mardi 21 février 2017

Personal Interest

Trump did get something for agreeing to 'One China' policy—something for himself
By Mark Sumner

Workers inflated a giant chicken resembling Donald Trump in front of a factory in Jiaxing, China.

Donald Trump made a point of demonstrating a belligerent dismissal of the “One China” policy that the United States has maintained since 1979. 
One of his early calls to foreign leaders was to Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, and in December Trump made it explicit.
Donald Trump said the United States did not necessarily have to stick to its long-standing position that Taiwan is part of "one China," questioning nearly four decades of policy in a move likely to antagonize Beijing.
So when Trump abruptly changed directions last week, a lot of observers were both surprised and quick to declare that Trump had folded without securing any matching commitment from China. Some might even say that Trump showed he was … chicken.
But in doing so, he handed China a victory and sullied his reputation with its leader, Xi Jinping, as a tough negotiator who ought to be feared, analysts said.
But it’s not exactly true that Trump went home empty beaked … er, handed. 
Yes, Trump folded his position without getting anything for America, but that doesn’t mean Trump didn’t get a reward for playing along with Beijing.
The Chinese government has granted Trump and his business something they had been seeking for more than a decade: trademark protection for the use of the Trump name in the construction industry.
China actually began the process of moving the trademark to Trump after the election, but put it on hold until … coincidentally, Trump announced policy changes. 
In given the trademark to Trump, China violated its own laws.
When China awarded Donald Trump a long-coveted trademark of the “Trump” brand this week, it violated its own regulations. 
Chinese legal standards prohibit trademarks of the names of foreign leaders.
But Trump’s trademark deal, which may also be (say it with me) a violation of the emoluments clause, is just the tip of the potential iceberg. 
For a greedy guy who doesn’t believe in conflict of interest, how off base would it be to trade a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine for a nice building lot in Jerusalem? 
Why not toss an extra F-35 into that arms deal in return for rights to build an entirely classy, and very thirsty, golf course in Saudi Arabia?
And why not agree to stay out of Ukraine in exchange for, say, a bit of election help and a few videos staying conveniently invisible?

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire