“Trump agreeing to a deal that is mostly cosmetic will open him to significant bipartisan political and media attacks, and as we saw with his reaction to the December budget deal he could quickly change his mind in response to the criticism.”
I’m not sure that the December budget deal situation is analogous.
The border wall was Trump’s most prominent rhetorical device during his presidential campaign, and is a much more sensitive issue with Trump’s so-called base (i.e. the kind of people who go to his rallies).
A mostly cosmetic trade deal with the Chinese would disappoint Robert Lighthizer and the American business community, but I wouldn’t expect there to be as big of backlash from the talking heads on Fox News or Trump’s base – after all, would the latter even understand the difference between a cosmetic deal and one addressing longstanding structural issues in China-US trade?
I could be wrong, but I still think the most likely outcome is a trade deal with limited concessions from the Chinese, which Trump will work hard to market as a “win” to his base.
The Sydney Morning Herald: "Britain's former surveillance chief Robert Hannigan said last week that "assertions that any Chinese technology in any part of a 5G network represents an unacceptable risk are nonsense".
Would you believe him or those emissaries of the Great Trump Pompeo and Pence, who are systemic liars. That's a fact by the way.
Bill. re your comments on Huawei, I agree Huawei will lose but it could take five-ten years to lose it which would make the suit sub-judicé. It means Senator Marco Rubio can spout in congress, however public comment could land in him in court. I lived in the US for 33 years and still write on US politics for US readers.
Actually I don't agree with your comments about Huawei re government pressure by the CCP. The influence in my view is no more than Trump forcing corporations to build plants in America's rust belt, whom I might add they obey or at best pay lip service.
Where I differ with you on Xi and the CCP is that you lens is "liberal democracy with capitalistic characteristics" where as I tend to give the Chinese credit for making a nation out of very little, so I don't regard "socialism with Chinese characteristics" as invidious that to lift 1.4billion out of poverty in 40 years is no mean feat. While I don't speak mandarin, I have followed China since 1964 when the sinologist CP Fitzgerald was dean of the Department of Oriental Studies (now Asian Studies) at the Australian national University and bought a copy of Mao's little red book for $1.
A little while ago, I viewed "The East is Red" on Youtube and while the color has faded I was quite stunned how much of that sentiment is reflected in Chinese life. Particularly some of the songs, which the Chinese military chorus sang during the 70th Anniversary of Victory day in 2015. You have to think at some point all events good and bad that make a history and does get absorbed into the narrative. That the cultural revolution is still a marker which for Xi in particular is something he will never forget. It has made him how he is. He is tough, ruthless and he knows he to win, which is why Trump envies him.
Given that Lighthizer and Navarro are haters who hate the fact that China succeeds where America has failed in helping people in poverty out of their cycle, and that their economic practices have succeeded, insisting that China go through structural changes to be like America is repulsive and insulting, but very typical of the US political view. Xi knows that China perseveres in spite of their efforts and that they will be long gone in two years if not sooner, six years at the latest. China can outlast their efforts and will change if and when it sees fit. Not before I wager. The East still is Red it seems.
“Trump agreeing to a deal that is mostly cosmetic will open him to significant bipartisan political and media attacks, and as we saw with his reaction to the December budget deal he could quickly change his mind in response to the criticism.”
I’m not sure that the December budget deal situation is analogous.
The border wall was Trump’s most prominent rhetorical device during his presidential campaign, and is a much more sensitive issue with Trump’s so-called base (i.e. the kind of people who go to his rallies).
A mostly cosmetic trade deal with the Chinese would disappoint Robert Lighthizer and the American business community, but I wouldn’t expect there to be as big of backlash from the talking heads on Fox News or Trump’s base – after all, would the latter even understand the difference between a cosmetic deal and one addressing longstanding structural issues in China-US trade?
I could be wrong, but I still think the most likely outcome is a trade deal with limited concessions from the Chinese, which Trump will work hard to market as a “win” to his base.
Alber & Geiger is one of Huawei’s PR firms active in the EU and US:
https://albergeiger.com/wins/china-corporate-image-in-europe/
The Sydney Morning Herald: "Britain's former surveillance chief Robert Hannigan said last week that "assertions that any Chinese technology in any part of a 5G network represents an unacceptable risk are nonsense".
Would you believe him or those emissaries of the Great Trump Pompeo and Pence, who are systemic liars. That's a fact by the way.
Bill. re your comments on Huawei, I agree Huawei will lose but it could take five-ten years to lose it which would make the suit sub-judicé. It means Senator Marco Rubio can spout in congress, however public comment could land in him in court. I lived in the US for 33 years and still write on US politics for US readers.
Actually I don't agree with your comments about Huawei re government pressure by the CCP. The influence in my view is no more than Trump forcing corporations to build plants in America's rust belt, whom I might add they obey or at best pay lip service.
Where I differ with you on Xi and the CCP is that you lens is "liberal democracy with capitalistic characteristics" where as I tend to give the Chinese credit for making a nation out of very little, so I don't regard "socialism with Chinese characteristics" as invidious that to lift 1.4billion out of poverty in 40 years is no mean feat. While I don't speak mandarin, I have followed China since 1964 when the sinologist CP Fitzgerald was dean of the Department of Oriental Studies (now Asian Studies) at the Australian national University and bought a copy of Mao's little red book for $1.
A little while ago, I viewed "The East is Red" on Youtube and while the color has faded I was quite stunned how much of that sentiment is reflected in Chinese life. Particularly some of the songs, which the Chinese military chorus sang during the 70th Anniversary of Victory day in 2015. You have to think at some point all events good and bad that make a history and does get absorbed into the narrative. That the cultural revolution is still a marker which for Xi in particular is something he will never forget. It has made him how he is. He is tough, ruthless and he knows he to win, which is why Trump envies him.
Given that Lighthizer and Navarro are haters who hate the fact that China succeeds where America has failed in helping people in poverty out of their cycle, and that their economic practices have succeeded, insisting that China go through structural changes to be like America is repulsive and insulting, but very typical of the US political view. Xi knows that China perseveres in spite of their efforts and that they will be long gone in two years if not sooner, six years at the latest. China can outlast their efforts and will change if and when it sees fit. Not before I wager. The East still is Red it seems.