Economic interests, protectionism, a fear of espionage and recession are all mixed into the confrontation with China.
Recently, the vice-president of the Chinese technology company Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, was arrested at the request of the United States government. Subsequent comments from the vice-president of the European Commission, Andrus Ansip, have warned about the danger of espionage by Chinese companies with investments in Europe. These actions have catapulted the trade war with China into dangerous territory of confrontation and blocs, in which Europe doesn’t have much to gain. Even less at such a delicate time for global economy, as evidenced by the sharp fall in stock markets when the company director’s arrest became known. It is already evident that a portion of the markets anticipates the risk of a recession, and the political bitterness of the trade war is adding fuel to that fire.
Behind the scenes of the conflict with China, numerous political and economic tensions are mixed up which absolutely need to be straightened out. In the case of the Donald Trump administration, motivations for a confrontation are a mixture of the president’s hopeless protectionism, his startling diplomatic ineptitude, the fear of espionage − which is logical to a certain extent − and a dense network of economic interests pointing toward certain Chinese technologies, such as in Huawei’s case, as market competitors for U.S. companies.
Europe should not be following the Trump administration and its train wreck policy. The Chinese technological threat, the security risks for European citizens and concerns surrounding espionage should be resolved through stricter laws, more thorough business regulations and cooperation between countries. In fact, Brussels has prepared new regulations in order to control investments from third countries that may compromise security. Publicizing a conflict with such complex motivations and panicking citizens, as Ansip has done, resolves nothing. If anything, it just highlights the weakness of institutional bodies.
En el enfrentamiento con China se mezclan intereses económicos, proteccionismo, miedo al espionaje y temor a una recesión
***Beneath image***
Andrus Ansip, vicepresidente de la Comisión Europea DELMI ALVAREZ
En la trastienda del conflicto con China se mezclan diversas tensiones polÃticas y económicas que deberÃan aclararse con rotundidad. En el caso de la Administración de Trump, las motivaciones para el enfrentamiento mezclan el incurable proteccionismo del presidente, su alarmante torpeza diplomática, la preocupación, hasta cierto punto lógica, por el espionaje y una tupida red de intereses económicos que señalan a algunas tecnológicas chinas, caso de Huawei, como competidoras en los mercados de las empresas estadounidenses.
Europa no deberÃa seguir a la Administración de Trump en su polÃtica de choque de trenes. La amenaza tecnológica china, los riesgos para la seguridad informática de los ciudadanos europeos o la preocupación por el espionaje tienen que resolverse mediante leyes más estrictas, regulaciones empresariales minuciosas y una cooperación entre Estados. De hecho, Bruselas tiene preparadas nuevas normas para controlar las inversiones procedentes de terceros paÃses que puedan comprometer la seguridad. Ventilar un conflicto de motivaciones tan complejas con una llamada al miedo en los ciudadanos, como ha hecho Andrus Ansip, no resuelve nada; si acaso demuestra la debilidad de los organismos institucionales.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The shift now underway is unlikely to take the form of a dramatic collapse of American power in the Gulf. It is more likely to be subtler and, for the region, more unsettling.
America’s Achilles’ heel is internal. If it loses this war, it will likely be because much of the media, politicians, and even some of Trump’s allies do not fully understand his policies.
Here was the American president, surrounded by an ultimately submissive team, deciding to go to war on gut feeling and with no visible concern for what it would mean beyond [U.S.] borders.
America’s Achilles’ heel is internal. If it loses this war, it will likely be because much of the media, politicians, and even some of Trump’s allies do not fully understand his policies.
Israel must reduce its military dependence on the United States as much as possible and deepen its technological, military and moral value in American eyes.
European autonomy - military, technological, economic, and financial - is beginning to take shape as Europe hedges against current and future fluctuations in [U.S.] policy.
It would be a political catastrophe for Donald Trump if [Chinese] taikonauts reached the lunar south pole before the U.S. hoisted its flag there again..
This is a particularly opportune moment for Donald Trump to alter the world order in the face of China and Russia and to reshape geopolitics in the Middle East.