tv The Bottom Line 2019 Ep 7 Al Jazeera December 4, 2019 5:33pm-6:01pm +03
behind bars for years awaiting trial one o one the philippines locked up on al-jazeera. a story of long family and fredo calling from my living years old you were at school we heard the sound of large explosions. and the hardships faced in captivity they came for me at midnight they told me to leave my son i said how can i come to his name i saw so much pain in the eyes of the other female prisoners. and the uprising coming soon on al-jazeera. hi i'm steve clements and i have a question are donald trump's trade wars helping or hurting families workers farmers and buyers of stuff in the u.s. and in the rest of the world let's get to the bottom line. it seems like ages ago but before impeachment took over the news cycle there was a different big thing on the american president's mind one i didn't. jar of.
he's targeted china's electronics millions of kids christmas toys german cars european steel airplanes and canada's cow and dairy products he says these nations cheat and play the trade game unfairly manipulating their currencies and dumping their products onto america's market since winning the elections in 2016 donald trump has tweeted about tariffs 177 times that's right 177 times so what's the obsession all about fortunately we have 3 task the people in the room that have the answers to these questions they are and pastor carla hills former u.s. trade representative and current chair of the national committee on us trying to relations filipe president of the economic policy institute in washington and before that chief of staff of the a.f.l.-cio the largest federation of labor unions in the united states and probably the world and jim glassman former u.s. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy founding executive director of the
george w. bush institute and one of the most prolific authors on economic and trade issues that i know it's great to be all with all of you and i really want to get into this trade issue carla and i think it would be put particularly appropriate for you to set the stage for us where are we to day what is the united states trying to achieve and. what's your take well the president has a crowded trade agenda without a question is tried to negotiate with japan and has agreed to a mini deal he has talked about negotiating with europe and. he is talked about doing and finishing the u.s. m.c.a. with our 2 northern and southern neighbor that's the us mexico canada agreement right out is right and it is the upgrade of the north american free trade agreement which he disliked and he is negotiating with china although that's really not
a trade negotiation that is a dispute settlement so with $28.00 days left in the legislative calendar it's a crowded agenda to try to get before january and europe china us mexico is the united states winning in these disputes. what i would urge the government to seek is open markets that is we have benefited for 70 years on free and open trade with partners around the world and by increasing our trade we have also increased our possibilities of development because when poor countries trade more they reduce their poverty it has increased our security as we make friends we have gravitated more to a bilateral approach which isn't one that i would recommend but the trade agreement that probably is most on the agenda today is the u.s.
m.c.a. us mexico canada trade agreement and we'll see if we can get that through the congress there's still some issues that we're working with the members of congress and i think the problem is timing if you let me ask you the same question and have you set the stage but from a slightly different perspective you worked a lot with labor workers a different side concerned about environmental and labor standards so is donald trump pushing the right buttons for your crowd well donald trump is clearly identified a problem that needed addressing which is unfair trade big trade deficit outsourcing of jobs corporations treating folks badly and moving jobs offshore but i'm afraid that the the solutions that he's put forward are too chaotic and they're not focused enough and they're not coherent enough to actually get the job done so he is addressing unfair trade but china but doing so in such an erratic and unfocused
way that it's not clear that either the chinese government or u.s. businesses know what they need to do differently in order to get past the tariffs he has renegotiated that nafta the north american free trade agreement that was long overdue he identified problems that it had been festering for some time. but if you like where the u.s. embassy is going i think there are some improvements in the u.s. m.c.a. but there's a lot that needs to be done still particularly with respect to enforcement and whether the commitments that have been made on labor are going to be enforced and enforceable or not whether they're sufficient so i think folks are looking at that and they're still negotiating honestly you're sort of happy but not super happy not super healthy but let me ask you this question which i don't get about president trump in trade right now. to certain degree someone found some notes that he had written where trade was mentioned and he scribbled on the sidelines bad trade is bad. do you think american workers and those that have been critics of trade deals
in the past particularly in the c.e.o. and some of your other colleagues who are in alignment with the president because when i when i hear that word trade is bad and i look at the volume of trade that the united states does so right now in 2018 we had $3.00 trillion dollars in exports $2.00 trillion dollars in imports so whether you like trade or not it's a huge number and a huge degree of jobs and capacity the question is is trade bad does that create an alignment worth workers and is there an understanding of how consequential that economic activity is for them i don't think most workers would say trade is bad i don't think that's the right way of looking at it i would say trade policy u.s. trade policy has been mis directed has had the wrong priorities for a couple of decades now that we have put too much emphasis on corporate profits and mobility and flexibility and not enough emphasis on good jobs on workers' rights
and environmental on consumer protections on democracy protections and so i would say our trade policy has been. misguided and has been flawed but you know the year is 2019 obviously we're going to be in a global economy obviously we're going to trade of course workers benefit from exports as well as from imports the question really is what kind of a global economy do we want to live in and when we when we negotiate a trade agreement whether it's a bilateral trade agreement or multilateral rules or whether we even decide how we're going to enforce our own trade rules we are basically defining the terms of competition for the global economy that's a super important question and it's one where we need to align with the rest of the world we need to have reached a common agreement that it's not ok to export goods made by prison or slave labor or child labor or by workers who don't have the right to organize a union and when we come to those agreements whether it's through the international labor organization or through multilateral environmental agreements trade policy
can reinforce those commitments we've made to each other in the global global arena and that is important for the terms of competition harley you're republican the president is republican who do you agree with more on trade today the president or thea lee. well i would pick as a bouquet some from each i think trade is enormously important i think it's enormously important for workers just take our north american region we have become the most competitive in the world we have created 14000000 jobs as a result of our opening up the market our exports have gone up and our supply chains have strengthened and it's been a win win situation are there changes i at the very beginning i thought the the north american free trade agreement should be updated because so much has happened in the last 20 years we didn't have digital trade you didn't have
a cell phone you didn't have the kind of television that europe is not enjoying that today and so we have to have or. rules to cover and it only be more rapid that the change occurs where i'd anthea may just agree is i think that trade has been good for the workers but we have been deficient in training them to deal with the change that is the technological change and that is we are remiss in that and that is going to happen more rapidly you know i used to go on the floor of out of company and it looked like new york 5th avenue it christmas time i mean you could barely get through today you go and it's quiet there are 3 people in long smocks and buffers on their shoes they tell you to walk in a roadblock absolutely it is all done electronically we have 7000000
jobs in the united states that are un filled that are looking for trained workers i'm not talking about a college degree i'm talking about 25 weeks of training and we should be posting all the open jobs the salaries and providing a stipend to get you from where you lose your job to where there is a job that you want and then a stipend for the 25 weeks and the company that needs you would pay you it would pay for itself because you would pay more in taxes you kind of like the marshall we want we like big ideas here jim glassman speaking of time before cell phones you wrote an article 19 years ago that i found and it's oh it's a wonderful reminder of where the republican party and really the united states sort of was on trade i want to read just a section is called the blessings of free trade was written in 1980 you were about 4 years old i think and it starts why do americans trade with people in the rest of
the world the basic question seems to be lost today in the political debate over trade deficits fast track negotiating authority in the world trade organizations americans trade because doing so allows. us to concentrate on what we do best thus raising productivity and incomes and you go on just tell the story of what treated sheaves and how it is at that time being pilloried i'm interested to know how you think that debate and challenges have changed 1000 years after or we pretty much running around chasing the same way it's just a disaster i think what you're seeing with this administration of all the things that it has done that have been criticized i think it's trade policy is probably the worst maybe immigration is kind of tough but the president has a trade adviser who is a tremendous outlier peter navarro very very few trick economists would agree with his point of view which essentially is that we have to have bilateral equality with
everybody that we trade with which is an absurd proposition that was easily refuted by adam smith and $776.00 i mean one of the problems as far as i'm concerned with trade economics is almost everything is already been decided it's already been done this is actually not very hard we should be trading with the rest of the world we should be trading at the lowest possible terrorist probably 0 terrorist we need to understand that we trade not for exports we trade for imports we can't eat exports this is a point that building friedman made many many many years ago and we can see the consequences already we're seeing the consequences of the present. i mean trump top program to take you to the nato summit me in london where the french president in mannion my car is giving a news conference this hour let's listen in suggesting i've never suggested substituting a europe of defense to nato. but this has to be within nato
the same as the united nations that is not correct. yes it's really balancing is not possible unless there is this american and your. security and balance. depends on the security that we want with russia france that is concerned i'm not at all night eve. we know the questions of interference the violations of human rights which can exist including on the chemical question which is startling let france taking on her responsibilities. i have always been very clear about the family interests acuity interests and the sovereignty of our european partners and allies were intangible. on this subject for those 2 days i was able to meet the majority of leaders present
from eastern europe from the puerto states and nordic countries to be clear about the french responsibility and to restructure this dialogue with russia in no case can it anyway sacrifice their security or interest on the country and we will be there with solidarity in this we fully integrating their interests nevertheless if we want to move forward and have peace in europe we need to have this dialogue in europe which goes through credible terence that is why. we have to proceed. plans both for poland and the baltics dense but also go through development as far as russia is concerned. alliance has history energy or graffiti as well. the fact the security instability can be solidly guaranteed through the setting up of
a solid demanding dialogue with russia and that is why we're able to start to continue to work together with our partners which means we have to move forward in certain dossiers that is why we will have to hold a. summit in normandy in normandy summit on the 9th of december which will include russia ukraine and france this dialogue of security and stability in europe must also bear on the control arms control here i want to reaffirm frances attachment to the existing instruments for arms control and nonproliferation as well as initiate initiatives taken by the alliance but we also have to be solid and i think this debate exists for the europeans who we are we have all noted. violations by russia of the strategic arms treaty
united states made the choice of denouncing it i know that this treaty for security is bilateral. i'm taking acts of the fact that the bilateral arrangements of the time of the cold war have gone but what i expressed very clearly what i expressed to all my colleagues and what what we have to be based on now for security stability of europe is to imagine a new process which makes it possible to provide i think guarantees or least equivalent to the strategic arms treaty as well as contemporary weapons in a simple way that applies to us all we have to find a legal framework that protects the deployment of weapons which russian weapons which can have an impact on the european soil that is why we have to work on this secondly we need to better integrate defense of several our partners a b.
and eastern partners those who are closer to the border. those who are less than 500 porters were not covered by the treaty we must integrate their interests and we must also take into account as i was saying this development the threat of. missiles from to poland and the boat it states in all new exchange on the capacities of european soil and to integrate this what is certain that on this subject we have to define a very clear position amongst europeans for my part i want the europeans to be stakeholders of the new treaty. to take part in this treaty to discuss with russia and with china that is the united states wish also to broaden this it is relevant i think nevertheless that this must not be. something which goes before which is something which has to be a prerequisite for the discussions with russia this is
a debate that i had with president trump. prime minister johnson chancellor merkel and around the table this morning that is the 1st pillar of stability and security and you have a response within the framework of strategic reflection which is beginning a 2nd. a 2nd line which we need must lead. on this exercise of redefining collective defense is when it comes down to it the finality of these modalities today it is a question that i was putting down today in a rather direct way because the secretary general. said. what is this alliance wanted to structure this very clear the soviet union that was clear. it's quite normal things were structured in such a way that they have changed since then. so around the table what everybody called
russian enemy i don't think so. to day it is a threat in certain areas it is a reality and we have seen this from cyber activities from certain subjects that are clearly defined as a threat for neighbors the ukrainian crisis is an example it is also a neighbor from a geographical point of view and that is a reality. and this is also a partner in certain areas which we have specific discussions together a power with which we working together on certain subjects together since 2014 we've made decisions that we have to make about the complex. collective decision making but we need today to be able to define the preconditions and the terms to bring a new essential dialogue for the alliance and to have
a european position that is more homogenous for the alliance that is at the heart of the will that i carry and i wish that france can launch this with a very clear frank german coordination i spoke about this with chancellor merkel and then european code nation in the coming time as far as china is concerned that is different it is fundamental that we have a strategic reflection on the military rise to power of china. the for stability of the north atlantic treaty area as well as the technological questions including interoperability i do not think that shine can be a matter for. strategic common defense so there are technological questions happy result strategic profoundly strategic i don't i'm not just thinking in terms of the
military finality and terrorism on the other hand. you know. they seek to kill our citizens without any negotiations we have. every state has its policies against terrorism which go from their national soil and the fight against groups that exist but we have seen territorial projects and geo political projects emerging and these new forms of terrorism that speaks about international coalition and nato within it and today we see clearly in. particular. with a presence a structured terrorist presence that threaten some of our allies some of our also our citizens and our territories and i will come back to this in a moment as far as the hell is concerned and the 3rd. area of reflection
strategically in my opinion. is that of the rights and duties of the different allies collective defense is going to involve being present when. when things are at stake for our allies. in a very clear way just warning i said that in france to be there for this you solidarity without any ambiguity. that does not mean that having. if you're joining us we've been listening there to the french president who's been giving a news conference at the nato summit near london day 2 of the final day of the nato summit in london which was celebrating the alliance's 70 years of existence and it's been. a summit certainly that's been deeply divided we've seen world leaders
divided on a number of issues the french leader and the american president we saw those divisions yesterday during their joint news conference and emmanuel mccall just now address that in fact saying that european defense is not an alternative to nato but a pillar within nato the french president has been heavily criticized for saying in an interview about a month ago that nato the alliance is in fact brain dead let's bring in our diplomatic editor james spaces following this summit for us in london james we heard there from mark or any he seems to be still standing by his comments that nato needs some sort of restructuring. yes absolutely the questions haven't started yet to the french president and as now as we've become accustomed to a somewhat scholarly style when he when he addresses reporters sounds a bit like a lecture but he's making it clear that he stands by his position and that his
comments in that article that controversial article and interview that he gave to the economist a couple of weeks ago has actually cause some dialogue important dialogue among nato members about the way forward for the alliance of the things i thought were important they're not necessarily the what we've been focusing on which is the comment about brain dead but one of the other things he was talking about in that interview which is he believes that it is time to be talking to russia that freezing out russia doesn't work and you heard him there talk about the need for a solid demanding dialogue with russia and that certainly is the position that the french are now pushing now one of the issues they'll be pushing on is the issue of ukraine because already fixed up is the 1st talks for some time on ukraine in the so-called normandy format and that will take place on the 9th of
this month that the normandy format is where germany france russia and ukraine get together and try and make progress and clearly there has been some progress between ukraine and russia a slight easing of the relations between those 2 countries in recent weeks so i think he sees that as potentially. a start perhaps of further dialogue with russia beyond the issue of ukraine right so the french leader is getting his news conference right now i james and so is the canadian prime minister just enjoyed all of this happening at the same time but president donald trump's news conference has been canceled do we know why. with big questions about why and these questions started to emerge when president
trump sat down with the german chancellor angela merkel and president trump then was pressed about something that happened here in london at a reception that took place in central london in buckingham palace where the nato leaders all of them were invited by the queen to buckingham palace well video emerged of that reception and you could see in the video a group of nato leaders law feeing and joking as they were addressed by the canadian prime minister justin trudeau you saw mark router the dutch prime minister there you saw boris johnson the british prime minister and you saw president macro as well as the queen's daughter princess and known as the princess royal all in a group laughing and you could hear some of the comments from the canadian prime minister justin trudeau and it appeared that he was joking about president trump
and the others were laughing while president trump was asked about that in front of the german chancellor and he said as you'd expect not very diplomatic language from the u.s. president he said the canadian prime minister was 2 faced and it seems that that may well have been the 1st time the u.s. president had heard about this video and had been asked about this video immediately afterwards he told the u.s. pull that he was considering canceling his news conference and in the last half hour has issued a tweet and saying there will be no news conference and he's heading straight back to the u.s. once he has finished his meetings here at the summit he's saying in that tweet that is because he's already given a lot of comments to reporters while he's been here in the u.k. but clearly it leads to the speculation that it may well be linked to that video off peak.
Uploaded by TV Archive on