[ad_1]
The depth of the international “change”
Regionally, nothing is likely to change in the short term regarding the sanctions regime, with the exception of an expected weakening towards Iran, if the Democrats return. This has nothing to do with the policy towards Iran itself, but with the approach to multilateral agreements that were greatly affected by the arrival of Trump, to which is added the nuclear agreement, which was considered at the time as the culmination of this kind of cooperation with partners, and even with opponents in the case of Russia. Undermining this approach, America’s allies stayed away from him, in other files away from Iran, requiring cooperation and coordination at the international level, especially on climate issues, immigration, and easing of trade restrictions. By distancing himself from the allies – and specifically the Europeans – in this way, he made the United States act alone on all these issues, so that acting according to the new methodology would be proportional to the American interest more than others, so that it it would gain an advantage in terms of trade, security and foreign relations, which it had lost in the past. The era of the Democrats, says Trump. The lack of collective management at the level of the West, or at least, of coordination on issues of interest to their countries in terms of trade, environment and security, has caused a similar fissure in the level of management of the relationship with opponents in the region and the world. While Europe wanted to continue its containment policy towards China and Iran, the United States went with Trump in the opposite direction and carried out a direct confrontation with these two countries throughout the man’s tenure. We have witnessed a major escalation in the trade war with China, in parallel with the tightening of sanctions against Iran, unprecedented in any previous American administration. The disagreement even extends to the relationship with Russia, with which it is increasingly radicalized in Europe in the context of the conflict in the Baltic countries, while the American relationship with it is witnessing an unprecedented rapprochement, as evidenced by allegations that Trump is periodically accused by his democratic opponents of facilitating Russian interference in US elections and the existing political process. In general.
The political economy of the vagabond
This basket of policies is not only based on a new perspective of international relations based on the singularity in the management of files far from the allies and with great disparity with the opponents, but also on a no less radical break with globalization, in its current form led by China, and to a lesser extent Germany. The modification of Trump’s trade agreements with his allies, starting with Canada and Mexico, and ending with Europe, after providing them with a set of measures to reduce the competitiveness of European goods, especially Germans, would have inevitably led to an open confrontation. with China. This is due not only to the fact that Beijing is the second largest economy after the United States, nor that its goods are also the most competitive in the world, but because it was the one that favored this global growth trend that was based on devaluing the currency and support local goods to stay competitive. Either in exchanges with countries, or in commercial agreements with them. The main objective of Trump’s amendments to all trade agreements that bind the United States with the rest of the world is to deprive China, and with it all countries that benefit, equally, from the trade competition organized by the rules of the World Trade Organization, of this “advantage”, so that it does not become The benefit is only equal, but the United States is also obtaining the victory, after years of deficit in the American trade balance. This was already reflected positively in the economy there, in the first years of male tutelage, the trade deficit decreased significantly and the labor sector witnessed a significant growth in line with the volume of capital that returned to the United States from Mexico, China and others. countries, to invest in local labor after the historic reduction. Passed by Congress in favor of corporate taxation. However, this return to the economy of raw materials at an increasing rate, and with the support of the structural changes that took place in the form of the participation of the United States in international trade, in terms of restitution of wealth to the interior , was not accompanied by alternatives, in case the production process was suddenly interrupted or the world attended a new recessive crisis as a result. Demand for large-scale commodities falls back. Thus, the setback that occurred with the spread of the epidemic to the United States showed not only the limitations of the mercantile capitalism represented by Trump, and what it could achieve in the face of China and other capitalist poles, but also the inability of the entire model economic before an exacerbation of the demand crisis, to pump more. The wealth is inside. With this shortage of income, a product of the loss of jobs and the collapse of the small and medium-sized business sector, the prosperity model launched by Trumpism is not only broken, but its very existence as a patron of business is threatened. political representation for this stage in the development of American capitalism. This means that it will lose legitimacy, even among sectors of its supporters, despite the continuous crisis in the manifestation of its interests, in the absence of an alternative.
conclusion
Going back in this direction will not be in the long-term interest of the Democrats, especially with a weak candidate like Biden, because they do not have an alternative project and do not have a solution to the economic crisis that the United States reached after the “collapse of the Trumpism “economically. The political and cultural bearer of their project is not as strong as in the time of Barack Obama, and even in the confrontation with Trump in the interests of ethnic minorities, they have not shown the capacity to go a little beyond the adoption of multiculturalism as alternative political option than the bias of the state apparatus in favor of whites. Liberalism in the United States reached its limits with the arrival of Obama to the presidency, and since then it is in a state of continuous decline, not as a cultural situation – where it is witnessing a resurgence in this sense among the elites and the children of immigrants – but as an integral project for the leadership of the United States before the rise of China, Russia and even Germany. As potential adversaries, both strategically and economically, of American power and hegemony. The protectionism that Trump represented was a new bulwark for this power in the process of global repositioning, and with its decline, if not declining, the stage of the strategic vacuum in the United States would have been completed, even with the presence of a Democratic candidate for the presidency , or if we want to be more precise. In the absence of effective leadership, it compensates for the decline of Trumpism, in its economic sense.
* Syrian writer
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
