Pubblicato in: Cina, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Statement by the President Regarding Trade with China. – White House

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-16.

Washington. White House. 001

«My great friendship with President Xi of China and our country’s relationship with China are both very important to me»

*

«Trade between our nations, however, has been very unfair, for a very long time»

*

«This situation is no longer sustainable»

*

«China has, for example, long been engaging in several unfair practices related to the acquisition of American intellectual property and technology.  These practices, documented in an extensive report published by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on March 22, 2018, harm our economic and national security and deepen our already massive trade imbalance with China.»

*

«In light of China’s theft of intellectual property and technology and its other unfair trade practices, the United States will implement a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods from China that contain industrially significant technologies.»

*

«This includes goods related to China’s Made in China 2025 strategic plan to dominate the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the United States and many other countries»

*

«The United States can no longer tolerate losing our technology and intellectual property through unfair economic practices.»

*

Sicuramente un provvedimento che lascerà il segno.


White House. 2018-06-15. Statement by the President Regarding Trade with China

My great friendship with President Xi of China and our country’s relationship with China are both very important to me.  Trade between our nations, however, has been very unfair, for a very long time.  This situation is no longer sustainable.  China has, for example, long been engaging in several unfair practices related to the acquisition of American intellectual property and technology.  These practices, documented in an extensive report published by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on March 22, 2018, harm our economic and national security and deepen our already massive trade imbalance with China.

In light of China’s theft of intellectual property and technology and its other unfair trade practices, the United States will implement a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods from China that contain industrially significant technologies.  This includes goods related to China’s Made in China 2025 strategic plan to dominate the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the United States and many other countries.  The United States can no longer tolerate losing our technology and intellectual property through unfair economic practices.

These tariffs are essential to preventing further unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China, which will protect American jobs.  In addition, they will serve as an initial step toward bringing balance to the trade relationship between the United States and China.

The United States will pursue additional tariffs if China engages in retaliatory measures, such as imposing new tariffs on United States goods, services, or agricultural products; raising non-tariff barriers; or taking punitive actions against American exporters or American companies operating in China.





2018-06-16__Usa-Cina__001

2018-06-16__Usa-Cina__002

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Cina, Stati Uniti, Trump

Cina. Commento ufficiale al G7 ed a cosa ha fatto Mr Trudeau.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-11.

Pechino-Cina

China Internet Information Center

«China.org.cn offers broad access to up-to-date news about China, with searchable texts of government position papers and a wealth of basic information about Chinese history, politics, economics and culture.

The authorized government portal site to China, China.org.cn is published under the auspices of the State Council Information Office and the China International Publishing Group (CIPG) in Beijing.»

*

Riportiamo il commento ufficiale del Governo cinese sulle vicende del G7, ed in particolare sul comportamento di Mr Justin Trudeau. Si consideri che usualmente questi commenti sono scritti in linguaggio diplomatico, comprensibile bensì ovattato.

I contenuti esposti sono tali che ogni ulteriore commento sarebbe inappropriato.

«Trudeau’s statements are “amateurish” and “sophomoric” only “for domestic consumption»

*

White House blasts Trudeau over G7 statements

Two senior White House officials on Sunday blasted Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over his earlier statements during the just concluded Group of Seven (G7) summit.

Trudeau announced on Saturday that all G7 members had endorsed the joint communique; however, he noted that the U.S. tariffs are “insulting” and Canada “will not be pushed around.”

The remarks have enraged U.S. President Donald Trump. He tweeted hours later that he had instructed U.S. representatives not to endorse the G7 joint communique “based on Justin’s false statements at his news conference, and the fact that Canada is charging massive Tariffs to our U.S. farmers, workers and companies.”

Saying Trudeau is “dishonest & weak,” he also threatened “tariffs on automobiles flooding the U.S. Market!”

Also in response, Larry Kudlow, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, said on Sunday in an interview with CNN that Trudeau betrayed Trump with “polarizing” statements on U.S. trade policy.

He added that Trudeau’s statement risked making Trump look weak before his meeting with Kim Jong Un, the top leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in Singapore.

“He really kind of stabbed us in the back,” he said, adding Trump “is not going to let a Canadian prime minister push him around on the eve of this … he is not going to permit any show of weakness on the trip to negotiate with North Korea.”

Saying Trudeau’s statements are “amateurish” and “sophomoric” only “for domestic consumption,” Kudlow said it was Trudeau’s remarks that had prompted Trump to pull out of the joint communique.

“He held a press conference and he said the U.S. is insulting. He said that Canada has to stand up for itself. He says that we are the problem with tariffs. The non-factual part of this is – they have enormous tariffs,” Kudlow said. “Don’t blame Trump. It was Trudeau who started blasting Trump after he left, after the deals had been made.”

Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro also lashed out on Sunday at Trudeau’s statements, saying they represent “bad faith.”

“There is a special place in hell for any for leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door and that’s what bad-faith Justin Trudeau did with that stunt press conference, that’s what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did,” Navarro told “Fox News Sunday.”

Trump “did the courtesy to Justin Trudeau to travel up to Quebec for that summit. He had other things, bigger things, on his plate in Singapore. … He did him a favor and he was even willing to sign that socialist communique. And what did Trudeau do as soon as the plane took off from Canadian airspace? Trudeau stuck our president in the back. That will not stand,” he noted.

Trump’s decision to withdraw his support for the communiqué has drawn sharp criticism from Germany on Sunday.

“In a matter of seconds, you can destroy trust with 280 Twitter characters,” German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said when asked about Trump’s decision. “We have seen this with the climate agreement or the Iran deal.”

Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke against the United States over its tariffs on steel and aluminum on Friday during the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Charlevoix, Quebec.

“Canada will not change its mind when it comes to the illegal and absolutely unjustified application of tariffs on steel and aluminum, not only coming from Canada, but on the steel and aluminum sold by all the G7 allies who are assembled here, to the United States,” Freeland said in a news conference at the summit.

Noting the U.S. imposition of tariffs was officially stated as a national security consideration, Freeland said: “We are very clear that Canada does not pose a national security threat to the United States. On the contrary, as part of the U.S. law, we are part of the national defense base of the United States.”

“Canada has already raised cases at the WTO and at NAFTA, and we will retaliate,” she said. “But we say that with great sadness.”

Last week, Canada hit back at Trump administration by announcing retaliatory tariffs on up to 16.6 billion Canadian dollars (12.8 billion U.S. dollars) worth of U.S. steel and aluminum as well as a diverse list of other products. Those countermeasures are set to take effect on July 1.

James Brander, an international trade expert at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said Freeland’s comments were meaningful.

“I think she is outlining Canada’s actual position and is outlining actual steps that have been taken and are being taken,” he told Xinhua in an interview.

G7 includes the seven leading industrialized countries of Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Fisco e Tasse, Geopolitica Mondiale, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

G7. Un G6 + 1 ha esiguo potere, conta ben poco, quasi nulla.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-10.

 _2018-06-10__G7__001

Chi mai si credono di essere? I maestri che interrogano un alunno?


C’è una terribile domanda che pochi hanno il coraggio di porsi:

«A cosa serve?»

Una risposta è data dalla testata Sputnik.

«G7 is supposed to be a meeting between allies and the fact that the trade policy by the union by the Trump-US administration is targeting those supposed allies is creating, obviously, some response both from the European Union side, from Canada and then to a lesser extent from Japan as well. American policy is cremating the G7 format [for coordinating economic and trade policy].  ….

When the G7 was created it accounted more than half of the world’s GDP but today at parity purchasing power it’s about 35% of the world GDP. ….

Russia said it was not very interested and was looking for another kind of format ….

The G20 is a much more relevant format for decisions regarding the economy than the G7 is. It’s no longer able to set the rules, set the standards for the world. And the fact that President Putin and President Xi Jinping are meeting at the same time suggests that on the one hand we have the G7, which is very much split, and on the other side there’s a G-group summit meeting which attracts less attention but which is also very relevant for the world.»

* * * * * * *

Questa è la realtà dei fatti.

Ma se dal pil ppp dei G7 si sottraesse quello degli Stati Uniti, 19,390 miliardi Usd, resterebbe uno scarno 24% della economia mondiale: troppo poco per poter dettare legge.

Non solo.

Le proiezioni al 2020 secondo l’International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook (October – 2017) danno i G7 al 27.59%, Stati Uniti compresi: un processo involutivo che a maggior ragione rende i G6 troppo deboli per poter imporre le proprie condizioni.

Inoltre, si tenga conto che Mr Trudeau proprio durante il G7 ha subito una terrificante débâcle nell’Ontario, ove i populisti hanno ottenuto 76 seggi su 124 mentre i liberal del presidente Justin Trudeau  sono crollati a 7 seggi, avendone persi ben 41. In parole povere, Mr Justin Trudeau non conta più nulla.

* * * * * * *

Siamo chiari.

I G6 hanno ancora un grande potere economico, che nessuno deve o può sottovalutare: ma questa potenzialità economica non ha la dimensione tale da poter incidere fattivamente. Avrebbero un disperato bisogno di amici, che però non riescono a coagulare attorno a sé. Ma per ottenere un simile risultato dovrebbero intanto essere uniti tra di loro, cosa che non è. Non è nemmeno detto che al prossimo G7, sempre che si tenga, Frau Merkel, Mr Trudeau, Mrs May e, forse, anche Mr Macron siano lì a rappresentare i loro stati.


Ansa. 2018-06-10. Merkel e la difficile mediazione per arginare Trump

Tra i leader europei è sempre stata considerata quella che ha meno legato con Donald Trump. E che la chimica tra i due non sia mai scattata non è un segreto. L’unico passo avanti fatto nel loro ultimo incontro a Washington è stata la stretta di mano: nel precedente confronto, il gelo era stato tale da far saltare perfino quella. Eppure nel difficile lavorio per evitare una rottura totale con gli Usa al G7 canadese Angela Merkel ha avuto un ruolo fondamentale. Spinta probabilmente anche dagli enormi interessi della Germania, la più esposta in caso di vera e propria guerra commerciale tra le due sponde dell’Atlantico. Chi ha seguito i lunghi negoziati che a La Malbaie si sono spinti fino a tarda notte con una coda di vertice improvvisata e sono poi proseguiti il giorno dopo, racconta come la cancelliera abbia lavorato con pazienza per trovare un terreno, anche minimo, di confronto con il tycoon. Lasciando al presidente francese Emmanuel Macron i botta e risposta via Twitter, il ruolo di trascinatore degli altri leader e anche, quando necessario, quello di ‘duro’. “La fortuna dei leader europei quando hanno una posizione unitaria e devono trattare con altri paesi è che sono tanti, e possono giocare la trattativa su diversi piani. Per dirla all’americana, possono decidere chi fa il poliziotto buono e chi il cattivo”, scherza una diplomatico che ha assistito ai colloqui.

E la novità rispetto al passato è proprio nel ruolo scelto dalla cancelliera in questa occasione. Il poliziotto buono. Che non è certo un segno di debolezza, al contrario. Il dossier dei dazi è importantissimo per la Germania, che si gioca una partita cruciale. Già duramente colpita dalle tariffe su acciaio e alluminio, Berlino riceverebbe un colpo letale se Trump andasse fino in fondo con la minaccia sulle automobili. La Germania da sola ogni anno ne esporta in Usa 500mila e ne produce negli Stati Uniti 800mila. Il calo potrebbe arrivare a 5 miliardi sul Pil. Di qui la scelta di occuparsi in prima persona della mediazione, superando l’irritazione per le continue capriole verbali di Trump. L’ultima, al solito improvvisa, la proposta di abolire tutti “i dazi, le barriere e i sussidi”, da una parte e dall’altra. “Partiamo da qui per riprendere la discussione”, ha risposto pazientemente Frau Merkel al tycoon. Riannodando il filo per arrivare ad un documento condiviso, seppure al ribasso e nonostante l’impossibilità di colmare tutte le distanze, che restano a partire proprio dai dazi. Ma una spaccatura plateale del G7 avrebbe rappresentato un punto di non ritorno. Almeno l’obiettivo minimo – e non era scontato viste le premesse – Angela l’ha portato a casa.


Bbc. 2018-06-10. Trump at G7: Who’s who in Merkel’s photo?

It was always slated to be a tense and awkward G7 summit and an Instagram post from the official account of German Chancellor Angela Merkel appears to have captured one of those moments.

Here’s a who’s who of the people pictured, and where they stand on the trade row:

  1. Donald Trump, US president

Mr Trump shocked America’s allies – namely the EU, Mexico and Canada – when he recently announced a 25% tariff on imports of steel and 10% on aluminium from these countries. They are all threatening retaliatory measures and the rift overshadowed the summit, leaving the American president isolated at times. Mr Trump departed early, complaining that America was “like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing”. But his relationship with fellow G7 leaders was at “10 out of 10”.

  1. John Bolton, US national security adviser

It’s been just three months since he was appointed President Trump’s top security adviser but John Bolton has already made an impact. One of the president’s arguments for the tariffs is on “national security grounds” – a view Mr Bolton has stridently backed.

  1. Kazuyuki Yamazaki, Japanese senior deputy minister for foreign affairs

Promoted to the post in July 2017, he recently led a Japanese delegation to Pakistan and took part in joint talks between Japan, China and South Korea in Seoul about a proposed free trade agreement.

  1. Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister

He has come under increased pressure to join retaliatory measures against America’s steep tariffs. This puts him in a difficult position – he has tried hard to cultivate a warm relationship with President Trump and the two are said to have met at least 10 times since he was elected to the White House.

  1. Yasutoshi Nishimura, Japanese deputy chief cabinet secretary

The MP from Japan’s governing party once worked in the ministry of international trade and industry.

  1. Angela Merkel, German chancellor

She has been at the forefront of talks to try to resolve differences at the summit, as is clear in this photo. Mrs Merkel apparently floated an idea to set up a mechanism to resolve trade disputes between the US and its allies on Friday. Asked during the summit about her relationship with President Trump, Mrs Merkel said the two leaders did not always agree but could talk to each other: “I can say that I maintain a very open and direct relationship with the American president.”

  1. Emmanuel Macron, French president

He engaged in a Twitter spat with President Trump over the tariffs just hours before the summit was due to start – leading some to question whether the blossoming “bromance” between the two was over. Despite this, they were seen to be on good terms, and President Macron’s team said his talks with Trump were “frank and robust”.

  1. Theresa May, UK prime minister

In a telephone call last week, she told President Trump she found the US tariffs “unjustified and deeply disappointing”. But she also struck a more conciliatory tone at the summit, urging fellow leaders to step back from the brink of a possible trade war.

  1. Larry Kudlow, director of the US National Economic Council

President Trump’s top economic adviser has defended Donald Trump’s move to increase tariffs and says his boss should not be held responsible for mounting trade conflicts with US allies. Mr Kudlow said the president’s call for eliminating all tariffs between G7 nations was the “best way to promote economic growth”.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Midterm. Repubblicani apparentemente in testa.- New York Times.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-08.

2018-06-06__Trump__Senato__001

Il The New York Times è il tempio sacro dei liberal democratici americani.

Trova grande difficoltà ad ammettere ciò che è scritto nell’articolo che alleghiamo.

Che le elezioni di midterm non si prospettino essere la valanga democratica a suo tempo annunciata inizia ad intravedersi dagli andamenti delle prospezioni.

Trump. Elezioni Midterm. Previsioni.

Trump. E se alla fine vincesse il midterm?

Midterm. Qualche previsione elettorale. Cnn e Nyt.

Midterm. La marea democratica potrebbe essere solo acqua alta.

Trump. Sondaggio fatto su oltre 600,000 elettori.

The Last Two Weeks of Polls Have Been Great for Republicans. Do They Signal a Shift?

*

«After a turbulent first year confronting friendly fire from President Trump, Senate Republicans are entering the summer before the midterm elections feeling more hopeful about retaining their narrow majority than at any time since the president’s election»

*

«And for good reason»

*

«Mr. Trump is enjoying a modest increase in his approval ratings this year»

*

«The economy continues to grow, as demonstrated by Friday’s unexpectedly strong jobs report, while unemployment has fallen to levels unseen since 2000»

*

«Republicans, already on the offensive thanks to a Senate map that includes 10 Democratic-held seats in states Mr. Trump won, have seen nearly every electoral variable turn in their direction in recent months»

*

«The Republican caucus in the Senate is feeling substantially more optimistic now than at this time last year»

*

«the Senate campaign is taking place on much more Trump-friendly terrain. Six of the most competitive Senate races are in states he carried by double digits: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia. (Democrats hold all of those seats except Tennessee’s.)»

*

«That could spell trouble for Democrats representing largely conservative electorates and states where surveys show that, unlike in much of the country, the president is viewed more favorably than unfavorably»

*

«There are only nine Republican seats in play, but Democrats believe they have the chance to win in three: Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee»

*

«People will move very quickly to other issues that more normally would be part of a Senate campaign»

*

«attacking Republicans isn’t helpful»

*

Tenendo conto che alle elezioni di midterm da oltre due secoli gli Elettori premiano il partito opposto a quello del Presidente in carica, già il conservare la maggioranza in Senato sarebbe per Mr Trump una grande vittoria. Si tenga anche conto che il controllo effettivo del Senato permetterebbe a Mr Trump di procedere a tutte le nomine al momento in sospeso.


The New York Times. 2018-06-03. Senate Republicans Are Newly Hopeful About the Midterms. For Good Reason.

WASHINGTON — After a turbulent first year confronting friendly fire from President Trump, Senate Republicans are entering the summer before the midterm elections feeling more hopeful about retaining their narrow majority than at any time since the president’s election. And for good reason.

Mr. Trump is enjoying a modest increase in his approval ratings this year and, as important, is attacking Democrats rather than inciting the internecine feuds that could depress Republican turnout. The economy continues to grow, as demonstrated by Friday’s unexpectedly strong jobs report, while unemployment has fallen to levels unseen since 2000.

Republicans, already on the offensive thanks to a Senate map that includes 10 Democratic-held seats in states Mr. Trump won, have seen nearly every electoral variable turn in their direction in recent months: They have averted disaster in the West Virginia primary, successfully recruited their preferred candidates in North Dakota and Florida, and watched a renegade Republican challenger wane in one of Mississippi’s two Senate races.

This past week brought two developments that drew little attention for their Senate implications but could prove pivotal in November.

Gov. Eric Greitens of Missouri resigned rather than face a felony computer tampering charge, depriving Democrats of a political weapon they had hoped to wield in the Senate race there. (A felony invasion of privacy charge against Mr. Greitens, who was accused of sexual misconduct, was dropped weeks earlier.) And the ailing Senator John McCain remains in office, passing a crucial deadline that all but ensures there will be only one Senate seat up for grabs in Arizona.

“The Republican caucus in the Senate is feeling substantially more optimistic now than at this time last year,” said Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, predicting his party will gain a handful of seats.

Not everyone in the G.O.P. is as bullish, with worries that the president’s capacity for political self-sabotage, the Democrats’ fund-raising advantage and the anti-Trump intensity propelling the left will make it difficult to do much more than break even and protect its one-seat Senate majority.

But that Republicans are even discussing the prospect of gaining Senate seats, in the first midterm campaign of a president whose approval rating has never reached 50 percent, illustrates the wildly divergent electoral landscapes for the House and the Senate.

While the fight for control of the House is playing out mainly in the affluent and highly educated suburban districts that have been hotbeds of anti-Trump fervor, many of them on the coasts, the Senate campaign is taking place on much more Trump-friendly terrain. Six of the most competitive Senate races are in states he carried by double digits: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia. (Democrats hold all of those seats except Tennessee’s.)

A major question looming over the 2018 Senate contest is whether so-called wave election years — in which one party makes significant gains in both chambers of Congress, as happened in 1994 and 2006 — can still exist as the country grows more polarized and politics more shaped by hardening party preferences. With ticket-splitting fading, especially in federal races, voters are increasingly turning to lawmakers who reflect the presidential leanings of their state.

That could spell trouble for Democrats representing largely conservative electorates and states where surveys show that, unlike in much of the country, the president is viewed more favorably than unfavorably.

“In the middle of the country people are by and large center-right, and they see the national Democratic brand as really far left, which is a ball and chain those senators have to carry around,” Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said.

But Democrats argue that the well-cultivated reputations and financial advantages of party incumbents like Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Jon Tester of Montana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia matter as much as the red-leaning nature of their states.

And they say that what passes for good news on the right — simply being competitive in states the G.O.P. otherwise dominates — underscores the Republicans’ weakness in a year when the map is so favorable.

“We’re feeling very good about our chances,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, adding, “At a minimum, there’s a 50-50 chance we’re going to take back the Senate.”

There are only nine Republican seats in play, but Democrats believe they have the chance to win in three: Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee.

Yet even some Democrats concede that Republicans have seen their prospects brighten recently — thanks to their actions in some cases and their good fortune in others. “They are limiting their vulnerabilities,” said Adam Jentleson, a Democratic strategist, conceding that “it’s entirely possible we lose two or three seats.”

The sudden resignation of Mr. Greitens delivered immense relief to Republicans, and none more than Josh Hawley, the attorney general of Missouri. Mr. Hawley has been under fire for running a lackluster campaign against Senator Claire McCaskill, a wily political veteran trying to hang on in a state that has moved sharply away from Democrats.

Mr. Greitens, accused of making threats and sexually coercing a woman with whom he was having an affair, had for months refused to resign, raising Democratic hopes that they could use him to tar the Republican ticket this fall. But by quitting, the governor cleared the way for Mr. Hawley to run a more policy-oriented, head-to-head race against Ms. McCaskill, who won in 2012 thanks in large part to self-inflicted Republican errors.

“People will move very quickly to other issues that more normally would be part of a Senate campaign,” Mr. Blunt said. He added wryly that “if we have learned anything from President Trump, it’s that people are willing to move on from a topic pretty quickly.”

The developing political landscape in Arizona could prove even more consequential. Because Mr. McCain, who is battling brain cancer, remains in office, Republicans believe that they will have to defend only one seat there this fall — that of Senator Jeff Flake, who is retiring.

Even if Mr. McCain were to vacate his office before November, Republicans believe that the governor would not be obliged to schedule a special election this year. They say that May 30 was the final day for candidates to submit petitions to run and that there is no mechanism in state law to add candidates to the ballot.

Mr. McCain’s presence does not just deny Democrats an opening to compete in two Arizona Senate races this fall — it may also strengthen Republican chances to retain Mr. Flake’s seat.

The Republican leadership is backing Representative Martha McSally and is optimistic she will emerge as the nominee in part because hard-right voters are divided between Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff who was pardoned by Mr. Trump, and former State Senator Kelli Ward. With no prospect of a second Senate contest, the two hard-liners will most likely continue splitting voters because neither will be able to switch races.

The unburdening in Missouri and the clarity in Arizona capped a stretch in which the White House convinced Representative Kevin Cramer to reverse course and take on Ms. Heitkamp and sidelined a primary challenger against Senator Dean Heller of Nevada.

At the same time, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, a multimillionaire who can finance his own campaigns, entered the race against Senator Bill Nelson, and Republicans torpedoed the coal magnate and ex-convict Don Blankenship in West Virginia. Chris McDaniel’s bid in Mississippi to resurrect his Tea Party-backed campaign for the seat he nearly won in 2014 has proved feeble.

“It is a very low bar when you’re celebrating the fact that a governor resigned because of a sex scandal and the candidate who had been criminally convicted in West Virginia is not your nominee,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who oversees the Senate Democratic campaign arm.

But after watching Mr. Trump’s approval rating hover in the 30s for much of last year, and absorbing his frequent gibes, Republicans will take it.

“That’s a very big deal,” Mr. Thune said with a chuckle about how Mr. Trump is turning his fire toward the Democrats. He said Mr. Trump had come to realize that “attacking Republicans isn’t helpful.” But Mr. Thune also acknowledged that Mr. Trump could undercut the economic gains if he goes through with his tariff threats and “retaliation is leveled against farm states.”

Indeed, even as they grow more optimistic, veteran Republicans know they are placing their fate in the hands of an unpredictable leader.

“We’re on the right track, things look pretty good today,” Charles R. Black Jr., a veteran strategist, said. “But Trump is like a suicide bomber: He could still blow himself up the day before the election and ruin everything.”

Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

G7. Mr Trudeau e Mr Macron all’attacco di Mr Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-08.

2018-06-08__Trump__001

Non sarà certo un G7 facile.

Tariffs and Trump: War of words ahead of G7 summit

«Mr Trump, expected to be the last to arrive and first to leave, has imposed steel and aluminium tariffs that have sparked reprisals from trade partners»

*

«But the nations could also clash on the Iran nuclear deal and climate change»

*

«The G7 summit, which groups Canada, the US, the UK, France, Italy, Japan and Germany, begins on Friday in the town of La Malbaie in Quebec»

*

«The leaders of the nations, which represent more than 60% of global net worth, meet annually. Economics tops the agenda, although the meetings now always branch off to cover major global issues»

* * *

Che ciascuna delle nazioni che compongono il G7 abbia i propri problemi e che questi siano conflittuali con quelli degli altri stati è un dato di fatto di cui sarebbe opportuno prendere atto.

Ma il presupposto di un dialogo costruttivo sarebbe quello di deporre le asperità a di guardare in faccia la realtà dei fatti.

Vorremmo solo sottolineare un aspetto, che Bbc riporta in modo tartufesco.

«the nations, which represent more than 60% of global net worth»

È una verità parziale, e come tale potenzialmente ingannatrice.

Se è vero che i paesi del G7 rappresentano oltre il 60% del patrimonio netto globale, anche se questa stima dipende molto dal modo con il quale sia calcolato, è altrettanto vero che in termini di pil ppa le cose stanno in modo molto differente. Se non produttiva, se non messa a frutto, la ricchezza è come se non ci fosse.

Riportiamo i dati pubblicati dall’International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook (October – 2017)

Le proiezioni al 2022 danno la Cina ad un pil ppa di 34,465 (20.54%) miliardi di Usd, gli Stati Uniti di 23,505 (14.01%), e l’India di 15,262 9.10%) Usd. Seguono Giappone con 6,163 (3.67%),  Germania (4.932%), Regno Unito 3,456 (2.06%), Francia 3,427 (2.04%), Italia 2,677 (1.60%). Russia 4.771 (2.84%) e Brasile 3,915 (2.33%).

I paesi del G7 produrranno 46,293 (27.59%) mld Usd del pil mondiale, mentre i paesi del Brics renderanno conto di 59,331 mld Usd (35.36%).

*

Come si constata, i paesi del G7 sono sempre una potenza economica mondiale di tutto rilievo, ma nelle proiezioni 2020 renderanno conto del 27.59% del pil ppa mondiale, contro il 35.36% dei Brics. Si stanno involvendo.

Queste sono variazioni del quadro economico mondiale che non dovrebbe lasciare spazio a beghe interne, sempre che si voglia sopravvivere.

Poi, per quanto concerne i dazi, i paesi europei dovrebbero valutare con maggiore attenzione il fatto che in questo settore la Unione Europea non scherza per nulla.

Unione Europea. Un mesto elenco dei dazi, hanno un massimo del 74.9%.

Prima di criticare gli altri servirebbe essere credibili.

Molto verosimilmente sarà un colloquio tra sordi.

Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Disoccupazione al 3.8%. Anche negri e latino-americani votano.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-07.

2018-06-01--Usa_Disoccupati__Tutti

Il Bureau of Labor Statistics ha rilasciato il

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

*

A tutto maggio 2018 il  tasso di disoccupazione è sceso dal 4.8 del gennaio 2017 all’attuale 3.8%.

2018-06-01--Usa_Disoccupati__Ispanici e latini

Notevole il calo dei disoccupati latino americani, scesi al 4.9%.

2018-06-01--Usa_Disoccupati__Afroamericani

Risultato ancora migliore quello per gli afro-americani, il tasso di disoccupazione dei quali è sceso dal 7.8% al 5.9%.

*

Si potrebbe sommessamente ricordare come anche negri e latino-americani votino. Così come vanno a votare anche Elettori che non possono comprarsi una Bmw.

Però, la busta paga sanno contarla più che bene. Calo delle tasse ed aumento della busta paga, lavoro decente anche per i poveracci sono la migliore delle campagne elettorali.

 

Pubblicato in: Commercio, Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump. Proclamazioni Presidenziali su alluminio ed acciaio. – Testi Integrali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-02.

Trump, Macron, Merkel 001

«Last year, nearly 50 percent of U.S. steel and aluminum imports in 2017 came from the EU, Canada and Mexico.»

*

«Trump first announced tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum for national security reasons in March.»

*

«Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Thursday said President Trump has decided to end the temporary exemptions for the three key trading allies despite their two months of lobbying to avoid the tariffs.»

*

«We look forward to continued negotiations with Canada and Mexico on one hand and with the European Commission on the other hand as there are other issues we need to get resolved»

*

«The EU is expected to quickly retaliate with promised tariffs of about $3.3 billion on iconic American products such as bourbon, jeans and motorcycles.»

*

«the United States has levied the tariffs doesn’t mean that negotiations with the countries are halted even if they retaliate»

* * * * * * * *

Non ci si può sedere ad un tavolo di trattative e menare il can per l’aia cercando di raggirare la controparte.

Le dichiarazioni di Mr Juncker suonano di patetica impotenza. Forse potrà innalzare i dazi europei già in essere sui superalcolici americani, ma senza bourbon si può vivere lo stesso, mentre senza acciaio ed alluminio si ferma l’intero comparto produttivo. Per non parlare poi dell’indotto.

«Dazi e nuove minacce piovono sull’Europa. Gli Stati Uniti hanno deciso di applicare le tariffe su acciaio (25%) e alluminio (10%) a carico dell’import dalla Ue: entreranno in vigore dalla mezzanotte. La scure cade anche su Canada e Messico, nonostante le trattative in corso con Washington sulla riforma del Nafta, l’area di libero scambio del Nordamerica. Immediata la risposta della Ue: «Questo è un giorno molto brutto per il commercio mondiale. Faremo immediatamente ricorso alla Wto e annunceremo misure compensative nelle prossime ore» …. È del tutto inaccettabile che un Paese imponga misure unilaterali»

Ancor più patetica la dichiarazione della Commissaria al Commercio, Cecilia Malmström: «Gli Usa hanno cercato di usare la minaccia dei dazi per ottenere concessioni dalla Ue. Non è questo il modo in cui noi facciamo affari. Faremo tutto il necessario per protegge il mercato Ue dalle distorsioni commerciali causate dalle restrizioni Usa».

Il problema di questa Unione Europea non è che

«Non è questo il modo in cui noi facciamo affari»

Il problema è che di affari l’Unione Europea non ne fa più. Questa eurodirigenza è inetta. Ed il recente caso dell’Arabia Saudita dovrebbe ben dare da pensare.


Trump slaps steel, aluminum tariffs on EU, Canada and Mexico

The Trump administration will levy hefty steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union, Canada and Mexico starting on Friday, a move likely to lead to retaliation and risk the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Thursday said President Trump has decided to end the temporary exemptions for the three key trading allies despite their two months of lobbying to avoid the tariffs.

“We look forward to continued negotiations with Canada and Mexico on one hand and with the European Commission on the other hand as there are other issues we need to get resolved,” Ross told reporters on a conference call.

Ross said the White House would need to see the reactions of Canada, Mexico and the 28-nation European bloc before determining what to do next.

But he said that U.S. officials are “quite willing and eager” to have further discussions with all of the parties.

The trading partners have all warned the U.S. that they will impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports if the U.S. goes through with the steel and aluminum tariffs.

The EU is expected to quickly retaliate with promised tariffs of about $3.3 billion on iconic American products such as bourbon, jeans and motorcycles.

Last year, nearly 50 percent of U.S. steel and aluminum imports in 2017 came from the EU, Canada and Mexico.

Trump first announced tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum for national security reasons in March.

Canada and Mexico have said tariffs are unacceptable, don’t affect U.S. national security and that their implementation could put the fate of NAFTA at stake.

The tariffs on aluminum and steel are just one plank in an aggressive effort by Trump to reshape the nation’s trade policies that has rattled allies, markets and U.S. businesses.

Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on imported automobiles and is battling with China on a range of proposed restrictions.

The decisions have prompted a pushback from Republicans in Congress, who are worried retaliation from trading partners could hurt farmers in particular.

Ross repeated remarks he made on Wednesday in Paris during a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that just because the United States has levied the tariffs doesn’t mean that negotiations with the countries are halted even if they retaliate.

“If any of these parties retaliate that does not mean that there can’t be continuing negotiations,” Ross told reporters.

“Take the example of China: The tariffs that we’ve imposed went into effect on China on the 23rd of March and, as you’re well aware, we have continued to have trade negotiations with China,” he said.

“So, the fact that we took the tariff action doesn’t mean that there cannot be negotiation,” he said.

The U.S. had delayed imposing the tariffs on Canada and Mexico pending talks on NAFTA and related national security issues, Ross said.

“Those talks are taking longer than we’d hoped. There is no longer a precise date when they may be concluded, so they were added into list of those who will bear tariffs,” he said.

Discussions with the EU made some progress but didn’t get to the point where it was warranted to give the bloc a continued temporary exemption or a permanent exemption, Ross said.

South Korea had previously reached a deal with the Trump administration for an exemption. Argentina, Brazil and Australia have reached agreements that will exempt them from the tariffs for now.

Ross said that Trump can “do anything he wishes at any point subsequent from today” on whether to impose tariffs and quotes.

“There is potential flexibility going forward,” Ross said.

The Section 232 law, which is rarely used, allows tariffs to be placed on imports in the name of national security. Trump is considering the same law to employ tariffs on automobiles.


The White House. 2018-05-31. Presidential Proclamation Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States

On January 19, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) transmitted to me a report on his investigation into the effect of imports of aluminum articles on the national security of the United States under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862).

In Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), I concurred in the Secretary’s finding that aluminum articles are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States, and decided to adjust the imports of aluminum articles, as defined in clause 1 of Proclamation 9704, as amended (aluminum articles), by imposing a 10 percent ad valorem tariff on such articles imported from most countries, beginning March 23, 2018.  I further stated that any country with which we have a security relationship is welcome to discuss with the United States alternative ways to address the threatened impairment of the national security caused by imports from that country, and noted that, should the United States and any such country arrive at a satisfactory alternative means to address the threat to the national security such that I determine that imports from that country no longer threaten to impair the national security, I may remove or modify the restriction on aluminum articles imports from that country and, if necessary, adjust the tariff as it applies to other countries, as the national security interests of the United States require.

In Proclamation 9710 of March 22, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), I noted the continuing discussions with the Argentine Republic (Argentina), the Commonwealth of Australia (Australia), the Federative Republic of Brazil (Brazil), Canada, Mexico, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), and the European Union (EU) on behalf of its member countries, on satisfactory alternative means to address the threatened impairment to the national security posed by imports of aluminum articles from those countries.  Recognizing that each of these countries and the EU has an important security relationship with the United States, I determined that the necessary and appropriate means to address the threat to national security posed by imports of aluminum articles from these countries was to continue the ongoing discussions and to exempt aluminum articles imports from these countries from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9704, as amended, until May 1, 2018.

In Proclamation 9739 of April 30, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), I noted that the United States had agreed in principle with Argentina, Australia, and Brazil on satisfactory alternative means to address the threatened impairment to our national security posed by aluminum articles imports from these countries and extended the temporary exemption of these countries from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9704, as amended, in order to finalize the details.

The United States has agreed on a range of measures with Argentina and Australia, including measures to reduce excess aluminum production and excess aluminum capacity, measures that will contribute to increased capacity utilization in the United States, and measures to prevent the transshipment of aluminum articles and avoid import surges.  In my judgment, these measures will provide effective, long-term alternative means to address these countries’ contribution to the threatened impairment to our national security by restraining aluminum articles exports to the United States from each of them, limiting transshipment and surges, and discouraging excess aluminum capacity and excess aluminum production.  In light of these agreements, I have determined that aluminum articles imports from these countries will no longer threaten to impair the national security and thus have decided to exclude these countries from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9704, as amended.  The United States will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the measures agreed upon with these countries to address our national security needs, and I may revisit this determination, as appropriate.

In light of my determination to exclude, on a long‑term basis, these countries from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9704, as amended, I have considered whether it is necessary and appropriate in light of our national security interests to make any corresponding adjustments to such tariff as it applies to other countries.  I have determined that, in light of the agreed-upon measures with these countries, and the fact that the tariff will now apply to imports of aluminum articles from additional countries, it is necessary and appropriate, at this time, to maintain the current tariff level as it applies to other countries.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, authorizes the President to adjust the imports of an article and its derivatives that are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.

Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), authorizes the President to embody in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) the substance of statutes affecting import treatment, and actions thereunder, including the removal, modification, continuance, or imposition of any rate of duty or other import restriction.

Now, Therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, do hereby proclaim as follows:

(1)  Clause 2 of Proclamation 9704, as amended, is further amended by striking the last two sentences and inserting in lieu thereof the following two sentences:  “Except as otherwise provided in this proclamation, or in notices published pursuant to clause 3 of this proclamation, all aluminum articles imports specified in the Annex shall be subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem rate of duty with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, as follows:  (a) on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on March 23, 2018, from all countries except Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, and the member countries of the European Union, (b) on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 1, 2018, from all countries except Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and the member countries of the European Union, and (c) on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 1, 2018, from all countries except Argentina and Australia.  This rate of duty, which is in addition to any other duties, fees, exactions, and charges applicable to such imported aluminum articles, shall apply to imports of aluminum articles from each country as specified in the preceding sentence.”.

(2)  In order to implement a quota treatment on aluminum articles imports from Argentina, U.S. note 19 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is amended as provided for in Part A of the Annex to this proclamation.  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security shall implement this quota as soon as practicable, taking into account all aluminum articles imports from this country since January 1, 2018.

(3)  The “Article description” for heading 9903.85.01 of the HTSUS is amended by deleting “of Brazil, of Canada, of Mexico, or of the member countries of the European Union”.

(4)  For the purposes of administering the quantitative limitations applicable to subheadings 9903.85.05 through 9903.85.06 for Argentina, the annual aggregate limits set out in Part B of the Annex to this proclamation shall apply for the period starting with calendar year 2018 and for subsequent years, unless modified or terminated.  The quantitative limitations applicable to subheadings 9903.85.05 through 9903.85.06 for Argentina, which for calendar year 2018 shall take into account all aluminum articles imports from Argentina since January 1, 2018, shall be effective for aluminum articles entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after June 1, 2018, and shall be implemented by CBP as soon as practicable, consistent with the superior text to subheadings 9903.85.05 through 9903.85.06.  The Secretary of Commerce shall monitor the implementation of the quantitative limitations applicable to subheadings 9903.85.05 through 9903.85.06 and shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the United States Trade Representative, and such other senior Executive Branch officials as the Secretary deems appropriate, inform the President of any circumstance that in the Secretary’s opinion might indicate that an adjustment of the quantitative limitations is necessary.

(5)  The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with CBP and with other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall revise the HTSUS so that it conforms to the amendments and effective dates directed in this proclamation.  The Secretary shall publish any such modification to the HTSUS in the Federal Register.

(6)  Clause 5 of Proclamation 9710, as amended, is amended by striking the phrase “as amended by Proclamation 9710,” in the first and second sentences and inserting in lieu thereof the following phrase:  “as amended, or to the quantitative limitations established by proclamation,”.  Clause 5 of Proclamation 9710, as amended, is further amended by inserting the phrase “or quantitative limitations” after the words “ad valorem rates of duty” in the first and second sentences.

(7)  Clause 4 of Proclamation 9739 is amended by striking the phrase “as amended by clause 1 of this proclamation,” and inserting in lieu thereof the following phrase:  “as amended, or to the quantitative limitations established by proclamation,” in the first sentence.  Clause 4 of Proclamation 9739 is further amended by striking the words “by clause 3 of this proclamation” from the second sentence.

(8)  Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP


The White House. 2018-05-31. Presidential Proclamation Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States

  1. On January 11, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) transmitted to me a report on his investigation into the effect of imports of steel mill articles on the national security of the United States under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862).

  2. In Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), I concurred in the Secretary’s finding that steel mill articles are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States, and decided to adjust the imports of steel mill articles, as defined in clause 1 of Proclamation 9705, as amended (steel articles), by imposing a 25 percent ad valorem tariff on such articles imported from most countries, beginning March 23, 2018.  I further stated that any country with which we have a security relationship is welcome to discuss with the United States alternative ways to address the threatened impairment of the national security caused by imports from that country, and noted that, should the United States and any such country arrive at a satisfactory alternative means to address the threat to the national security such that I determine that imports from that country no longer threaten to impair the national security, I may remove or modify the restriction on steel articles imports from that country and, if necessary, adjust the tariff as it applies to other countries, as the national security interests of the United States require.

  3. In Proclamation 9711 of March 22, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), I noted the continuing discussions with the Argentine Republic (Argentina), the Commonwealth of Australia (Australia), the Federative Republic of Brazil (Brazil), Canada, Mexico, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), and the European Union (EU) on behalf of its member countries, on satisfactory alternative means to address the threatened impairment to the national security posed by imports of steel articles from those countries.  Recognizing that each of these countries and the EU has an important security relationship with the United States, I determined that the necessary and appropriate means to address the threat to national security posed by imports of steel articles from these countries was to continue the ongoing discussions and to exempt steel articles imports from these countries from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705, as amended, until May 1, 2018.

  4. In Proclamation 9740 of April 30, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), I noted that the United States had agreed in principle with Argentina, Australia, and Brazil on satisfactory alternative means to address the threatened impairment to our national security posed by steel articles imports from these countries and extended the temporary exemption of these countries from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705, as amended, in order to finalize the details.

  5. The United States has agreed on a range of measures with these countries, including measures to reduce excess steel production and excess steel capacity, measures that will contribute to increased capacity utilization in the United States, and measures to prevent the transshipment of steel articles and avoid import surges.  In my judgment, these measures will provide effective, long-term alternative means to address these countries’ contribution to the threatened impairment to our national security by restraining steel articles exports to the United States from each of them, limiting transshipment and surges, and discouraging excess steel capacity and excess steel production.  In light of these agreements, I have determined that steel articles imports from these countries will no longer threaten to impair the national security and thus have decided to exclude these countries from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705, as amended.  The United States will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the measures agreed upon with these countries to address our national security needs, and I may revisit this determination, as appropriate.

  6. In light of my determination to exclude, on a long‑term basis, these countries from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705, as amended, I have considered whether it is necessary and appropriate in light of our national security interests to make any corresponding adjustments to such tariff as it applies to other countries.  I have determined that, in light of the agreed-upon measures with these countries, and the fact that the tariff will now apply to imports of steel articles from additional countries, it is necessary and appropriate, at this time, to maintain the current tariff level as it applies to other countries.

  7. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, authorizes the President to adjust the imports of an article and its derivatives that are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.

  8. Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), authorizes the President to embody in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) the substance of statutes affecting import treatment, and actions thereunder, including the removal, modification, continuance, or imposition of any rate of duty or other import restriction.

Now, Therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, do hereby proclaim as follows:

(1)  The superior text to subheadings 9903.80.05 through 9903.80.58 of the HTSUS is amended by replacing “South Korea” with “Argentina, of Brazil, or of South Korea”.

(2)  For the purposes of administering the quantitative limitations applicable to subheadings 9903.80.05 through 9903.80.58 for Argentina and Brazil, the annual aggregate limits for each country set out in the Annex to this proclamation shall apply for the period starting with calendar year 2018 and for subsequent years, unless modified or terminated.  The quantitative limitations applicable to subheadings 9903.80.05 through 9903.80.58 for these countries, which for calendar year 2018 shall take into account all steel articles imports from each respective country since January 1, 2018, shall be effective for steel articles entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after June 1, 2018, and shall be implemented by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security as soon as practicable, consistent with the superior text to subheadings 9903.80.05 through 9903.80.58.  The Secretary of Commerce shall monitor the implementation of the quantitative limitations applicable to subheadings 9903.80.05 through 9903.80.58 and shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the United States Trade Representative, and such other senior Executive Branch officials as the Secretary deems appropriate, inform the President of any circumstance that in the Secretary’s opinion might indicate that an adjustment of the quantitative limitations is necessary.

(3)  The text of subdivision (e) of U.S. note 16 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is amended by striking the last sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following sentence:  “Beginning on July 1, 2018, imports from any such country in an aggregate quantity under any such subheading during any of the periods January through March, April through June, July through September, or October through December in any year that is in excess of 500,000 kg and 30 percent of the total aggregate quantity provided for a calendar year for such country, as set forth on the Internet site of CBP, shall not be allowed.”.

(4)  The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with CBP and with other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall revise the HTSUS so that it conforms to the amendments and effective dates directed in this proclamation.  The Secretary shall publish any such modification to the HTSUS in the Federal Register.

(5)  Clause 5 of Proclamation 9711, as amended, is amended by striking the phrase “as amended by Proclamation 9711,” in the first and second sentences and inserting in lieu thereof the following phrase:  “as amended, or to the quantitative limitations established by proclamation,”.  Clause 5 of Proclamation 9711, as amended, is further amended by inserting the phrase “or quantitative limitations” after the words “ad valorem rates of duty” in the first and second sentences.

(6)  Clause 5 of Proclamation 9740 is amended by striking the phrase “as amended by clause 1 of this proclamation,” and inserting in lieu thereof the following phrase:  “as amended, or to the quantitative limitations established by proclamation,” in the first sentence.  Clause 5 of Proclamation 9740 is further amended by striking the words “by clause 4 of this proclamation” from the second sentence.

(7)  Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Median Household Income e risultati elettorali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-05-30.

2018-05-23__usa_median__001

The United Stated Census Bureau  ha rilasciato l’ultima elaborazione sul reddito mediano degli householders, fornendone anche una interessante mappa a livello continentale.

La si osservi bene, e la si compari quindi con la seguente, relativa ai risultati ottenuti nelle elezioni presidenziali del 2016.

2016-11-09__Stati_Americani__001

La comparazione di queste due mappe dovrebbe rendere evidente come il partito democratico rappresenti prevalentemente persone a reddito mediano elevato, mentre Mr Trup rappresenti prevalentemente quelle a reddito mediano basso.

Capito questo concetto, la attuale campagna elettorale resta molto più facilmente comprensibile.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Elezioni Midterm. Previsioni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-05-24.

2018-05-18__Usa__001

Per tradizione bisecolare gli Elettori americani alle elezioni di midterm eleggono sia al Congresso sia al Senato una maggioranza del partito contrario a quello del presidente. Se eccezioni a questo comportamento sono pochissime.

Dalle previsioni elettorali che si stanno accumulando sembrerebbe però possibile che in queste midterm 2018 il Presidente Trump possa avere un successo di misura, ma pur sempre conservando una maggioranza.

Trump. E se alla fine vincesse il midterm?

Midterm. Qualche previsione elettorale. Cnn e Nyt.

Midterm. La marea democratica potrebbe essere solo acqua alta.

*

2018-05-18__Usa__002

Sono uscite di questi giorni le previsioni elettorali di RealClear Politics, testata chiaramente schierata avverso Mr Trump, ma usualmente abbastanza obiettiva.

2018-05-18__Usa__003

Al Congresso uscirebbero certi 203 repubblicani e 201 democratici, essendo 31 i collegi incerti.

Al Senato uscirebbero certi 48 repubblicani e 44 democratici, essendo 8 i collegi incerti.

Per i Governatori, 26 sarebbero sicuramente repubblicani e 19 democratici: 4 invece le posizioni a risultato incerto.

*

Mancano sei mesi all’appuntamento elettorale, che sta polarizzando tutta la politica interna ed estera americana.

Già il non subire una secca sconfitta elettorale potrebbe essere un risultato soddisfacente.

Se poi Mr Trump riuscisse a conservare almeno la maggioranza in Senato, sarebbe un gran bel risultato, anche perché è il Senato che ratifica le nomine presidenziali.

*

Ribadiamo, come detto ripetutamente, come al momento queste proiezioni dovrebbero essere prese con enorme buon senso.

Ricordiamo anche come si voti per collegi, per cui i valori percentuali su base federale possono essere anche fortemente ingannatori.

Questi dati ripropongono però il problema di quanto i media siano diventati ininfluenti nell’indirizzare politicamente l’Elettorato e di quanto i temi cari ai liberal democratici non faccian più presa sugli Elettori.

Pubblicato in: Armamenti, Geopolitica Mondiale, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Nato, America e Germania. I tedeschi al bivio: dentro o fuori.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-05-23.

2018-05-18__Trump__001

L’annuncio è stato dato direttamente dalla Nato, North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

NATO Secretary General and President Trump discuss preparations for July summit

«NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with US President Donald Trump at the White House on Thursday (17 May). They discussed preparations for the Summit of NATO leaders in Brussels on 11-12 July, including NATO’s growing contribution to the fight against terrorism and fairer burden-sharing within the Alliance.

Speaking after the meeting in the Oval Office, the Secretary General stressed that in an unpredictable world we need a strong NATO. Mr. Stoltenberg thanked the US President for his leadership on defence spending, which is having a clear impact. All NATO Allies have stopped the cuts and started to increase, with the third consecutive year of defence increases across  NATO European Allies and Canada. “It’s very important that we all contribute more to our shared security,” Mr Stoltenberg said.

The Secretary General and President Trump were joined in their talks by members of the U.S. national security team, including Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, General (ret) John Kelly, Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff and Ambassador John Bolton, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In that meeting, Mr Stoltenberg also addressed NATO’s contributions to the fight against terrorism, including by boosting its training missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

On Wednesday evening, the Secretary General also met with Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Ambassador John Bolton, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs at the State Department for talks on the situation in Syria, Iran and Russia.»

*

Statements by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and US President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room at the White House

«PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much.  And today I’m honored to welcome Secretary General Stoltenberg back to the White House as we prepare for the upcoming NATO Summit in July.  That will be both interesting and exciting. ….

We’re delighted to report that last year, as a result of our joint efforts, we witnessed the single-largest increase in defense spending among European member states and Canada in a quarter of a century.  That really is quite a spectacular achievement, so I congratulate you.  I congratulate you very much. ….

This afternoon, I want to thank the seven NATO nations, in addition to the United States, who will meet their 2 percent NATO defense spending.  Now, unfortunately, we pay much more than 2 percent, which is probably unfair, and unfair to the taxpayers of the United States.

But the 2 percent number that’s met is Poland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, and the United Kingdom.  And they are right up to snuff.  They paid.  They were on time.  They paid the number that they’re supposed to be paying.  We have some that don’t — and, well, they’ll be dealt with. ….

And 2 percent is a very low number.  The number really should be 4 percent.  Two percent is a very low number. ….

In particular, Germany must demonstrate leadership in the Alliance by addressing its longstanding shortfall in defense contributions.  Germany has not contributed what it should be contributing, and it’s a very big beneficiary — far bigger than the United States, frankly.

In addition to that, as you know, they’re buying massive amounts of gas from Russia and paying billions and billions of dollars.  So I think that’s something we’ll be discussing later and we’ll be discussing that at our meeting, and probably long before the meeting. …..

Today, the United States reaffirms our commitment to Article 5 and the mutual defense pact. ….

including by increasing their defense contributions under the Article 3 requirement for preparedness and military capacity.  Have to be prepared.  Never know what’s going to happen ….

We need fairness.  We need to be reciprocal.  Countries have to be reciprocal in what we’re doing.  Unfair that some countries pay, and some countries work, and some countries are loyal and terrific, and other countries aren’t.»

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di essere chiari, a costo di essere anche impopolari con quanti vivano le realtà odierne in modo viscerale.

– Al mondo vi sono tre superpotenze nucleari e militari: America, Cina e Russia. Nessuna delle tre apparirebbe essere particolarmente bellicosa, ma l’unico modo per continuare a garantire una pace, per quanto instabile, è quello di conservare gli equilibri di forza. Senza mantenimento degli equilibri il pericolo di conflitto aumenta notevolmente.

– All’interno della Nato i rapporti devono essere reciprochi. Solo chi assolve al dovere di pagare le proprie quote si riconosce il diritto ad essere difeso.

– La Germania ha nei confronti della Nato debiti ingenti, pur essendone la maggiore beneficiaria.

*

Mr Trump ha sicuramente molti difetti, ma i fatti hanno dimostrato come sappia mantenere le parole date.


Reuters. 2018-05-18. Trump: Countries not meeting NATO obligations will be ‘dealt with’

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday that NATO members that do not contribute fully to the group would be “dealt with,” and singled out Germany as a country he said was not doing enough.

At a Cabinet meeting attended by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, Trump listed countries he said had paid the amount “they’re supposed to be paying.”

“We have some that don’t and, well, they’ll be dealt with,” Trump said.

He added Germany “has not contributed what it should be contributing and it’s a very big beneficiary.”

“In particular Germany must demonstrate leadership in the alliance by addressing its longstanding shortfall in defense contributions,” Trump said.

Despite often disagreeing with Trump in other areas, German Chancellor Angela Merkel agrees that Germany should contribute more and wants her country to boost military spending to meet the NATO target of 2 percent. She told senior military officers on Monday more spending is needed in light of changing security requirements in the world.

Stoltenberg praised Trump’s work on shoring up NATO, whose continued purpose Trump questioned while campaigning in the 2016 election.

Sitting on Trump’s right, Stoltenberg said: “Your leadership on defense spending has really helped to make a difference.”

“It is impacting allies because now all allies are increasing defense spending,” he said. “No allies are cutting their budgets.”


The Telegraph. 2018-05-18. Donald Trump says Germany must pay more for defence amid Nato spending tensions

Donald Trump told Angela Merkel it was “essential” that Germany pay more for defence amid tensions over Nato spending .

Mr Trump denied having a frosty personal relationship with the German chancellor, greeting her with a kiss on the cheek at the White House, and calling her an “extraordinary woman”.

However, her visit lasted less than three hours, while Emmanuel Macron, the French president, enjoyed a three-day lavish state occasion earlier this week.

In a 30-minute Oval Office meeting Mrs Merkel pressed Mr Trump not to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, and to step back from tariffs on steel and aluminium

But in response Mr Trump said Germany should meet the Nato goal of spending two per cent of GDP on defence.

Mrs Merkel said her country would spend 1.3 per cent in 2019, an increase over previous years.

She admitted it was “perhaps not, from the president’s perspective, fast enough”.

Mr Trump said: “We talked about the security of Europe and the responsibility of European nations to properly contribute to their own defence.

“All member states must honour their commitment to two per cent, and hopefully much more, of GDP, on defence. It is essential our allies increase so everyone is paying their fair share. A lot of countries have stepped up. They have to keep going.”

Mrs Merkel objected to Mr Trump’s decision to introduce trade tariffs on steel and aluminium.

She said: “We had an exchange of views on where we stand on this. The decision lies with the president.”

Mrs Merkel also laid out that Germany was against pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

“We will see what decisions are made by the US. We will continue to be in very close talks on this,” she said.

Speaking at a meeting of Nato foreign ministers in Brussels, Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, said “no decision” had been made on the Iran deal but “absent a substantial fix” Mr Trump was “unlikely to stay in that deal”.

Asked if Germany was spending enough on defence, Mr Pompeo said: “No. They should meet the goals that they agreed to.”