👇🎯 this. The fact that journos reproduced government briefing on an "American Deal" that *cough* includes Canada and Mexico without calling Mexican or Canadian diplomatic contacts for a quote or questioning why the UK government might circulate such talking points is surreal
Surely if the first two paragraphs of your piece hinge around a government "discussing plans" and "considering applying to" then your journo spidey sense should start telling you something about what your government contact just said in the Whatsapp group?
And guys, just on the basic level of logic if negotiating a trade deal with the US is proving such a pain how is a negotiation process for deeper economic integration that might include Trudeau and AMLO going to be any faster?
On the other hand nice to see Liz Truss is bringing her MVP briefing game to FCDO
And just for those who will now say "muh crypto-Remainer" negotiating a more stable relationship involving greater alignment with the EU is not going to be sparkle and glitter either. It's going to be a much more complicated and slower process than many on this site assume
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The oddities around rules of origin related to the car industry mentioned here have roots in the Auto Pact negotiated between Pearson and LBJ in the mid-1960s. Just shows how much functioning trade deals build on long histories of economic integration en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2…
That's a key reason why the pitch from the UK government about joining USMCA was so ridiculous. It showed a degree of ignorance about historical specificities of trade integration between the US, Canada and Mexico that underpin their relationship which UK would have to adjust to
They're not mad if you place them in a North American historical context about how cross-border supply chains evolved since the 1920s. Structures the UK has little connection with and which would require fundamental remodelling of the UK economy
Many pieces declare France or the UK need to be involved in the Indo-Pacific without grappling with exactly how UK and France should get involved, where they should get involved in a dozen distinct areas each with own dynamics and how much power they have to shape outcomes there
Particularly with the UK, the Indo-Pacific as space for symbolic expression of great power status is typical of how debates about geopolitics and the future of the British state are often divorced from discussion about whether it still has the means to make a significant impact
France has to protect territory in the Indo-Pacific. But again rhetoric about how France is "destined" to play a role there doesn't grapple with whether it has the heft there to play a leading role rather than act as junior partner to bigger states there like US, India or Japan
There are gradual trends towards a greater US shift to Asia as well as greater strategic autonomy in Europe built around the EU. With some focus in DC, Brussels and EU states on the basics of alliance management this process can play out without destabilising outcomes
But these trends are not going to flip everything overnight. The US pivot to Asia has been more or less on for three decades while the consolidation of EU power in Europe has been playing out since 1992. Too much frenzy over the events of the day, not enough focus on longue duree
Many complain about how EU "strategic autonomy" is overused or misused
But if I have a pet peeve it's in use of "Indo-Pacific" for what is a huge geographic space that if you look closer breaks apart into a dozen regions each with their own China and non-China related dynamics
By grouping everything together in terms of China policy under "Indo-Pacific" you arguably end up overestimating importance of states with limited ability to counteract Chinese state expansionism and getting distracted from states on China's direct land and sea borders that can
Sure, Australia, UK or France can help US contain China militarily. But if that's the strategy the US wants to pursue than of greater importance are how Japan and India develop their strategies to contain China and whether Vietnam and Indonesia openly join this alliance system
Sounds a bit like Bulgarian or Romanian Prime Ministers visiting Ankara to see whether off ramps or face-saving measures can be worked out so the EU can avoid a row without budging on the Customs Union or EEZs
EU leader meets difficult neighbouring state leader X to scope out off-ramps that enable neighbouring state leader X to adjust to EU demands without losing face is pretty standard EU politics stuff. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't