Pubblicato in: Cina, Commercio, Stati Uniti

Cina – Usa. Guerra dei Dazi. Le cifre della contrazione degli scambi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-14.

Washington. White House. 001

The Office of the United States Trade Representative. USTR Statement on Section 301 Tariff Action Regarding China

«08/23/2019

Washington, DC – Today, China announced it will impose unjustified tariffs targeting U.S. products.  In response to China’s decision, and in order to achieve the objectives of the China Section 301 investigation, President Trump has instructed the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to increase by 5% the tariffs on approximately $550 billion worth of Chinese imports.  For the 25% tariffs on approximately $250 billion worth of Chinese imports, USTR will begin the process of increasing the tariff rate to 30%, effective October 1 following a notice and comment period.  For the 10% tariffs on approximately $300 billion worth of Chinese imports that the President announced earlier this month, the tariffs will now be 15%, effective on the already scheduled dates for tariff increases on these imports. 

USTR will publish in the Federal Register as soon as possible additional details on today’s announcement.»

* * *

The Office of the United States Trade Representative ha pubblicato il Report

The People’s Republic of China

* * *

«L’import di merci statunitensi è diminuito del 22% in agosto rispetto all’anno precedente, a quota 10,3 miliardi di dollari, dopo gli aumenti dei dazi cinesi e l’ingiunzione alle aziende di annullare gli ordini»

«L’export verso gli Usa, il più grande mercato cinese, sono affondate del 16% a 44,4 miliardi di dollari»

*

«U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $737.1 billion in 2018. Exports were $179.3 billion; imports were $557.9 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $378.6 billion in 2018.»

«China is currently our largest goods trading partner with $659.8 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2018. Goods exports totaled $120.3 billion; goods imports totaled $539.5 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China was $419.2 billion in 2018.»

«Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $77.3 billion in 2018. Services exports were $58.9 billion; services imports were $18.4 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $40.5 billion in 2018.»

«U.S. goods exports to China in 2018 were $120.3 billion, down 7.4% ($9.6 billion) from 2017 but up 72.6% from 2008. U.S. exports to China are up 527% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). U.S. exports to China account for 7.2% of overall U.S. exports in 2018.»

«The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: aircraft ($18 billion), machinery ($14 billion), electrical machinery ($13 billion), optical and medical instruments ($9.8 billion), and vehicles ($9.4 billion).»

«U.S. exports of services to China were an estimated $58.9 billion in 2018, 2.2% ($1.3 billion) more than 2017, and 272% greater than 2008 levels.»

«China was the United States’ largest supplier of goods imports in 2018.»

«U.S. goods imports from China totaled $539.5 billion in 2018, up 6.7% ($34.0 billion) from 2017, and up 59.7% from 2008. U.S. imports from are up 427% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). U.S. imports from China account for 21.2% of overall U.S. imports in 2018.»

«The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: electrical machinery ($152 billion), machinery ($117 billion), furniture and bedding ($35 billion), toys and sports equipment ($27 billion), and plastics ($19 billion).»

* * * * * * *

L’interscambio Cina – US ammontava nel 2018 a 737.1 miliardi Usd. Il deficit commerciale per i beni ammontava a 419.2 miliardi Usd. Le importazione americane dalla Cina costituivano il 21.2% delle importazioni totali.

È semplicemente evidente come un deficit di simile livello sia intollerabile anche solo nel breve – medio periodo.

Altrettanto evidente dovrebbe essere come un caso così singolare non possa essere affrontato e risolto nell’ambito di trattative pluripolari, ma richieda una trattativa a due.

Ma altrettanto evidente appare il fatto che la Cina faccia di tutto per mantenere il proprio export, mentre gli Usa facciano il loro possibile per ridurlo e contenerlo. Si prospetta quindi un contenzioso duro e duraturo nel tempo.


Ansa. 2019-09-08. Dazi, crolla il commercio tra Usa e Cina

PECHINO, 8 SET – Il commercio della Cina con gli Usa crolla bruscamente mentre non si vedono segnali per la fine della guerra dei dazi. L’import di merci statunitensi è diminuito del 22% in agosto rispetto all’anno precedente, a quota 10,3 miliardi di dollari, dopo gli aumenti dei dazi cinesi e l’ingiunzione alle aziende di annullare gli ordini. L’export verso gli Usa, il più grande mercato cinese, sono affondate del 16% a 44,4 miliardi di dollari, per i dazi punitivi imposti dal presidente Donald Trump.

*


Office of the United States Trade Representative. The People’s Republic of China

U.S.-China Trade Facts

U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $737.1 billion in 2018. Exports were $179.3 billion; imports were $557.9 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $378.6 billion in 2018.

China is currently our largest goods trading partner with $659.8 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2018. Goods exports totaled $120.3 billion; goods imports totaled $539.5 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China was $419.2 billion in 2018.

Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $77.3 billion in 2018. Services exports were $58.9 billion; services imports were $18.4 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $40.5 billion in 2018.

According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of Goods and Services to China supported an estimated 911,000 jobs in 2015 (latest data available) (601,000 supported by goods exports and 309,000 supported by services exports).

Exports

– China was the United States’ 3rd largest goods export market in 2018.

– U.S. goods exports to China in 2018 were $120.3 billion, down 7.4% ($9.6 billion) from 2017 but up 72.6% from 2008. U.S. exports to China are up 527% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). U.S. exports to China account for 7.2% of overall U.S. exports in 2018.

– The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: aircraft ($18 billion), machinery ($14 billion), electrical machinery ($13 billion), optical and medical instruments ($9.8 billion), and vehicles ($9.4 billion).

– U.S. total exports of agricultural products to China totaled $9.3 billion in 2018, our 4th largest agricultural export market. Leading domestic export categories include: soybeans ($3.1 billion), cotton ($924 million), hides & skins ($607 million), pork & pork products ($571 million), and coarse grains (ex. corn) ($530 million).

– U.S. exports of services to China were an estimated $58.9 billion in 2018, 2.2% ($1.3 billion) more than 2017, and 272% greater than 2008 levels. It was up roughly 997% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). Leading services exports from the U.S. to China were in the travel, intellectual property (trademark, computer software), and transport sectors.

Imports

– China was the United States’ largest supplier of goods imports in 2018.

– U.S. goods imports from China totaled $539.5 billion in 2018, up 6.7% ($34.0 billion) from 2017, and up 59.7% from 2008. U.S. imports from are up 427% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). U.S. imports from China account for 21.2% of overall U.S. imports in 2018.

– The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: electrical machinery ($152 billion), machinery ($117 billion), furniture and bedding ($35 billion), toys and sports equipment ($27 billion), and plastics ($19 billion).

– U.S. total imports of agricultural products from China totaled $4.9 billion in 2018, our 3rd largest supplier of agricultural imports. Leading categories include: processed fruit & vegetables ($1.2 billion), fruit & vegetable juices ($393 million), snack foods ($222 million), spices ($167 million), and fresh vegetables ($160 million).

– U.S. imports of services from China were an estimated $18.4 billion in 2018, 5.5% ($963 million) more than 2017, and 68.3% greater than 2008 levels. It was up roughly 414% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). Leading services imports from China to the U.S. were in the transport, travel, and research and development sectors.

Trade Balance

– The U.S. goods trade deficit with China was $419.2 billion in 2018, a 11.6% increase ($43.6 billion) over 2017.

– The United States has a services trade surplus of an estimated $41 billion with China in 2018, up 0.8% from 2017.

Investment

– U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China (stock) was $107.6 billion in 2017, a 10.6% increase from 2016. U.S. direct investment in China is led by manufacturing, wholesale trade, and finance and insurance.

– China’s FDI in the United States (stock) was $39.5 billion in 2017, down 2.3% from 2016. China’s direct investment in the U.S. is led by manufacturing, real estate, and depository institutions.

 – Sales of services in China by majority U.S.-owned affiliates were $55.1 billion in 2016 (latest data available), while sales of services in the United States by majority China-owned firms were $8.3 billion.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ong - Ngo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Corte Suprema ripristina le limitazioni alle richieste di asilo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-13.

Supreme Court

«Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finché prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito»

* * * * * * *

Questa è la documentazione rilasciata dalla Suprema Corte.

Aug 26 2019      Application (19A230) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Aug 27 2019      Response to application (19A230) requested by Justice Kagan, due Wednesday, September 4, 2019, by 3 p.m.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Immigration Reform Law Institute.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Arizona, et al.

Sep 04 2019       Response to application from respondents East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. filed.

Sep 04 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Non-Profit Organizations and Law School Clinics.

Sep 06 2019       Reply of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 10 2019       Supplemental brief of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 11 2019       Letter of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. received.

* * * * * * *

Il problema è semplice e può essere visto da due punti di vista differenti.

Nel caso specifico, la Suprema Corte ha dichiarato legale la normativa governativa che preclude dal diritto di asilo i migranti illegali che abbiano transitato in altri stati ai quali avrebbero potuto rivolgersi in piena sicurezza. La Suprema Corte ribalta quindi le sentenze emesse sia dal giudice distrettuale sia da quello federale del Nono Circuito, che erano state emesse con valore applicativo su tutta la nazione.

Dal punto di vista generale, invece, si ripropone il quesito dei limiti entro i quali i giudici di livello inferiore possano emettere sentenze su dispositivi nazionali in materia francamente politica, sentenziando anche con argomentazioni politiche.

Non solo quindi un problema giuridico in sé e per sé, ma anche politico: mentre infatti il Presidente degli Stati Uniti è stato eletto da libere elezioni, i giudici sono semplici funzionari della pubblica amministrazione.

Se per il concetto di divisione dei poteri la politica dovrebbe astenersi dall’immettersi nelle procedure sentenziali, il potere giudiziario dovrebbe astenersi dal voler svolgere ruolo politico.

* * * * * * *

«The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for President Trump and his administration to enforce a ban on nearly all asylum seekers arriving at the southern border.»

«In a one-paragraph order, the justices by a 7-2 vote granted an emergency appeal from Trump administration lawyers and set aside decisions from judges in California who had blocked the president’s new rule from taking effect.»

«While it is not a final ruling on the issue, the decision is nonetheless a major victory for Trump and his effort to restrict immigration because it allows the asylum ban to be enforced at the southern border while the dispute wends its way through the courts. That potentially could last for the remainder of Trump’s current term in office.»

«Wednesday’s order is further evidence that Trump is changing how the Supreme Court works. Prior to 2017, it was rare for federal judges to issue nationwide orders that blocked actions of the federal government. And it was also rare for the high court to intervene in such pending cases with emergency orders, rather than holding oral arguments and releasing written decisions.»

«In late July, the justices cleared the way by a 5-4 vote for Trump to spend $2.5 billion from the military budget to pay for border wall construction. Congress had refused to appropriate the money, and a federal judge in Oakland and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked the transfer.»

«U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar in San Francisco agreed and issued a nationwide injunction that barred enforcement of the new rule. The 9th Circuit Court upheld this order, but restricted its reach to California and Arizona.»

«U.S. Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court in late August in the case of Barr vs. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. He urged the justices to lift the injunction and allow the new rule to take effect immediately. Doing so would “alleviate a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system,” he said.»

* * * * * * *


 Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant (09/11/2019)

«SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 19A230.

 The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction andSeptember 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’spetition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the peti­tion, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.»

*


Trump lawyers ask Supreme Court to allow rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide. [2019-08-26]

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow a rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide while a lower court ruling blocking it is appealed.

A federal judge had blocked the Trump administration rule, which dramatically limits the ability of Central American migrants to claim asylum if they enter the US by land through Mexico, nationwide. Earlier this month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals dialed back the nationwide injunction, saying that it can only apply to migrants claiming asylum in California and Arizona, states that fall under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

In its filing Monday, the administration laid out its case for the rule, arguing that, among other things, it “alleviates a crushing burden on the US asylum system” and deters migrants from coming to the US.

“The injunction now in effect is deeply flawed and should be stayed pending appeal and pending any further proceedings in this Court,” the filing reads.

The Trump administration has rolled out a slew of policies in recent weeks to try to curb migration to the United States amid high border apprehension numbers. The solicitor general acknowledged the uptick in illegal border crossings in Monday’s filing.

The rule, which was issued from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security in July, would prohibit migrants who have resided in or traveled through a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum. The result would be a severe limiting of who’s eligible for asylum.

Immigrant advocacy groups have claimed the rule is unlawful and leaves migrants in harm’s way.

In his July ruling, US District Judge Jon Tigar, a Barack Obama nominee, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote, “This new rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”

“An injunction,” Tigar added, “would vindicate the public’s interest — which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate — in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors.”

The US District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing in early September.

*


Supreme Court Allows Broad Enforcement of Asylum Limits

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.

The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.

“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.

The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”


Usa: Corte suprema, ok a limiti asilo

Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finche’ prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Commercio, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Stati Uniti

Cina. Dazi Usa e falsi formaggi italiani imitati in Cina ed esportati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-12.

CAVALIER-KING__004__

Come dovrebbe essere buona abitudine, prima di parlare informarsi non dovrebbe nuocere troppo. Spesso si ottengono informazioni sconcertanti.

L’Italia esporta molti prodotti alimentari negli Stati Uniti.

«settori di punta dell’agroalimentare nazionale in Usa a partire dal vino che con un valore delle esportazioni di 1,5 miliardi di euro nel 2018 è il prodotto Made in Italy più colpito»

«l’olio di oliva le cui esportazioni nel 2018 sono state pari a 436 milioni, la pasta con 305 milioni, formaggi con 273 milioni»

* * *

«Nell’elenco dei prodotti provenienti dalla Cina colpiti dai superdazi Usa c’è anche una lunga lista di formaggi di imitazione del Made in Italy, dal Reggiano al Provolone, dal Parmesan al Romano ottenuto però con latte di mucca e non di pecora»

«La decisione di inserire nella lista anche le imitazioni dei formaggi nazionali – sottolinea la Coldiretti – risponde alle sollecitazioni della lobby americana del falso formaggio italiano che si vuole difendere dalla concorrenza cinese»

«Infatti il falso Made in Italy fattura 23 miliardi negli Usa dove le brutte copie dei prodotti caseari nazionali ha avuto una crescita esponenziale negli ultimi 30 anni ed è realizzata per quasi i due terzi in Wisconsin e California mentre lo Stato di New York si colloca al terzo posto»

«In termini quantitativi in cima alla classifica – precisa Coldiretti – c’è la mozzarella con 1,89 miliardi di chili all’anno, seguita dal Parmesan con 204 milioni di chili, dal provolone con 180 milioni di chili, dalla ricotta con 108 milioni di chili e dal Romano con 26 milioni di chili realizzato però senza latte di pecora»

* * *

Con i nuovi dazi al 15% entrati in vigore su circa 112 miliardi di dollari di prodotti cinesi risulterebbero essere colpiti import per ben 23 miliardi Usd di prodotti alimentari artefatti fabbricati in Cina, brutta copia di prodotti italiani.

In termini di fatturato, i prodotti falsi cinesi hanno un volume superiore a quello nostrano esportato negli Stati Uniti, che non è intaccato dal provvedimento.

Questo fatto pone un problema di ampio respiro.

Sicuramente l’Italia può proteggere i propri prodotti sul suo suolo nazionale, ma altrettanto sicuramente essa è impotente nel bloccare i paesi che ne falsificano i prodotti e quindi li esportano all’estero.

I ricorsi agli enti internazionali lasciano il tempo che trovano, ed anche un’accurata propaganda sulla grande differenza qualitativa tra prodotti originale e quelli falsificati non prospetta risultato alcuno.

Un problema non da poco è quello dei prezzi.

Pur ammettendone l’ottima qualità, molti prodotti italiani sono commercializzati a prezzi troppo superiori ai relativi falsi. A ciò consegue invariabilmente la spinta ad un ulteriore aumento di prezzo con relativo transito nei cibi di élite per occupare nicchie nella fascia alta del mercato, oppure soccombere alla concorrenza.


Ansa. 2019-09-02. Coldiretti, tra Usa e Cina anche falsi formaggi italiani

Nell’elenco dei prodotti provenienti dalla Cina colpiti dai superdazi Usa c’è anche una lunga lista di formaggi di imitazione del Made in Italy, dal Reggiano al Provolone, dal Parmesan al Romano ottenuto però con latte di mucca e non di pecora. È quanto emerge da una analisi della Coldiretti sui nuovi dazi al 15% entrati in vigore su circa 112 miliardi di dollari di prodotti cinesi, che colpiscono anche molti beni alimentari.

“La decisione di inserire nella lista anche le imitazioni dei formaggi nazionali – sottolinea la Coldiretti – risponde alle sollecitazioni della lobby americana del falso formaggio italiano che si vuole difendere dalla concorrenza cinese.
Infatti il falso Made in Italy fattura 23 miliardi negli Usa dove le brutte copie dei prodotti caseari nazionali ha avuto una crescita esponenziale negli ultimi 30 anni ed è realizzata per quasi i due terzi in Wisconsin e California mentre lo Stato di New York si colloca al terzo posto. In termini quantitativi in cima alla classifica – precisa Coldiretti – c’è la mozzarella con 1,89 miliardi di chili all’anno, seguita dal Parmesan con 204 milioni di chili, dal provolone con 180 milioni di chili, dalla ricotta con 108 milioni di chili e dal Romano con 26 milioni di chili realizzato però senza latte di pecora, secondo l’analisi Coldiretti su dati Usda”. “Dalle prossime mosse protezioniste di Trump sono in gioco – conclude la Coldiretti – settori di punta dell’agroalimentare nazionale in Usa a partire dal vino che con un valore delle esportazioni di 1,5 miliardi di euro nel 2018 è il prodotto Made in Italy più colpito, l’olio di oliva le cui esportazioni nel 2018 sono state pari a 436 milioni, la pasta con 305 milioni, formaggi con 273 milioni”.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Il Pentagono stanzia i fondi per il muro.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-05.

Washington. White House. 001

Se i liberal democratici fossero stati di accordo, ci si sarebbe lecitamente domandato cosa di losco ci fosse sotto.

*

«The Trump administration secured a major win in July after the Supreme Court lifted a spending freeze on money for the wall.»

*

«The US Defense Department has greenlit $3.6 billion to build a controversial wall on the border with Mexico. The money is being diverted from existing military projects»

«US President Donald Trump’s plans to build a border wall with Mexico moved forward on Tuesday, with the Pentagon approving billions to construct 175 miles (282 kilometers) of the border »

«Defense Secretary Mark Esper approved $3.6 billion (€3.28 billion), diverting the money from 127 current military projects both inside and outside the US»

«Esper said that the border wall projects “are necessary to support the use of the armed forces in connection with the national emergency,”»

«The move puts lawmakers who blocked Trump’s wall funding in a difficult position, as they must now decide if they will refund the projects that are being used to channel money to the wall»

* * * * * * *

Così, alla fin fine, Mr Trump è riuscito a mantenere anche questa promessa.

«The Pentagon’s decision to approve the wall funds, and to pull that money from existing military projects sparked the ire of the opposition Democrats.»

Le lamentose doglie dei liberal democratici sono la evidente prova di quanto Mr Trump stia operano per il bene degli Stati Uniti.


Pentagon approves billions to build Trump’s border wall with Mexico

The US Defense Department has greenlit $3.6 billion to build a controversial wall on the border with Mexico. The money is being diverted from existing military projects, sparking criticism from Democrats.

US President Donald Trump’s plans to build a border wall with Mexico moved forward on Tuesday, with the Pentagon approving billions to construct 175 miles (282 kilometers) of the border.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper approved $3.6 billion (€3.28 billion), diverting the money from 127 current military projects both inside and outside the US.

The money is being diverted from 127 current military projects both inside and outside of the US.

Esper said that the border wall projects “are necessary to support the use of the armed forces in connection with the national emergency,” CNN reported, citing a letter sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Trump declared a “national emergency” in February at the US southern border after lawmakers in Congress refused to approve the $5.7 billion Trump had demanded to the long-promised barrier.

Wall funds ‘slap in the face’ to military

The Pentagon’s decision to approve the wall funds, and to pull that money from existing military projects sparked the ire of the opposition Democrats.

“It is a slap in the face to the members of the armed forces who serve our country that President Trump is willing to cannibalize already allocated military funding to boost his own ego and for a wall he promised Mexico would pay to build,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

“Congress will strongly oppose any funds for new wall construction,” he added.

The move puts lawmakers who blocked Trump’s wall funding in a difficult position, as they must now decide if they will refund the projects that are being used to channel money to the wall.

The Trump administration secured a major win in July after the Supreme Court lifted a spending freeze on money for the wall. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said it would challenge the latest wall funding attempt in court.

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Cina, Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Cina – Usa. La guerra commerciale e dei dazi si internazionalizza.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-04.

2019-09-02__Cina-Usa__000

Più che guerra commerciale e dei dazi la si dovrebbe chiamare guerra per la supremazia mondiale. Il fatto che per il momento non sia combattuta con le armi non conferisce certezza alla speranza che mai ciò possa avvenire.

Un elemento di spicco nel trattare questo argomento è che quasi invariabilmente si faccia riferimento al punto di vista occidentale, spesso letto in chiave liberal, e quasi mai si prendano in considerazione le ragioni cinesi.

Similmente, si resta alquanto sorpresi come il quadro di lettura sia limitato ad dazi, mentre altri fenomeni sono forse di ben maggiore rilievo.

Wall Street sprofonda. Svalutazione del renmimbi cinese affossa i mercati

«Ieri le accuse dirette di Donald Trump via Twitter alla Cina, accusata di fare “manipolazione della valuta”, abbassando il prezzo del renmimbi (yuan) al “minimo quasi storico”»

«E nei fatti la svalutazione dello yuan provoca una pioggia di vendite a Wall Street che sprofonda.»

«Siamo quindi passati dalla guerra sui dazi commerciali per penalizzare i prodotti del Paese concorrente, alla guerra valutaria quale forma di compensazione per i forti dazi imposti dagli USA alla Cina.»

«Detto in parole povere. Se gli USA aumentano le tasse sull’importazione dei prodotti cinesi, la Cina risponde svalutando lo yuan così da mantenere i prezzi dei suoi prodotti esportati comunque competitivi.»

* * *

La risposta cinese ai dazi americani è stata in linea con la loro visione: svalutando il Renminbi hanno optato per un’azione globale, che colpisce sicuramente gli Usa ed in parte vanifica il peso di dazi maggiorati, ma in realtà è destinata ad influenzare le esportazioni cinesi in tutto il mondo.

Il 1° marzo 2019 il rapporto Usd / Yuan valeva 6.69, mentre ad oggi vale 7.14. Così facendo l’export cinese è avvantaggiato anche ben fuori dall’America: per esempio nella Unione Europea e nell’America latina.

L’International Monetary Fund stimava a fine 2017 un pil a prezzi correnti di 12,015 miliardi Usd per la Cina e 19,391 per gli Usa. L’eurozona era stimata 16,199 miliardi Usd. Ma passando al pil ppa, la Cina valeva 17,617 miliardi Usd, gli Stati Uniti 17,418, e l’eurozona 11,249. Ancora più significative le proiezioni al 2023: 37,066 miliardi Usd la Cina e 24,537 gli Usa. Ma il quadro sarebbe incompleto senza menzionare l’India con un pil ppa stimato al 2030 di 21,511 miliardi Usd, circa cinque volte maggiore di quello germanico.

Leggendo quindi i dati sui dazi alla luce di questi elementi ben si comprende come l’Occidente stia combattendo una battaglia di retroguardia, ove l’arma dei dazi dovrebbe soltanto dare un po’ di respiro alla produzione, che resta sempre in attesa di riforme strutturali. Le mappe del potere economico mondiale stanno variando rapidamente.

* * *

«The US has imposed fresh tariffs on $112bn (£92bn) of Chinese imported goods»

«The new tariffs are a sharp escalation in the bruising trade war between the world’s two largest economies»

«The move is the first phase of US President Donald Trump’s latest plan to place 15% duties on $300bn of Chinese imports by the end of the year»

«If fully imposed, Mr Trump’s programme would mean that nearly all Chinese imports – worth about $550bn – would be subject to punitive tariffs»

«Beijing has consistently denied that it engages in unfair trade practices, and has retaliated with tariffs on $110bn of US products»

«China has retaliated with a 5% levy on crude oil, along with measures targeting $75bn of US goods. The measures included extra tariffs of 5% and 10% on nearly 1,717 targeted products»

* * *

Non ci si illuda che questa guerra commerciale resti confinata al duello Cina – Usa. Piaccia o meno, alla fine tutti dovranno schierarsi.

S.Korea’s export posts double-digit fall in August

«SEOUL, Sept. 1 (Xinhua) — South Korea’s export posted a double-digit fall last month, continuing a downward trend for the ninth consecutive month, a government report showed Sunday.

Export, which accounts for about half of the export-driven economy, diminished 13.6 percent from a year earlier to 44.2 billion U.S. dollars in August, according to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.

The outbound shipment kept sliding for nine straight months since December last year.

Import slipped 4.2 percent over the year to 42.48 billion dollars in August, sending the trade surplus to 1.72 billion dollars. The trade balance stayed in the black for 91 months in a row.

The global trade dispute weakened world trade, hitting hard the South Korean economy that relies heavily on export for growth.»

L’annuncio è dato sobriamente da Xinhuanet. Nei media occidentali solo un mesto trafiletto.

Trade war drives ‘innocent’ Asian nations towards recession

«Rising fears about the health of the global economy have prompted talk of recession, spreading anxiety about jobs and growth.

The US-China trade war is casting a shadow over the world economy and warning signs of a looming downturn have flashed on financial markets.

Recession poses no immediate threat to the biggest economies in Asia, although they are slowing down. Yet some smaller economies in the region – including Hong Kong and Singapore – are definitely at risk.

They are what Louis Kuijs, head of Asia economics at Oxford Economics, calls the “innocent bystanders” in the trade fight between Washington and Beijing.

“These are small, open economies, where trade – and trade with China – is extremely important,” says Mr Kuijs.

Here’s a look at what’s driving the slowdown in Asia’s top economies, as well as the countries at risk of recession»


Bbc. 2019-09-01. Trade war: US hits China with new wave of tariffs

The US has imposed fresh tariffs on $112bn (£92bn) of Chinese imported goods.

The new tariffs are a sharp escalation in the bruising trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

The move is the first phase of US President Donald Trump’s latest plan to place 15% duties on $300bn of Chinese imports by the end of the year.

In response, Beijing introduced tariffs on US crude oil, the first time fuel has been targeted.

If fully imposed, Mr Trump’s programme would mean that nearly all Chinese imports – worth about $550bn – would be subject to punitive tariffs.

What was initially a dispute over China’s allegedly unfair trade practices is increasingly seen as a geopolitical power struggle.

A quick guide to the US-China war

The US-China trade row in charts

So far, Washington has imposed tariffs on some $250bn of Chinese goods to pressure Beijing into changing its policies on intellectual property, industrial subsidies, market access, and the forced transfers of technology to Chinese firms.

Beijing has consistently denied that it engages in unfair trade practices, and has retaliated with tariffs on $110bn of US products.

Businesses are finding it increasingly hard to navigate the uncertainty of the long-running trade dispute.

Analysts say that in view of the latest escalation, the prospect of a resolution looks grim.

“It’s difficult at this stage to see how there can be a deal or at least a good deal,” Julian Evans-Pritchard, a senior China economist at Capital Economics, told the BBC.

“Since talks broke down back in May, the position of both sides has hardened and there have been other complications, namely the Huawei ban and Hong Kong protests, which have made it even more difficult to bridge the gap.”

The US government put Huawei on a trade blacklist in May, while President Trump has tied protests in Hong Kong to a possible trade deal with China.

What is expected on 1 September?

The US is due to impose a 15% tariff on $300bn worth of Chinese goods by the end of the year in two rounds.

The first round of duties comes into force from 1 September and analysts expect those tariffs will target imports worth about $150bn.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative would not clarify the value of goods due to be hit with tariffs this month.

Products to be targeted in September range from meat and cheese to pens and footwear.

The 15% rate supersedes the 10% originally planned and was announced last week as tensions between the two sides escalated.

China has retaliated with a 5% levy on crude oil, along with measures targeting $75bn of US goods.

The measures included extra tariffs of 5% and 10% on nearly 1,717 targeted products.

How has industry reacted?

Mr Trump has repeatedly argued that China pays for tariffs, but many US companies have rebutted that claim.

More than 200 footwear firms – including Nike and Converse – said the new duties would add to existing tariffs of up to 67% on some shoes, driving up costs for consumers by $4bn each year.

They said the incoming tariffs on footwear would “also mean these massive tax increases hit tens of millions of Americans when they purchase shoes during the holiday season”.

The American Chamber of Commerce in China also voiced concerns after the US said it was going ahead with new tariffs.

“Our members have long been clear that tariffs are paid by consumers and harm business,” it said in a statement.

“We urge… that both sides work towards a sustainable agreement as soon as possible that resolves the fundamental, structural issues foreign businesses have long faced in China.”

What’s next?

President Trump has said that trade teams from the US and China are continuing to talk and will meet in September, but further details have not been publicly confirmed.

From 15 December, the second phase of 15% tariffs will be rolled out on the remainder of Chinese good not previously affected.

This includes technology like phones and computers which President Trump has sought to protect until now.

On the same date, China will roll out tariffs on around 3,000 more US products.

The Trump administration plans, in addition, to raise the rates on existing duties from 25% to 30% on 1 October.

Mr Evans-Pritchard from Capital Economics said this rate could increase further still.

“The tariff rate could go all the way up to 45%,” he said. “Those are the goods that do the most damage to China and the least collateral damage to the US.”

For the US and Chinese economies, analysts say the pressure created by tariffs is also building.

“The full-blown trade war, together with China’s retaliation in kind, could reduce potential US GDP growth in the short run by almost 1%,” says Gary Hufbauer of the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“The impact on China would be larger, as much as 5%.”

The USTR said that, until 20 September, it would be collecting public comments on the planned tariff increases to 30%.

——-

How do they differ from previous tariffs?

Katie Prescott, BBC Business Reporter

It’s the American consumer who will bear the brunt of these fresh tariffs, unlike previous rounds which have hit the manufacturing sector hardest.

Nappies, dishwashers, shoes, clothes, food – looking through the 122-page list of eligible products, it’s hard to find something that’s not on there.

Many retailers say they have little choice but to pass on the cost to shoppers.

The president of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, Rick Helfenbein, describes the tariffs as like “punishing your daughter for something your son did. It makes no sense”.

The next round of tariffs on more clothes and big-ticket items like laptops and iPhones are due in December. Donald Trump says this will help to protect spending during the Christmas season.

By the end of the year, they’ll be in place on almost all of the $550bn of goods that the US buys every year from China.

And that could add up to $800 to the average household’s annual spend, according to Katheryn Russ from the University of California.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Commercio, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Geopolitica Asiatica, Stati Uniti

Guerra mondiale valutaria e commerciale. South Korea nei triboli.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-03.

2019-09-02__South Korea 001

Ci si sarebbe stupiti fortemente se la guerra valutaria e commerciale in corso tra Stati Uniti e Cina non avesse coinvolto anche tutte le altre nazioni, specie quelle dell’Unione Europea e del sud – est asiatico.

Sulla attuale situazione proprio nel sud – est asiatico la Bbc ha pubblicato un interessante report che riportiamo in calce, senza le figure che avrebbero occupato troppo spazio.

Nel novero, però, la situazione della South Korea sembrerebbe essere una delle più colpite.

«Concerns swirled earlier this year that South Korea could slip into recession. But it managed to avoid that outcome after huge government spending helped the economy swing back to growth in the second quarter.

Gross domestic product grew 1.1% in the three months to June compared with the previous quarter, when South Korea posted its sharpest contraction since the global financial crisis. In July, the country’s central bank cut rates for the first time in three years.

Much of the pain has been caused by faltering tech exports, driven by the global electronics slowdown. That trade is crucial to South Korea, since electronics account for around 30% of the country’s exports. A simmering trade battle with Japan is adding more uncertainty to South Korea’s growth prospects.»

Uno dei problemi della South Korea è legato al fatto che

«the global electronics slowdown»

«electronics account for around 30% of the country’s exports»

Ciò che un anno fa sarebbe stato considerato una eresia economica si è puntualmente verificato: il mercato dell’elettronica inizia a contrarsi, ma questo settore reggeva oltre il 30% dell’export della South Korea.

A ciò si aggiungano i danni del duello in atto con il Giappone.

How Japan’s trade row with South Korea could hit tech supplies

«A trade spat between Japan and South Korea threatens to spill beyond their borders, posing potential risks to consumer electronics supplies around the world.

The row stems from export restrictions Tokyo imposed on certain industrial materials that Seoul needs to make semiconductors and display screens.

Japan has also warned tougher trade curbs could be on the way.

The moves have drawn anger from South Korea, and earlier this month President Moon Jae-in described the situation as an “unprecedented emergency” for his country’s economy.

On Tuesday, officials from Seoul will bring the dispute to a meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) General Council.

They hope to convince the international community that Japan has violated global trading rules, and the measures should be rescinded.

The simmering dispute is seen as the latest example of countries using trade as a weapon in diplomatic battles.

“There’s blame to be had on both sides,”»

* * *

Il punto è semplice:

«export restrictions Tokyo imposed on certain industrial materials that Seoul needs to make semiconductors and display screens».

Il sistema economico sudkoreano ha montato una serie di produzioni che dipendono nei fatti dalla possibilità di importare materia prima ovvero semilavorata, esponendosi così a dipendere dai fornitori di quei beni ed agli umori degli acquirenti.

La cosa in sé non sarebbe negativa, se però l’espansione del settore fossa stata tenuta meglio sotto controllo: un settore così dipendente dall’estero avrebbe dovuto essere bilanciato tramite una ampia diversificazione.

Adesso sono oltre sei mesi che l’export della South Korea scende mese dopo mese con variazioni yoy negative a due cifre percentuali.

Questa è una situazione non sostenibile nel tempo.

* * * * * * *


Bbc. 2019-09-01. Trade war drives ‘innocent’ Asian nations towards recession

Rising fears about the health of the global economy have prompted talk of recession, spreading anxiety about jobs and growth.

The US-China trade war is casting a shadow over the world economy and warning signs of a looming downturn have flashed on financial markets.

Recession poses no immediate threat to the biggest economies in Asia, although they are slowing down. Yet some smaller economies in the region – including Hong Kong and Singapore – are definitely at risk.

They are what Louis Kuijs, head of Asia economics at Oxford Economics, calls the “innocent bystanders” in the trade fight between Washington and Beijing.

“These are small, open economies, where trade – and trade with China – is extremely important,” says Mr Kuijs.

Here’s a look at what’s driving the slowdown in Asia’s top economies, as well as the countries at risk of recession:

China

Growth in the world’s second-largest economy has been for easing for years. The latest figures show China’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew 6.2% in the second quarter, its slowest pace since the early 1990s.

The trade war that has seen Washington impose tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods is adding more strain.

It has hurt some Chinese firms, with roughly 20% of the country’s exports sent to the US. But perhaps more harmful to businesses is the lack of clarity over when the long-running dispute will end.

“The one thing that is affecting business plans is the uncertainty of the US-China trade war, probably more important than the tariffs,” says Mr Kuijs.

“The uncertainty is a major factor of [the concerns] we see globally.”

Beijing has taken a series of steps this year to support the economy, including tax cuts and infrastructure spending. For 2019, the government is targeting growth of between 6% and 6.5%.

Japan

Mr Kuijs points out that what happens to China matters a lot to the rest of Asia.

The slowdown there and the trade war have knocked business confidence in Japan, a country also grappling with softer global demand for its exports, such as electronic equipment and car parts.

A quick guide to the US-China trade war

But its latest economic figures were fairly upbeat. Preliminary data showed GDP increased 0.4% in the second quarter – beating an expected 0.1% rise – thanks to strong consumer spending.

Still, the world’s third-largest economy faces a threat to spending when a long-awaited sales tax increase is introduced in October.

“Conditions probably won’t remain as healthy as they are now, as domestic demand is set to weaken after the tax hike,” Capital Economics Japan economist Marcel Thieliant says.

India

Over in Asia’s third-largest economy, growth has faltered amid sluggish demand at home and weak investment. India’s latest quarterly GDP growth dropped to a five-year low of 5.8%. The next GDP reading, due 30 August, could be weaker still.

The country has relied on domestic consumption to spur its huge economy, but spending has slowed sharply.

Car sales are one troubling example. In July, passenger vehicle sales plunged 31%, the steepest monthly fall in nearly two decades. The sector has slashed jobs and cut production as sales dry up.

India announces retaliatory US tariffs

India no longer world’s fastest-growing economy

So far this year, India’s central bank has cut rates four times. The benchmark rate currently sits at a near-decade low.

More stimulus measures to boost the economy, which is also battling the threat of a widening trade conflict with the US, are expected this year.

Hong Kong

The Asian financial hub is fighting the pressures of a slowdown in China, the trade war and political unrest. Some economists expect that combination to push the territory into recession before long.

Gross domestic product shrank 0.4% in the three months to June compared with the previous quarter.

But those figures did not capture the impact of the pro-democracy protests that have gripped Hong Kong for more than two months, hitting tourism and retail sales.

Hong Kong protests in 300 words

Economists at DBS and Capital Economics are among those expecting that third-quarter numbers, due out in November, will show Hong Kong has fallen into a technical recession, defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

Singapore

The trade-dependent city state has been hit by weak global demand, slowing growth in China and the trade war.

Singapore is reliant on high-tech exports – and softer demand for electronics around the world has darkened its economic outlook.

The economy shrank by 3.3% in the second quarter, on a seasonally adjusted annualised basis. That prompted the government to cut its growth forecasts for 2019 to between 0% and 1%.

Oxford Economics expects that third-quarter GDP numbers, due in October, will show a contraction, meaning that Singapore will enter a technical recession.

Trade war infects Asia as exports plunge

Mr Kuijs says the impact of the trade war on Hong Kong and Singapore is “larger than in China itself, even though no one is imposing any tariffs on these countries”.

South Korea

Concerns swirled earlier this year that South Korea could slip into recession. But it managed to avoid that outcome after huge government spending helped the economy swing back to growth in the second quarter.

Gross domestic product grew 1.1% in the three months to June compared with the previous quarter, when South Korea posted its sharpest contraction since the global financial crisis. In July, the country’s central bank cut rates for the first time in three years.

Much of the pain has been caused by faltering tech exports, driven by the global electronics slowdown. That trade is crucial to South Korea, since electronics account for around 30% of the country’s exports. A simmering trade battle with Japan is adding more uncertainty to South Korea’s growth prospects.

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Unione Europea

EurUsd. Il 2018-09-21 valeva 1.18.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-01.

2019-09-01 eur usd

Il 21 settembre 2018, poco meno di un anno fa, il rapporto Eur/Usd valeva 1.18, mentre adesso vale 1.0993.

Come sempre, questo fenomeno può essere letto in modi differenti, che però si integrano vicendevolmente.

Non ci si faccia trarre in inganno da una variazione apparentemente piccola: ogni giorno sono transati sui mercati oltre 10 trilioni di dollari. L’esborso finale in cifre assolute è di tutto rilievo.

Sicuramente un dollaro forte ed un euro debole dovrebbe facilitare le esportazioni dall’Unione Europea verso l’estero, ma nel contempo costituisce onere aggiuntivo alle importazione, che sono quasi invariabilmente contabilizzate il dollari. Gli energetici, gas naturale e petrolio sono quotati in dollari.

Tuttavia l’aspetto che richiederebbe maggiore attenzione dovrebbe essere la sempre maggiore richiesta di dollari americani da parte dei paesi dell’eurozona.

Per il momento, almeno, non si tratta di fuga, quanto piuttosto di una continua opera di trasferimento di capitali dall’Europa agli Stati Uniti. Indubbiamente l’economia americana funziona al momento molto meglio di quella europea, poi, le possibilità di investimenti abbastanza remunerativi è molto più facile in America piuttosto che in Europa. Infine, non da ultimo, i denari porti fuori dall’Unione sono anche risorse sottratte ai governi europei.

* * *


Cambio euro dollaro a 1,08 in tre mesi

Il cambio euro dollaro scivolerà a 1,08 entro tre mesi: le previsioni di Credit Suisse.

Le ultime previsioni sul cambio euro dollaro hanno parlato chiaro: la quotazione più monitorata del mercato valutario si riporterà su quota 1,08.

Il tutto nell’arco di tre mesi, secondo gli esperti di Credit Suisse, tornati ad interrogarsi sul prossimo andamento dell’EUR/USD.

Numerosi elementi continueranno a favorire il biglietto verde, mentre la moneta unica continuerà a soffrire i rischi di natura soprattutto politica. Tutto ciò, stando alle previsioni citate, imporrà al cambio euro dollaro di scivolare di nuovo sotto quota 1,10.

Cambio euro dollaro a 1,08 in tre mesi: le previsioni

Per Credit Suisse, il biglietto verde troverà sostegno sia nella crescita economica, sia nelle nuove dinamiche riguardanti i tassi di interesse. La moneta unica invece continuerà a soffrire i rischi legati alla politica, come ribadito anche da Luca Bindelli, head of fixed income and currency and commodity strategy. ….

Pubblicato in: Armamenti, Cina, Problemi militari, Stati Uniti

Cina alla conquista dell’Oceano Pacifico.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-30.

2019-08-26-_ Cina Pacifico

Mr Deng Xiaoping aveva dato chiarissime direttive ed ordini di priorità.

– Prima costruire un solido sistema produttivo che alimenti l’export.

– Poi, allestire delle forze armate in grado di garantire almeno i confini della nazione.

– Indi allacciare a livello mondiale rapporti paritetici bilaterali volti alla costruzione e controllo delle infrastrutture.

– Solo alla fine, con quel che avanzasse, generare un welfare.

Questo indirizzo strategico è semplicemente l’opposto della Weltanschauung occidentale ed è per questo motivo che l’Occidente inizia solo ora a prenderne atto.

«US pre-eminence in the Pacific is no more»

«For a long time experts have been speaking about China’s rapid military modernisation referring to it as “a rising power”. …. But this analysis may be out of date. China is not so much a rising power; it has risen; and in many ways it now challenges the US across a number of military domains.»

«US defence strategy in the Indo-Pacific region “is in the throes of an unprecedented crisis” and that Washington might struggle to defend its allies against China.»

«America no longer enjoys military primacy in the Indo-Pacific»

«The report points to Beijing’s extraordinary arsenal of missiles that threaten the key bases of the US and its allies. These installations, it asserts, “could be rendered useless by precision strikes in the opening hours of a conflict”»

«China lacks the “proselytising zeal” – the sense of over-seas mission, that over the twentieth century saw the US strive for global dominance.»

«China is already a superpower to rival the US»

«Dubbed in military-speak, an “anti-access and area denial” approach, China has single-mindedly focused on a range of sensors and weapons systems that it hopes will compel US forces to operate as far away from its own shores as possible»

«China’s goal is in a time of crisis is to deny the US access to the area within the “first island chain” (the South China Sea bounded by a line running from the bottom of Japan, encompassing Taiwan, and passing to the west of the Philippines)»

«President Xi Jinping has decided not just to stand up to President Trump in the ongoing trade war but to take a much more assertive position, whether it be towards the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong or to China’s long-standing claims over Taiwan»

* * * * * * *

La relazione dell’US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney in Australia ad una prima lettura sembrerebbe essere impietoso: poi, quando la materia sia sedimentata, appare financo troppo blando.

Se poi si cercasse di integrare queste informazioni con le altre disponibili, il quadro che ne emergerebbe sarebbe quello di un netto ridimensionamento dell’influenza militare americana.

Banche Mondiali. Senza potenza finanziaria non si fa politica estera.

Cina. Controllo strategico del Mar Giallo e del Mare Cinese Orientale.

Dal punto di vista strategico la Cina può contare su solidissimi alleati. Se si considerasse il tasso di fertilità, il Giappone ha 1.42, la Kore del Sud 1.27, Taiwan 1.13 ed Hong Kong 1.2: una generazioni e questi paesi saranno spopolati, e la Cina potrà occuparli serenamente.


Bbc. 201908-25. Is the US still Asia’s only military superpower?

US pre-eminence in the Pacific is no more.

For a long time experts have been speaking about China’s rapid military modernisation referring to it as “a rising power”.

But this analysis may be out of date. China is not so much a rising power; it has risen; and in many ways it now challenges the US across a number of military domains.

This is the conclusion of a new report from the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney in Australia.

It warns that US defence strategy in the Indo-Pacific region “is in the throes of an unprecedented crisis” and that Washington might struggle to defend its allies against China.

“America no longer enjoys military primacy in the Indo-Pacific”, it notes, “and its capacity to uphold a favourable balance of power is increasingly uncertain.”

The report points to Beijing’s extraordinary arsenal of missiles that threaten the key bases of the US and its allies. These installations, it asserts, “could be rendered useless by precision strikes in the opening hours of a conflict”.

China is not a global superpower like the United States. Indeed it is doubtful if its military ambitions extend that far (though this too may be changing as it slowly develops a network of ports and bases abroad).

For now its global reach depends much more on the power of its economy. China lacks the “proselytising zeal” – the sense of over-seas mission, that over the twentieth century saw the US strive for global dominance.

It also has nothing like the soft-power pull of the United States – no equivalent to blue jeans, Hollywood or burgers – to encourage people to share its values.

Indeed according to many indices Washington’s raw military punch still greatly out-weighs that of Beijing. Washington’s nuclear arsenal (and indeed Moscow’s) is significantly larger than that available to Beijing.

The US still retains a technological edge in key areas like intelligence collection; ballistic missile defence; and the latest generation warplanes. The US can also rely upon a deeply entrenched network of alliances both in Asia and through Nato in Europe.

China has nothing like this kind of alliance system. But it is fast eroding Washington’s technical edge. And in any case what matters to China is Asia and what it sees in expansive terms as its own back-yard. Two key factors – focus and proximity – mean that in Asia, China is already a superpower to rival the US.

China has studied US capabilities and warfighting and has come up with an effective strategy to mitigate the traditional sources of US military power, not least the US Navy’s powerful carrier battle groups, the central element of Washington’s ability to project military force.

Dubbed in military-speak, an “anti-access and area denial” approach, China has single-mindedly focused on a range of sensors and weapons systems that it hopes will compel US forces to operate as far away from its own shores as possible.

At the outset this was inherently a defensive posture. But increasingly analysts see China’s capabilities as enabling it to seize the initiative, confident that it can deter and cope with any likely US response.

“Chinese counter-intervention systems,” the Australian study notes, “have undermined America’s ability to project power into the Indo-pacific, raising the risk that China could use limited force to achieve a fait accompli victory before America can respond, challenging US security guarantees in the process.”

China’s goal is in a time of crisis is to deny the US access to the area within the “first island chain” (the South China Sea bounded by a line running from the bottom of Japan, encompassing Taiwan, and passing to the west of the Philippines).

But it also seeks to restrict access to the outer “second island chain” with weapons that can reach as far as the US bases on Guam. This overall strategy can be bolstered by Chinese land-based aircraft and missiles.

Of course, it is not as if the Pentagon is unaware of the China challenge. After decades of counter-insurgency warfare the US military is being re-structured and re-equipped for renewed big-power competition. In the Cold War the focus was the Soviet Union. Today it is largely China.

However the Sydney University report questions whether Washington is sufficiently focused on the task in hand. It says that “an outdated superpower mindset in the (US) foreign policy establishment is likely to limit Washington’s ability to scale back other global commitments or to make the strategic trade-offs required to succeed in the Indo-Pacific.”

Money is going into new weaponry and research. But the task is huge.

“America has an atrophying force that is not sufficiently ready, equipped or postured for great power competition” and the report warns that a back-log of simultaneous modernisation priorities “will likely outstrip its budget capacity.”

It is a sobering document written by a prestigious institution from one of Washington’s closest allies in the region.

China clearly feels empowered – you can see this from the tone of its recently published defence white paper.

President Xi Jinping has decided not just to stand up to President Trump in the ongoing trade war but to take a much more assertive position, whether it be towards the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong or to China’s long-standing claims over Taiwan.

China’s military rise to match its growing economic muscle was inevitable. But some analysts fear that President Trump has made a difficult situation worse.

Many in the US feel it was time to stand-up to China on trade – but the way the US is going about it leads several experts to fear that Washington may simply lose the trade war.

Overall the Trump Administration’s foreign policy often lacks a clear strategic aspect and is prone to the whims of the Presidential twitter feed and bizarre distractions like his apparent desire to purchase Greenland.

In contrast China knows exactly where it wants to go and it has the strategy and the means to get there. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, it may have already arrived.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Unione Europea

Ipotesi sulla nuova manovra del governo rosso-giallo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-29.

Minosse & Macron

Passati o quasi i tempi delle parole si stanno facendo avanti i tempi dei fatti, e la legge di bilancio sarà il biglietto da visita del nuovo governo rosso – giallo.

Dal nulla si genera il nulla. Ogni programma ha i suoi costi.

«Cosa potrebbe prevedere la manovra di bilancio targata PD-M5S?»

«Per entrambe le parti la cosa più importante da fare sarà evitare l’aumento dell’IVA che potrebbe andare a ripercuotersi sulle tasche degli italiani in maniera decisa»

«Nel 2020, le nuove aliquote al 25% e al 13% potrebbero costare circa 500 euro in più all’anno (1.200 considerando anche gli aumenti previsti per il 2021).»

«il nuovo Governo avrà anche altre priorità tra cui la riduzione del cuneo fiscale e le misure di sostegno alle persone con redditi più bassi»

«Da qui la possibile introduzione del citato “piano famiglia” e dell’assegno unico, una misura volta ad unificare le varie agevolazioni oggi esistenti»

«Tra le misure plausibili, ha continuato il quotidiano economico, anche l’estensione degli 80 euro ai redditi fino a €8.000, e l’introduzione dell’imposta negativa (un vero e proprio assegno che “cresce” se il reddito scende).»

«Come non annoverare poi la proposta pentastellata di garantire una mensilità aggiuntiva a chi percepisce stipendi fino a 55 mila euro (la misura avrebbe comunque bisogno di 15 miliardi).»

«Nella manovra PD-M5S potrebbe non essere inserito il taglio della prima aliquota IRPEF visti i costi dell’operazione»

«Dove troveranno i soldi?»

* * * * * * *

Tutta la eurozona è entrata in una fase economica che molti designano come ‘stagnazione‘, altri come ‘recessione‘, ed altri ancora come franca ‘depressione‘.

Ecb. ‘Rallentamento più duraturo del previsto’.

La Germania è entrata in una fase depressiva dalla quale sarà non facile riemergere in tempi brevi: è una crisi strutturale.

Germania. Piano anti-recessione da 500 mld, di debiti.

Sicuramente la Banca Centrale Europea continuerà a patrocinare tassi negativi e QE, e si inizia ad intravedere un cambiamento di rotta, con apertura al ricorso sempre più consistente al debito. Trovare simili cifre sul mercato apparirebbe essere inverosimile: l’unica via è che Ecb riprenda a stampare.

Bruxelles fa marcia indietro. Debito è bello se serve alla Germania.

* * *

È molto verosimile che la manovra italiana sia alla fine supportata dalla Ecb, che finanzierebbe l’aumento di un debito già di non poco conto.

Ma adesso il numero degli attori sul mercato mondiale è cresciuto.

Sicuramente l’America di Mr Trump sta mettendo in atto provvedimenti politici ed economici divergenti da quelli europei: basterebbe l’introduzione di nuovi dazi o l’inasprimento di quelli già in essere che tutta la eurozona entrerebbe in triboli ancora maggiori degli attuali.

Ma orami nessun ragionamento può esser condotto ignorando la Cina.

La Cina svaluta ancora lo yuan. Ora il rapporto Usd/Cny vale 7.1502.

Questa non ha la minima intenzione di pagare il conto del dissesto occidentale.

La svalutazione del renminbi non solo vanifica molto degli effetti dei dazi americani, ma colpisce anche duramente l’export europeo.

* * *

Sotto questa ottica la nuova legge italiana di bilancio presenta sicuramente qualche aspetto positivo, ma altrettanto sicuramente presenta un problema esorbitante di costi.

Essa tende a ripartire ciò che la nazione non ha, ma coprire interventi assistenziali con il ricorso al debito potrebbe essere un’arma a doppio taglio.

Se sicuramente sia cosa buona stimolare i consumi, con eguale certezza si potrebbe constatare come sarebbe da fare aumentare la produzione.

Se tutto quanto prima elencato fosse mantenuto, il conto sarebbe di circa centocinquanta miliardi.

«Dove troveranno i soldi?»


Manovra PD-M5S: cosa aspettarsi?

Cosa aspettarsi dalla legge di bilancio PD-M5S? Le previsioni sulla manovra alla vigilia del nuovo Governo.

Cosa potrebbe prevedere la manovra di bilancio targata PD-M5S?

Nella serata di ieri, mercoledì 28 agosto, l’incertezza politica esplosa con la crisi di Governo ha iniziato a diradarsi.

Dopo giornate intere di colloqui i due partiti hanno comunicato a Sergio Mattarella di aver trovato un accordo sulla personalità di Giuseppe Conte, che nella mattinata odierna sarà convocato al Quirinale per il conferimento dell’incarico. Alla vigilia di questo nuovo Governo, in molti si sono chiesti cosa potrebbe prevedere una manovra targata PD-M5S. Per entrambe le parti la cosa più importante da fare sarà evitare l’aumento dell’IVA che potrebbe andare a ripercuotersi sulle tasche degli italiani in maniera decisa.

Manovra PD-M5S: cosa prevede?

Come anticipato, uno dei primi argomenti che M5S e PD dovranno affrontare in manovra sarà l’aumento dell’IVA. Nel 2020, le nuove aliquote al 25% e al 13% potrebbero costare circa 500 euro in più all’anno (1.200 considerando anche gli aumenti previsti per il 2021).

Come ha ricordato Il Sole 24 Ore, però, il nuovo Governo avrà anche altre priorità tra cui la riduzione del cuneo fiscale e le misure di sostegno alle persone con redditi più bassi. Da qui la possibile introduzione del citato “piano famiglia” e dell’assegno unico, una misura volta ad unificare le varie agevolazioni oggi esistenti.

Tra le misure plausibili, ha continuato il quotidiano economico, anche l’estensione degli 80 euro ai redditi fino a €8.000, e l’introduzione dell’imposta negativa (un vero e proprio assegno che “cresce” se il reddito scende).

Come non annoverare poi la proposta pentastellata di garantire una mensilità aggiuntiva a chi percepisce stipendi fino a 55 mila euro (la misura avrebbe comunque bisogno di 15 miliardi).

Nella manovra PD-M5S potrebbe non essere inserito il taglio della prima aliquota IRPEF visti i costi dell’operazione e visto che esso potrebbe portare alla riduzione dell’onere anche per i redditi più elevati.

Più ottimismo invece nei confronti del pacchetto Industria 4.0, che potrebbe trovare nuova linfa nella prossima legge di bilancio.

Dove troveranno i soldi?

Come ogni anno, l’elaborazione della manovra di bilancio PD-M5s dovrà fare i conti con il problema delle coperture. In altre parole, dove verranno trovati i soldi per portare a termine tutti i progetti annunciati?

Ancora secondo Il Sole, il nuovo Governo potrebbe rivedere Quota 100 per tentare di risparmiare almeno 6 miliardi – non si esclude l’addio alla misura nel 2020.

Sempre con l’obiettivo di incrementare gli introiti, PD e M5S potrebbero scegliere di estendere il raggio d’azione della fatturazione elettronica magari con una web tax.

Nonostante le speculazioni, i dubbi continueranno ad aleggiare sulla nuova legge di bilancio. Che fine farà il reddito di cittadinanza? Nelle prossime settimane questa sarà una delle domande più gettonate.

Ovviamente, PD e M5S non hanno fornito ulteriori dettagli su cosa potrebbe prevedere la loro ipotetica manovra. Nel momento in cui il nuovo Governo vedrà la luce inizieranno le vere discussioni e sapremo in che modo i due partiti riusciranno a convergere verso la legge di bilancio 2020.

Pubblicato in: Diplomazia, Russia, Stati Uniti

Mondo che cambia. Il caso del sen Ron Johnson e Mr Putin.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-29.

Washington. White House. 001

I tempi stanno mutando a grande velocità.

Dalla fine della guerra mondiale i membri del Congresso americano sono abituati a poter viaggiare liberamente in tutto il mondo, entrando anche nei paesi che avessero criticato aspramente, emettendone sentenze non solo politiche ma anche morali.

Erano anche abituati ad intrattenere stretti rapporti con i partiti o le fazioni che erano alla opposizione, anche se queste componenti fossero state francamente rivoluzionarie.

Questa costumanza trae origine solo nello sviluppo storico degli eventi, non avendo base alcuna nel diritto internazionale. Era semplicemente il power that be.

I congressisti americani ed, a maggior ragione, i senatori si erano assuefatti al fatto che nessuno avrebbe mai potuto negar loro la possibilità di entrare nei loro confini a piacimento.

Se sicuramente dovevano, anche per gli ovvi motivi diplomatici, richiedere il visto di ingresso, questa era una mera formalità.

Adesso i tempi sembrerebbero essere cambiati.

* * * * * * *

Una decina di giorni or sono Israele ha negato l’ingresso a due congressiste americane.

Israele nega l’ingresso a due congressiste Usa.

«Israel is blocking two US Democratic lawmakers, who are prominent critics of the Israeli government, from visiting»

«Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib were due to visit the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem next week»

«Both have supported the boycott movement against Israel, but Israeli law allows supporters of the campaign to be banned from visiting»

«Israeli law blocks entrance visas to any foreigner who calls for any type of boycott that targets Israel – either economic, cultural or academic. The law attempts to suppress the “boycott, divest, sanction” movement, which has drawn growing support across Europe and the US»

«They also planned to visit Israeli and Palestinian peace activists and travel to Jerusalem and the West Bank cities of Bethlehem, Ramallah and Hebron. The trip to the West Bank was planned by Miftah, an organisation headed by Palestinian peace negotiator Hanan Ashrawi.»

*

Di questi giorni la Russia di Mr Putin ha negato il visto di ingresso al sen Ron Johnson, repubblicano, che aveva in passato criticato pubblicamente il Presidente Russo Vladimir Putin.

Precisiamo subito un fatto.

Nessuno vieta di dissentire dall’operato politico altrui, purché ciò sia fatto in modo consono alla dignità di chi parla ed a quella di chi dovrebbe ricevere il messaggio. In questo, la fraseologia diplomatica sarebbe fonte preziosa del galateo che regola i rapporti internazionali. Poi, una cosa sono le critiche, sia pure molto dure, fatte nell’esercizio nelle proprie funzioni in parlamento, un’altra se esternate in diverse situazioni.

Molti eletti dovrebbero leggersi con cura i comunicati di Mr Xi, che sono testi accurati di pacatezza: ferma, fermissima, ma pacatezza.

*

«A U.S. senator from Wisconsin who has publicly criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that Russia has denied him a visa to visit as part of a congressional delegation»

«Ron Johnson said he had planned to speak with government officials, American businesses and others during his trip»

«The Republican is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation»

«An email to the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., inquiring about the denial bounced back as undeliverable Monday. No one immediately responded to another email sent to a different address for the embassy. Calls to the building couldn’t connect»

«Ron Johnson has spoken in the past of Russia taking “a dark turn” under Putin, and he criticized the Russian president sharply in announcing the visa denial»

«Shaheen has been an outspoken supporter of measures meant to counter Russia’s interference in U.S. elections. The Russian Embassy said at the time that Shaheen’s request was rejected because she is on a black list created in response to U.S. sanctions»

* * * * * *

Si prenda atto che è mutata un’epoca.

Gli occidentali, massimamente congressisti e senatori americani, si sono spesso attribuiti il diritto di emettere giudizi etici e morali su governanti di altri stati. E di averlo fatto in maniera plateale, al limite del provocatorio, spesso con terminologia da angiporto.

Orbene, tale diritto non compete loro ed il resto del mondo sembrerebbe non essere più disposto a tollerarlo.


The Washington Times. 2019-08-27. Sen. Ron Johnson denied Russian visa

MADISON, Wis. — A U.S. senator from Wisconsin who has publicly criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that Russia has denied him a visa to visit as part of a congressional delegation.

Ron Johnson said he had planned to speak with government officials, American businesses and others during his trip. The Republican is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation.

A news release from Johnson’s office didn’t say when he had planned to visit Russia or name the other members of the congressional delegation. Johnson spokesman Aaren Johnson said the trip had been planned for next week and the delegation had planned to visit several countries. He said he was unable to say why Johnson was denied a visa.

An email to the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., inquiring about the denial bounced back as undeliverable Monday. No one immediately responded to another email sent to a different address for the embassy. Calls to the building couldn’t connect.

Ron Johnson has spoken in the past of Russia taking “a dark turn” under Putin, and he criticized the Russian president sharply in announcing the visa denial.

He and fellow Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming were granted visas in 2017 to visit Russia in January 2018 but canceled the trip after another member of their delegation, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, was denied.

Shaheen has been an outspoken supporter of measures meant to counter Russia’s interference in U.S. elections. The Russian Embassy said at the time that Shaheen’s request was rejected because she is on a black list created in response to U.S. sanctions.