Asia is a crossroad for giants. Not only does the region have a long history of serving as a focal point for trade, it is currently dominated by China as a rising world power and the United States as the world’s most powerful nation. In addition, the likes of Russia and India are constantly redefining their roles as regional powers while less populous nations like Japan and Australia also play critical roles as regional economic powers.
Caught between the forces of these powerful nations, Asia is also home to a variety of smaller, less affluent nations. In order to prosper in such a climate, these nations must assuredly align many of their national policies to the interests of their far more affluent neighbors. If they do not, they can easily be starved of critical investment and trade while the modern military might of the US, China, Russia, and India mean these nations need powerful allies should they find themselves in a conflict with one of these giants. That said, weaker nations risk being forced to neglect their long-term and broader interests in order to provide for their immediate interests.
Comments
Using the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit to promote the Free-Trade Area of the Asia Pacific initiative, China revealed how it intends to counter the effects of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which excludes China. In persuading the US and Russia to spend the next-two years studying the impact of the proposal, China is seeking to undermine any disadvantage TPP would have created for the world’s second largest economy.
Where TPP would give the United States an advantage when competing with China and help drive US consumers away from Chinese imports and encourage greater investment/consumption from other less-powerful, friendlier Asian exporters, FTAAP would solely undermine the ability of governments to tax imports. Consumers might benefit in terms of lower prices and greater access to goods from around the region, however, the greatest benefits would go to the Chinese government. Although it seems fairly odd for a Communist government to embrace Free Trade, China is run more like a business than a country. From its state-owned businesses to its massive subsidies to its military’s corporate espionage to its heavy-handed regulatory infrastructure designed to favor Chinese businesses over foreign competitors, instead of providing for safety, pollution, and labor rights, China is a business like no other. Supporters of Free Trade believe a lack of tariffs leads to lower prices for consumers and tax revenue for governments due to increased economic growth from increased trade, yet even they would have to agree the most direct, most substantial benefits go to corporations that export their goods and invest in foreign markets. The Chinese leadership is willing to lose on tariff revenue and open its economy to more foreign goods, because it can make significantly more through overseas investments due to expanded sales and access to cheaper labor for its industries, which is not true for other governments, but this is only a start to the benefits for the Chinese government. Forever provoking others, Russian President Vladimir Putin has chosen to take advantage of the formalities of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to force a public reaction from Obama by being overly friendly toward the US President at a time when the two global powers are at odds over the Ukraine Crisis. Although the 5 foot, 7 inch Putin is someone who seems to thoroughly enjoy making others feel awkward and intimated, 6 foot, 1inch Obama with his cool and controlled demeanor is not someone who is going to be easily intimated. Consequently, Obama is a challenge for Putin that he is more than willing to take on. The only way of subduing someone like Putin on a mission to instigate is to intimidate him. Where awkwardly avoiding Putin would have given him what he wants and false bravado would have outright failed, Obama’s control over when he engaged Putin and when he chose not to do so put the US President in control. With the 2014 Midterm Elections decided and the American People hoping the political world might offer some solutions to the issues that most concern them, American politicians are hard at work building the foundations of what will be their campaigns in 2016. As a hot-button issue, Obamacare is certain to be a major theme of our political theater over the next two years. Although the Affordable Care Act needs, and has always needed, important changes, the dysfunctional, degenerative dynamic of the US political system is certain to seize upon that need and exploit it.
Entering the second open enrollment period of Obamacare on November 15th, the Obama Administration is hoping to avoid the embarrassing fiasco of last year. While the actual Affordable Care Act cannot be blamed for the malfunction of healthcare.gov, in spite of what critics would like to claim, the reality that a classic lack of sufficient government oversight for private contractors and a long time habit of Washington failing to hold contractors accountable for their failures helped sour many Americans on Obamacare. Sadly, the core function of healthcare.gov to act as a “marketplace” to help consumers purchase healthcare insurance was not new. Companies like eTeleQuote have an established history of helping consumers shop for health insurance policies and providers. In fact, they have even been able to cater to the often”technologically challenged” seniors who are looking to find coverage that can help them deal with the dreaded Medigap. As such, there is no reason healthcare.gov should have had the problems it did. Although there was a great of deal hope a year ago that a deal on Iran’s nuclear program could be reached and Western relations normalized with the rogue state thanks to the rise of moderate President Hassan Rouhani, a deal is likely not possible at this time. Given this reality, the options are limited to extending the deadline again for a deal or breaking off negotiations. Even though a nuclear deal is important and any military option used to address a nuclear Iran would fall short, a break may well be necessary.
With the International Atomic Energy Agency encountering a lack of cooperation on behalf of Iran in regards to several areas of research that hint at the pursuit of a nuclear weapon, despite Iran’s insistence to the contrary, there is clearly strong enough reasons to justify the US breaking off negotiations with Iran. If negotiations were steadily making progress, Iran’s reluctance to reveal state secrets could be overlooked, but they are not. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|