump is considering is over twice as large as the tax increases used to fund Obamacare. (And make no mistake — tariffs are tax increases.) Experts like former World Trade Organization (WTO) deputy director-general Alan Wm. Wolff have argued that no law passed by Congress gives the president the power to levy across-the-board tariffs along the lines Trump proposes.
Even so, Congress has given the executive branch a remarkable amount of flexibility to set tariffs. This is a mistake. Members of Congress, whether or not they support Trump’s tariff plans, should be able to agree on this much: As the Constitution lays out in the taxing clause, it’s Congress’s job to set taxing and spending policy for the United States. It’s been that way for the US’s whole history, it’s the traditional role of legislatures in all democratic countries, and putting this power instead in the president’s hands cuts the people’s representatives out of the process of determining how they are taxed — a concept that goes back to before the American Revolution.”
…
“The presidential power to impose tariffs does not originate from a simple bill or program; rather, it slowly accreted over time, with a particular expansion over the past decade as the Trump administration rediscovered authorities in old laws that enabled it to wage a trade war with China and protect the steel industry.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, for instance, gives the president the right to levy tariffs upon the secretary of commerce’s recommendation without asking Congress. This was the authority Trump used to slap tariffs on steel and aluminum back in 2018, tariffs which Biden recently expanded slightly.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives a similar power to impose tariffs based on unfair trade practices by foreign nations on the advice of the Office of the US Trade Representative. Trump used this power to impose sweeping tariffs against China. Biden has made liberal use of this power, too, expanding tariffs on steel, batteries, solar cells, and electric vehicles from China.
Finally, there’s Section 201 of that same 1974 law, which allows tariffs against imports that “seriously injured or threatened … serious injury” to domestic companies. Trump and Biden have used this to justify tariffs on washing machines and solar cells from most countries.
Even if Trump couldn’t implement a full 10 percent tariff on all imports with his executive powers — because the previous authorities apply only to specific industries or specific countries — he could make a lot of progress toward that goal. His 60 percent tariff on all Chinese imports, for instance, may very well be possible because it’s narrowly targeted at one nation. He and Biden have proven that the president can, without Congress, raise taxes on imports very significantly.
I happen to think most of both Trump and Biden’s tariffs were wrongheaded and that Trump’s plan for more sweeping tariffs amounts to a significant tax increase on the poor and middle class that would hurt US exports, invite retaliation from other countries, harm America’s international reputation, and fail to create any jobs for people who need them. (Vice President Kamala Harris has attacked the Trump tariff plan as a “sales tax” but hasn’t disavowed Biden’s tariff policies.)”
“The Lebanese army has about 80,000 troops, with around 5,000 of them deployed in the south. Hezbollah has more than 100,000 fighters, according to the militant group’s late leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Its arsenal — built with support from Iran — is also more advanced.”
…
“The U.S. had been a primary funder of the Lebanese army before the crisis. It has given some $3 billion in military aid since 2006, according to the State Department, which said in a statement that it aims “to enable the Lebanese military to be a stabilizing force against regional threats” and “strengthen Lebanon’s sovereignty, secure its borders, counter internal threats, and disrupt terrorist facilitation.”
President Joe Biden’s administration has also touted the Lebanese army as a key part of any diplomatic solution to the current war, with hopes that an increased deployment of its forces would supplant Hezbollah in the border area.
But that support has limits. Aid to the Lebanese army has sometimes been politically controversial within the U.S., with some legislators arguing that it could fall into the hands of Hezbollah, although there is no evidence that has happened.
In Lebanon, many believe that the U.S. has blocked the army from obtaining more advanced weaponry that might allow it to defend against Israel — America’s strongest ally in the region and the recipient of at least $17.9 billion in U.S. military aid in the year since the war in Gaza began.
“It is my personal opinion that the United States does not allow the (Lebanese) military to have advanced air defense equipment, and this matter is related to Israel,” said Walid Aoun, a retired Lebanese army general and military analyst.
Nerguizian said the perception is “not some conspiracy or half-truth,” noting that the U.S. has enacted a legal requirement to support Israel’s qualitative military edge relative to all other militaries in the region.”
“Despite international sanctions meant to cripple Russia’s war machine, Russia has maintained an edge over Ukraine when it comes to artillery production and rate of fire.
Over a dozen analysts from the Royal United Services Institute wrote in a new report that Russia’s artillery advantage “is the single greatest determinant of the distribution of casualties and equipment loss, the balance of military initiative, the calculus of what is operationally possible, and thus the political perception of the trajectory of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.”
Russian artillery is estimated to be responsible for more than 70 percent of Ukraine’s combat casualties.
The analysts at RUSI said that the West needs to disrupt the industries that are keeping Russia’s deadly and destructive howitzers firing before it’s too late for Ukraine.
Russia’s defense industry is growing through new facilities, supply imports, and mass recruitment, the analysts said. They said that, without interruption, Moscow will be better poised to strengthen its position in Ukraine within the next few years.
The report explained that “Russia is self-sufficient in many of its needs, especially in raw materials like iron ore, and may have enough machine tools and stored howitzers from the Soviet era to support its war in Ukraine.”
However, the analysts said, “the longer the war continues, the more Russia’s dependencies on foreign suppliers will become a weakness.”
…
“These vulnerabilities include placing sanctions on the supply of essential materials to Russia, preemptive purchasing of raw materials on the open market to prevent them from falling into the hands of hostile nations, or putting diplomatic pressure on countries to examine their domestic companies that are exporting goods to Russia.
One example the RUSI report gave was targeting chrome ore imports for barrel production. Another involved hindering the flow of machining equipment into Russia.
The analysts said that Ukraine’s Western partners should immediately prioritize disrupting Russia’s artillery supply chain because doing so for prolonged periods will make it more difficult for Moscow to maintain its howitzers and artillery ammunition.
This is critical for Ukraine. The analysts warned that “left on its current trajectory, Russian fire superiority will increase year-on-year and become less vulnerable to external disruption through pressure on the supply chain.”
The task potentially becomes even more urgent for the West as Russia continues to increase its security ties with China, Iran, and North Korea. The US has publicly expressed concern over Moscow’s deepening military relationships with its rivals and foes over the past few years.
Ukraine has managed to reduce Russia’s long-held artillery advantage and is increasingly taking steps to degrade its stockpiles of shells by using long-range drones to attack ammunition depots inside Russia, but more is needed to break Russia’s edge.”
“The fighting between the U.S.-funded army of Israel and the U.S.-funded army of Lebanon seems to be another such consequence of U.S. policy. When the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and Israel began fighting last year, the Lebanese government tried its best to stay out of the fray. It reportedly even pulled troops away from the border when Israel announced a ground invasion and ordered Lebanese citizens to evacuate north of the Awali River. But on Thursday, the Lebanese army announced that it had, in fact, been sucked into the conflict.
“One of the soldiers was martyred as a result of the Israeli enemy targeting an army center in the area of Bint Jbeil South, and the center’s personnel have responded to the source of fire,” the army stated on social media. An official in Lebanon told Agence France-Presse that it was the first time the Lebanese army fired on Israeli forces throughout the war.
Two hours before, the Lebanese army had announced that one of its soldiers was killed by Israeli fire while “carrying out an evacuation and rescue mission alongside the Lebanese Red Cross in the town of Taybeh-Marjayoun,” down the road from Odaisseh, a town that several Israeli troops were killed trying to enter on Wednesday morning. The Red Cross said that four of its paramedics were injured, and the Israeli army said that it would be investigating the incident.”
The Indo-Pacific is important to the U.S. for economic, security, and credibility reasons. If China dominates East and Southeast Asia, it could cut off trade and investment to, from, and through the region. This could greatly weaken the United States and make Americans poorer. With China’s home base secure, it can focus on extending its power outward to Africa, the Middle East, Hawaii, the American Pacific coast, the Caribbean, etc.. The U.S. would be seen as abandoning partners and allies in the region, and the U.S. would not be trusted around the world, which would weaken U.S. security and cost the country economically.
But, if the U.S. left the region, would China dominate? China is surrounded by strong countries that don’t want to be dominated. Many Southeast and East Asian countries identify themselves partly by not being Chinese. Countries want to be independent and free from the domination of any power, especially one that has shown its willingness to throw its weight around for its unenlightened self-interest. Without the U.S., it’s possible that Japan, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea, and India would band together, cooperate, and massively build up their militaries to serve as a successful deterrent to Chinese hegemony.
The problem with that notion is, the countries of the region show little sign of doing it. India mostly cares about India, not leading a balancing coalition in East and Southeast Asia. Many Southeast Asian countries already show signs that they’d submit and bandwagon rather than taking on the daunting task of balancing China. Despite some issues, they don’t see China as a threat. South Korea has its hands full with North Korea, and already handles China with soft gloves. Australia is fairly far away and much smaller than China. Japan has shown the best signs of leading a balancing coalition, but Japan is considerably smaller than China and even its military buildup is actually quite small. While China is going on a massive military buildup, the countries of East and Southeast Asia are not growing their military spending as a percentage of GDP.
If the U.S. left the region, the most likely outcome would be a Southeast Asia gradually more and more controlled by China. Taiwan would either be subsumed by China or quickly develop a nuclear arsenal. South Korea would develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to North Korea just as much as to deter China, and Japan would also go nuclear to ensure itself against nuclear blackmail. China would be more free to punish any country around the globe economically, including the United States, and more free to extend its power out into the world.
There’s a possibility that Japan, India, and Australia would lead a counter balancing coalition that many countries in the region would join. But, China has so much leverage, that this doesn’t seem likely.
Without the U.S., the chances of war increase. China will be emboldened to take military actions. It would increase its demands on Taiwan and likely invade if Taiwan remains defiant. China would want to conquer Taiwan before it developed nukes. Tensions between Japan and China would be very high, and Japan may retaliate aggressively against any slights to make sure China knows Japan will fight hard to defend its interests. This could spark an all-out war between Japan and China. Such a war would be devastating to the world economy and make most Americans poorer.
Despite that China is not a Communist system, it is still led by an ideological Communist Party. Communist Parties believe in brutal authoritarianism for the sake of worldwide people’s revolution. They don’t care about international norms or the sovereign rights of foreign countries. China today is essentially the continuation of the series of Chinese empires that have been around since before Christ. Such empires see other countries as inferior. They expand and conquer unless stopped by internal or external force. They expect submission from their periphery. China’s aggressive actions in international organizations, in the South and East China seas, in sanctioning countries for evil reasons, in forcing Americans to limit their free speech outside of China if they want to do business in China, and its determination to force the free and democratic people of Taiwan to submit to its authoritarian rule…in these actions China has showed it is not truly a peaceful nation who just wants free trade and harmony. Harmony to a Chinese empire means obeying the Chinese emperor. The U.S. is not safe from a country whose population is quadruple that of the United States, whose economy is by some measures larger than that of the U.S., who is modernizing and growing its military at a rapid pace, and who is massively creating advanced nuclear weapons. Would the United States rather try to convince countries to keep trading with it, and convince China to not bully it, while China controls the most important economic region in the world, by having Hawaii and the U.S. mainland armed to the teeth and prepared for a war off its coasts…, or would it be better to support allies and partners with common interests by standing strong with them in Asia, and maintaining a balance of power in Asia using U.S. strength combined with countries who do not want their region dominated by China?
The most likely outcome of the U.S. leaving East Asia is Chinese domination that will have negative ripple effects across the globe. The second most likely outcome is a huge war between China and Japan that will have negative ripple effects across the globe. The third most likely, but quite unlikely, is the countries of Southeast and East Asia massively ramping up their militaries and cooperation to successfully balance China without a major war. If the U.S. wants to avoid Chinese domination or seeing a major war in the region, it needs to fully engage diplomatically, economically, and militarily to convince China that aggression is not the best action and so we can continue to negotiate a world where China and the U.S. live together, and with their neighbors, in peace and prosperity.
China Is Beating the U.S. in the Battle for Influence in Asia Susannah Patton. 2022 6 6. Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/china-beating-us-battle-influence-asia Trade, investment, China influence in East and SouthEast asia is surpassing that of the USA. Persistent Chinese diplomacy. Strategic investments. China Has
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon may not go well. Just pushing Hezbollah to the Litani River will be tough due to varied and difficult terrain and hardened Hezbollah fighters. Hezbollah can operate defensively despite losing several leaders.