http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/tags/us Common Ground, Uncommon Debate en-US Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:50:21 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.1 q http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/search.php http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/topic/sonic-boom-globalization-at-mach-speed#post-47 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:26:01 +0000 katie.mo.vogel 47@http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/ <p>Here is where the review of Gregg Easterbrook's book "Sonic Boom: Globalization at Mach Speed" continues. All registered members of PublicSquare.net are invited to participate.</p> <p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/books/review/Drezner-t.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/books/review/Drezner-t.html</a> </p> http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/topic/aid-to-haiti-is-it-key-for-countries-prestige-in-western-hemisphere#post-36 Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:10:45 +0000 gmartin 36@http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/ <p>The recent earthquake that devastated Haiti has led a number of states to send aid, including the US, China, Brazil, France, Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, or Iceland.</p> <p>While compassion is undoubtedly the primary reason behind countries sending aid, self interest may also play a certain role. Rivals like the US and Cuba and Venezuela may view sending aid as a way to improve their standing the Western hemisphere.</p> <p>Question: Aside from the key humanitarian concerns, are the US, Cuba and Venezuela using aid to Haiti in order to improve their standings in the western hemisphere, and compete for the hearts and minds of the people?</p> <p>Question: </p> http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/topic/should-the-us-congress-pass-the-us-colombia-free-trade-agreement#post-33 Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:46:07 +0000 Liva 33@http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/ <p>The US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed on November 22, 2006. Colombia’s congress approved the agreement in 2007 and it was declared to be in compliance with Colombia’s constitution in July 2008. The FTA is pending US Congress approval. The US Congress can put the treaty on an up or down vote and cannot change the letter of the treaty, since it was signed under US Trade Promotion Authority (through the so-called fast-track provision). </p> <p>The treaty covers similar areas and is structured around the same platform as other US FTAs, covering customs, trade facilitation, Technical Barriers as Trade, government procurement, telecommunications, electronic commerce, intellectual property rights, as well as provisions on labor and environment. The latter two are the main areas of controversies surrounding the treaty.</p> <p>While the proponents of the treaty argue that inaction is costing the US manufacturers millions of dollars in trade, agricultural markets and job creation, the opponents of the treaty claim that US passing the treaty would indirectly support and give legitimacy to the violence in Colombia committed against union workers, lead to environmental degradation, and to loss of control of land to Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities, among other problems. The proponents of the treaty, in turn, call these assertions outdated and claim that, alongside economic benefits for both parties, a US-Colombia FTA would allow for consolidation of an ally in the region and contribute towards a more secure environment in the region.</p> <p>Question: Should the US Congress pass the US-Colombia FTA, or should it be renegotiated? </p> http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/topic/is-there-a-need-for-a-new-global-reserve-currency#post-32 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:41:16 +0000 Liva 32@http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/ <p>The global imbalances resulting from the US dollar being the leading world reserve currency, some say, are unsustainable and will trigger of the next major international crisis. In contrast, others say that the US choosing to improve its balance of payments would also lead to the next global depression. For example, Helmut Reisen, researcher for the OECD development center, has emphasized the necessity of US external deficits as song as the US dollar is the only global reserve currency according to the “Triffin Dilemma”. In essence, the Dilemma suggests that if the US stopped running balance of payments deficits and supplying reserves, the resulting shortage of liquidity would pull the global economy into a contractionary spiral.<br /> On the opposite side, yet other economists have expressed the view that the global imbalances are not unsustainable and there is no need for a change in policy. In their view, the US can continue running large current account deficits because the emerging Asian and Latin American markets are happy to keep accumulating dollars. For example, Barry Eichengreen (UC, Berkeley), maintains that there is no reason why the dollar must fall, since there is no reason for balance of payments adjustment. In short, the risk of countries suddenly shifting to other reserve currencies is low.<br /> Another position on this issue states, that the current developments in the global economy already suggest that there is an international support for a new reserve currency, whether or not there is a well-established economic rationale for it. For example, China’s call for an overhaul of the global currency reserve system has been echoed by the Russian President Medvedev as an important building block of a new global financial architecture. Some experts suggest that China is making moves that could soon lead to the convertibility of the renminbi, and thus, make it into a leading world reserve currency in the distant future. In March 2009, as a result of the global economic crisis, China and Russia have pressed for urgent consideration of a global currency and a UN panel has proposed greatly expanding the use of IMF's Special Drawing Rights.<br /> Skeptics point out that the dollar is too entrenched as the international currency of choice and the moves of China and Russia will not be reciprocated by other major players in the world economy. </p> <p>Question: Is there a need for a new global reserve currency to replace the US dollar? </p> http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/topic/should-the-us-be-more-proactive-regarding-the-asia-pacific-and-apec#post-31 Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:13:15 +0000 Liva 31@http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/ <p>Since the onset of the current financial crisis, there has been a significant drop in the volume of world trade. Marcus Hand, the Asia Editor of Lloyd’s List DCN, claims that the drop has reached a staggering 20 percent. While policy makers encourage the completion of the current WTO Doha Development Trade Round in 2010, evidence of actual prospects of accomplishing the task look grim. Consequently, to prevent the raise of protectionism and its respective side effects and to foster further trade liberalization, regional and bilateral arrangements have been pursued as the next best alternative.<br /> The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) members contribute more than 50 percent of the world GDP. Asia is also the most successful region in recovering from the current global financial crisis. Over the years, APEC has become an increasingly important regional arrangement for the United States—four out of its five largest trading partners are APEC member states and about 60% of US exports are destined for the APEC countries.<br /> In the November 12-14, 2009 APEC Summit in Singapore, the Obama administration identified economic cooperation within APEC as a major foreign economic policy goal. Specifically, the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, affirmed Obama administration’s definite stance on the issue of free trade and market liberalization and pointed out that US trade with APEC nations currently supports 3.7 million American jobs. Additionally, the US delegation unexpectedly announced that the US would engage in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a region wide FTA with Asia-Pacific. On the other hand, the Congress is delaying the ratification of a landmark agreement between the US and South Korea and has recently erected trade barriers against selected Chinese imports, while still ignoring demands from Chinese neighbors to take a tougher stance towards the Chinese undervalued currency.<br /> The question, thus arises, whether the US stance demonstrated in the Summit will be sufficient to prevent a further drop in trade volume both for the US and worldwide. Some experts and stake holders claim that the US needs to be more involved in the regional arrangements with Asia and the Pacific, and act like a leader promoting further integration in the APEC framework (the Australian prime minister Rudd, and the Prime Minister of Thailand Abhist among others), as well as act as a stabilizing power in the region. Others (for example Claude Barfield from the AEI) claim that the US might need to step in only after the major APEC economies have agreed on the preferred architecture (e.g., the Japanese proposal for an East Asia Community), as to not cause a backlash against policies that could be seen as intervention, or even intrusion by some APEC governments. As Amitav Acharya from the American University points out, the APEC members welcome US involvement, but not dominance. </p> <p>Question: Can the US economy sustain a further drop in trade volume? Should the Obama administration take a more proactive stance and be more involved in the economic developments in Asia-Pacific and APEC? </p> http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/topic/is-the-ratification-of-the-lisbon-treaty-in-us-interests#post-29 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:50:53 +0000 Liva 29@http://www.publicsquare.net/bbpress/ <p>The Lisbon Treaty, the so-called soft form of an EU’s constitution, is currently pending on the ratification of the President of the Czech Republic. If enacted, starting January 1, 2010, the EU would have a new chief of foreign affairs, representing the overall position of the Union (supposedly granting a voice on par with the US in the international arena). A more united Europe can be either a more credible partner to the US in tackling common global challenges, and taking a larger share of the NATO financing; or it might seek to rival the US and would lessen Washington’s leverage on individual members and complicate US efforts to rally support in various intergovernmental forums. For example, Article 28 of the Lisbon Treaty creates a legal basis for the creation of a European Army. Although still out of sight, some are concerned that an eventual development of EU military structures would duplicate those of NATO and weaken the transatlantic link. Thus, is the successful conclusion of the Lisbon Treaty in the US interests? Would it present more opportunities or challenges? </p>