SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
tariffs
World Braces for Outcome of Trump-Harris Election
From Palestine to Ukraine to the southern U.S. border, people expressed fears of how a Donald Trump victory could adversely affect them.
Nov 05, 2024
People, governments, and rights groups around the world watched with bated breath as Americans headed to the polls Tuesday to elect a new president in a tight contest whose results are fraught with implications on a wide range of issues, from the climate emergency and migration to support for Ukraine and international trade.
Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris is facing off against former Republican President Donald Trump in a knife-edge race whose outcome may not be known until after Election Day.
In the Middle East, there are fears that a second Trump administration could be even worse for Palestinians, more than 160,000 of whom have been killed, wounded, or left missing by Israel's U.S.-backed assaults on Gaza and the West Bank.
While Harris has promised that she won't change President Joe Biden's "unwavering" support for Israel—which includes approving tens of billions of dollars worth of military aid and diplomatic cover like multiple vetoes of United Nations cease-fire resolutions—Trump has encouraged Israel, which is on trial for alleged genocide at the International Court of Justice, to "finish what they started" and "get it over with fast."
Ammar Joudeh, a resident of the heavily bombed Jabalia refugee camp in obliterated northern Gaza,
toldAl Jazeera Monday: "If Trump wins, disaster has befallen us. Trump's presidency was disastrous for the Palestinian cause. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and normalization with Arab countries increased."
"If Trump wins, we'll be displaced to the Sinai Peninsula [in Egypt]," he added. "Israel has already enacted much of Trump's plan to displace us from northern Gaza. If Trump takes office again, he'll finish the plan."
Wafaa Abdel Rahman, who lives in the West Bank city of Ramallah, said that "as a Palestinian, the two options are worse than each other. It seems to us as Palestinians like choosing between the devil and Satan."
"If Trump wins, I believe that the war will be resolved in Israel's favor quickly and more violently," she added. "Trump policy is clear and known to us as Palestinians. However, Harris will complete what her successor started and adopt the same position as her party, and thus we will remain in a long-term war without a resolution. In both cases, the result is death for Gaza, but in the second case, it will be a slow and more painful death."
Meanwhile in Israel, recent polling shows Trump—who is so popular with Israel's right that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu named a planned community in the illegally occupied Syrian Golan Heights after him—with over three times the support of Harris.
The big question in Iran is whether the winner of the U.S. election will pursue a path toward diplomacy or potential war. Tehran-based political analyst Diako Hosseini toldAl Jazeera on Tuesday that "pursuing diplomacy with Trump is much harder for Iran due to the assassination" of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, which was ordered by the former Republican president in January 2020.
"However, if a potential Harris administration is willing, Iran would not have any major obstacles for direct bilateral talks," he added. "Nevertheless, Iran is well and realistically aware that regardless of who takes over the White House as president, diplomacy with Washington is now considerably much more difficult than any other time."
Migrants and asylum-seekers have expressed alarm over Trump's plan for even tougher bans, border closures, and mass deportations than occurred during his first term. Trump has vowed to carry out "the largest deportation operation in American history" and reinstate first-term policies targeting asylum-seekers and people from Muslim-majority nations.
Flor Ramirez, a community navigator at the advocacy group Arise Chicago, toldSouth Side Weekly Monday that migrants are once again experiencing the "collective fear" they felt during Trump's first term.
"It was a fear that cut through our family. I had to talk to my bishop, to tell him that if I got deported, if I could please leave him a notarized letter that he would take care of my children, because my biggest fear at that time was that my children... would be separated," she said.
In Asia and Europe, the prospect of crippling tariffs imposed by Trump is stoking fear of negative economic implications, including a weakened euro.
"Tariffs will seriously dampen the [European Union's] economic growth," Zach Meyers, assistant director of the Center for European Reform, toldFortune on Sunday.
Ukrainians and their backers are also bracing for the possibility that a President Trump would end or dramatically cut aid to Ukraine, which is fighting to defend itself against a nearly three-year Russian invasion and the occupation. Harris supports continued aid to Ukraine. Trump says he will prioritize ending the war quickly—an objective he
claims he could achieve "in 24 hours."
Far-right Hungarian President Viktor Orbán and Trump, who are mutual admirers, said Sunday that Europe will have to rethink its support for Ukraine if the Republican wins, as the continent "will not be able to bear the burdens of the war alone." Orbán opposes military aid to Ukraine.
Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance—who is also a U.S. senator from Ohio—has proposed letting Russia keep the Ukrainian territory it has occupied and establishing a "heavily fortified" demilitarized buffer zone along the war's front line. Ukraine would be forced to accept neutrality under the plan.
Referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin—who favored Trump in the 2016 contest against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton—Harris' campaign said the proposed "Trump-Vance-Putin plan for Ukraine is a surrender plan."
"Trump won't say he wants Ukraine to win because he's rooting for Vladimir Putin," a Harris campaign spokesperson said in September."
While some Ukrainians say they want Trump to win because they believe he could help end a war of attrition that's claimed at least tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives, others fear the implications of a possible end or precipitous reduction of U.S. aid.
In the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, one produce vendor with relatives living under Russian occupation, recently toldCBS News that "for us, it's a matter of survival."
"We are really strong. We will hold on," she said. "We hope America will keep helping us, and not abandon us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
23 Nobel Economists Say Harris Plan 'Vastly Superior' to 'Counterproductive' Trump Agenda
"I do not know any economist who thinks Trump would be a good president, or who thinks he would be good for the economy," said one of the signatories.
Oct 23, 2024
Recipients of the prestigious Nobel Prize for economics said in a letter Thursday that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has outlined an economic agenda that would be "more sustainable and more equitable" than the policies proposed by Republican contender Donald Trump.
Spearheaded by 2001 Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, the letter was signed by 23 economists—more than half of the living U.S.-based recipients of the award.
The signatories, including Claudia Goldin, Simon Johnson, and Richard H. Thaler, wrote that what the two candidates have said, "combined with what they've done in the past, gives us a clear picture of alternative economic visions, policies, and practices."
Harris has been applauded since launching her campaign in July for unveiling numerous proposals aimed at easing economic burdens for working families. She has called for the first-ever federal ban on price gouging in food industries; an expansion of Medicare that would provide relief to 37 million people who currently provide unpaid eldercare to family members; an extension of Medicare's prescription drug price cap to all Americans; and an expansion of the child tax credit.
"Harris's economic agenda will improve our nation's health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump," wrote the economists.
The signatories particularly took issue with Trump's plan to impose high tariffs on goods and "regressive tax cuts for corporations and individuals."
His proposals "will lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality," the economists wrote.
Trump's tariffs would raise consumer prices by $2,500 to $3,000 per year, according to EPI Action, the advocacy arm of the Economic Policy Institute.
"I do not know any economist who thinks Trump would be a good president, or who thinks he would be good for the economy," said Thaler on social media.
The former president has also said he would extend his 2017 tax cuts, the vast majority of which benefited wealthy corporations and individuals. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy said in analysis of his tax proposals earlier this month that the richest 4% of Americans would see significant tax cuts under a Trump administration, and all other groups would see a tax increase.
"Among the most important determinants of economic success are the rule of law and economic and political certainty, and Trump threatens all of these. By contrast, Harris has emphasized policies that strengthen the middle class, enhance competition, and promote entrepreneurship," wrote the economists. "On issue after issue, Harris's economic agenda will do far more than Donald Trump's to increase the economic strength and well-being of our nation and its people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Treaties, Trade Agreements and Government by the People
Jun 16, 2015
For much of our history, trade agreements were considered treaties. According to the Constitution, they had to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The House does not participate in ratification of treaties (Article II, Section 2).
By the late 19th century Congress realized it was far too cumbersome to require a Congressional vote to change individual tariffs, so they delegated to the President the authority to use tariffs as a flexible tool in the exercise of foreign policy.
In the 1970s trade agreements stopped focusing on tariffs and began addressing an increasingly broad group of rules (e.g. procurement, copyrights and patents, product standards, subsidies, environmental standards) called non-tariff trade barriers. Modern multi-faceted trade pacts have more to do with pre-empting national, state and local rules that could favor communities or regional economies or domestic businesses or the environment than with lowering tariffs.
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution gives Congress a little wiggle room by making a distinction between "treaties" and "agreements". Congress can change the ratification process for agreements. But it is highly probable that the Constitution's Framers would have expected Congress to do so only with respect to agreements of limited importance.
In 1974 Congress made clear it thought otherwise. That year Congress acquiesced to a dramatic reduction in its and by extension the citizenry's authority over trade rules. Under the new procedure the President was allowed to unilaterally negotiate the final terms of a trade agreement. He would then present the final agreement to Congress, which would be unable to change it in any way and would have a limited time for debate. Instead of requiring ratification by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, trade pacts would require only a simple majority from both chambers.
In 1993 Congress ratified the far-reaching North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) under the new fast track provisions. NAFTA not only limited national and state sovereignty over a variety of issues but it also established for the first time what has come be known as investor state dispute settlement procedures. Corporations, rather than only governments would have the right to sue. And they could sue for loss of potential profits. And they would do so via a new extra-territorial judicial system that favors commerce over community and corporations over governments.
The NAFTA vote was close: 234-200. Three-quarters of Democrats voting against while 80 percent of Republicans voted in favor. The ratification process of NAFTA was challenged in federal courts, but the courts rejected the challenge, ruling in essence that Congress can at its discretion decide when a treaty is not a treaty and can make the process for ratification as undemocratic as it sees fit.
The authority to pursue fast track expired in 2007. But in December 2009, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), on behalf of the President, notified the country that the President intended to enter into negotiations for a regional, Asia-Pacific trade agreement as if that authority continued to apply.
Today the President is asking Congress to ratify his illegal use of the fast track.
Last week, after the House overwhelmingly rejected a trade assistance act that was formally tied to the approval of fast track authority it passed a standalone fast track bill by a tiny majority of 219-211. Eighty-five percent of Democrats voted against while 78 percent of Republicans voted in favor.
As Paul Ryan (R-WI) has noted, "We're not talking about passing a trade agreement right now. TPP is still being negotiated. It doesn't exist yet as an agreement. We're talking about whether we can even consider a trade agreement..." Representative Ryan is correct that Congress is not voting on TPP. But he's wrong that if fast track fails Congress will be unable to "even consider a trade agreement". Of course it can. The question before Congress right now is about how transparent and democratic that consideration will be.
We the people would like it to be as transparent and democratic as possible. Public opinion consistently favors trade but just as consistently solidly opposes fast track. We oppose the remarkable, indeed unprecedented secrecy in which the trade pact has been drafted and the inability of the average citizen, unlike giant corporations, to play a part in that drafting. We condemn the prohibition against changing the document in any way after submission.
And perhaps most of all we are furious about fast track's foreclosure of extensive and intensive debate on a complex document of far reaching consequence.
If fast track fails the President can still submit a trade bill. And we can then launch a much needed and long overdue national conversation about the benefits and limitations of trade and the dangers of ceding sovereignty to a new international constitution whose goal is to limit democracy and expand corpocracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular