| Donald Trump’s second term as the president of the United States is only two months old, but one major focus of his foreign policy is already clear: an aggressive approach to trade with China. On February 1, Trump ordered a blanket 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports into the U.S. The next week, his administration announced 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, aiming to end Chinese domination of the global markets for the metals.
Beijing’s response to the tariffs has been measured: It imposed import duties on U.S. fossil fuels, farm equipment, cars, and some agricultural products, and it launched an anti-monopoly investigation of Google.
But since Trump’s victory last November, Beijing has been pursuing other plans that could have bigger implications for its competition with Washington. Chinese leaders invited India’s top security official for a visit in December; Beijing made concessions to Delhi on trade and travel issues; and the Chinese also volunteered to start talks on China’s and India’s long-disputed border—a step they’d long refused to take.
Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Japan’s prime minister in November, and in January the countries resumed ruling-party exchanges, which had been suspended for seven years.
Also meanwhile, once Trump shut down most operations of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which ran economic-development and health-care programs in many of the world’s poorest countries, China stepped forward to offer Cambodia US$4.4 million to clear landmines left over from the Vietnam War, a project USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—had previously supported.
What’s China trying to do here?
Scott Kennedy is a senior adviser and trustee chair in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and the author or editor of several books on China. Kennedy says the full picture of China’s strategy to address the new U.S. administration is still taking shape. In some areas, Beijing is largely reacting in kind to the White House, welcoming friendly moves or retaliating against unfriendly ones. At the same time, though, Chinese leaders are on a diplomatic offensive with countries in the Indo-Pacific region and the West. And they see two good reasons for doing it: They want to improve ties in case Washington tries to isolate them—but they also see big potential gains if Washington’s relations with traditional allies really deteriorate … |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DEVELOPMENTS |
| A possible ceasefire in Ukraine
On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as Trump tried to negotiate a ceasefire between Kyiv and Moscow. The day before, Trump spoke by telephone with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Where do things stand?
- The sides agreed to a limited, 30-day ceasefire on strikes on energy and civilian infrastructure, prisoner exchanges, and talks about security in the Black Sea. The Kremlin had pursued these goals in the past; Ukraine and Russia have long engaged in prisoner exchanges, and the two sides had previously worked on agreements to avoid targeting energy infrastructure.
- Zelenskyy also said that Ukraine had accepted the U.S. proposal for an unconditional ceasefire on the front lines; Putin rejected the plan the previous day. Putin said any ceasefire deal was conditional on an end to all foreign military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine. European leaders in Germany, France, and Finland—as well as the EU security chief—rejected and roundly criticized Putin’s demand, saying it was unacceptable and a transparent ploy to undermine Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. China’s Foreign Ministry welcomed the new agreement.
- Shortly after Putin agreed to halt attacks on energy infrastructure in his call with Trump, air raid sirens sounded in Kyiv, and Zelenskyy said Russia launched 150 drone attacks that evening—including on energy infrastructure. Meanwhile, Ukraine continued its air assaults on Russia through the night, apparently hitting an oil depot near Krasnodar. Russian authorities said they’d shot down 57 Ukrainian drones.
Israel attacks in Gaza
On March 18, Israel launched 10 hours of airstrikes into Gaza, killing more than 400 people, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, ending the ceasefire that Israel and Hamas had agreed to on January 19. On March 19, Israel conducted new airstrikes, and Israeli ground forces pushed into the enclave, seizing control of a corridor that bisects the Gaza Strip—and the Israeli Defense Forces issued evacuation orders for about 100,000 Palestinians from the northern part of Gaza. Why has Israel done this?
- In a televised address, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that from now on, negotiations with Hamas “will take place only under fire”—calling Tuesday’s airstrikes “just the beginning.” Israel and Hamas have accused each other of violating the truce.
- Far-right members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition—and their voters—have been pressing the prime minister to resume the fighting, with the goal of freeing all remaining Israeli hostages and destroying Hamas. On March 19, after the airstrikes, the government announced the unanimous reappointment of Itamar Ben-Gvir as national security minister; Ben-Gvir, the leader of the far-right party Jewish Power, had resigned from the cabinet in January over the ceasefire and said he and his party would only return if the war resumed.
- -On March 19, thousands of Israelis protested the resumption of the war, marching in front of the building of the Israeli Knesset, or parliament. Netanyahu’s critics had called for the demonstrations before the airstrikes—they originally intended to protest Netanyahu’s firing of the head of the domestic security service, Shin Bet. Critics charge that Netanyahu is purging the government of anyone not entirely loyal to him and that he’s putting the well-being of his fragile governing coalition over the well-being of the country—and the Palestinians.
Opposition leader arrested in Türkiye
Authorities arrested Ekrem İmamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul, on March 19 on charges of being the “leader of a criminal organization” and extortion, fraud, corruption, and terrorism—the last for allegedly working with a banned Kurdish party during elections last year. Police arrested 105 other people as part of the operation, including politicians and businesspeople. What’s going on?
- İmamoğlu has long been seen as the primary challenger to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has ruled the country for more than 20 years and become increasingly authoritarian. İmamoğlu was almost certain to be nominated this weekend by the Republican People’s Party to run against Erdogan in the next presidential election, which must be held by 2028.
- One day before the arrest, Istanbul University announced that it had revoked İmamoğlu’s diploma—which would make him ineligible for the presidency, as a university degree is a prerequisite for holding the office. İmamoğlu had been banned from politics once before, in 2022, for allegedly insulting election officials, though he won the case on appeal. When İmamoğlu first won election as Istanbul’s mayor, in 2019, Erdoğan’s party pressured election officials into annulling the vote—but İmamoğlu won the second vote, too.
- After the arrest, Turkish police announced a four-day ban on public protests and meetings; they closed several main streets and metro stations. Internet access across the country was spotty, and there were reports of outages of social-media platforms. Despite the ban, thousands of students gathered at Istanbul University to protest İmamoğlu’s detention.
|
|
|
|
|
| What if you had a personal guide to every road trip you took in America, telling you fascinating, three-to-five-minute stories about every place you pass through? That’s Autio—your gateway to 23,000+ narrated tales of America’s hidden history, playing automatically as you drive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Politically-minded Americans might have heard of some famous U.S. Supreme Court cases: Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, or recently, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ruled that the U.S. Constitution confers no right to abortion.
Seen from outside the United States, this seems rather peculiar. In Sweden, for instance, even the most obsessive political obsessive would struggle to name a single consequential Supreme Court ruling, much less a Supreme Court justice. But in America, the Supreme Court is a constant political flashpoint. Why?
Among all the books you could consult on this question, it’s still, after all these years, hard to beat Democracy in America (especially Chapter VI of Part I), published in two parts in 1835 and 1840 by France’s Alexis de Tocqueville. It’s an old book, yes, but it’s also an absolute classic that’s stayed in print on account of remaining so enduringly relevant. In the latest member’s despatch, we look at just how much Tocqueville could see of an answer almost 200 years ago …
—Gustav Jönsson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MEANWHILE |
- Two NASA astronauts, Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore, returned to Earth in a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule, splashing down off Florida’s Gulf Coast, after 286 days in space—nine months longer than planned on account of issues with their Boeing Starliner spacecraft: “Williams returned home as the American astronaut with the second-longest combined time in space, 608 days over three visits to the space station, the first in 2006.”
- Samples from asteroid Bennu brought back by NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft have revealed key ingredients to life on Earth, including 14 amino acids and five nucleobases found in DNA/RNA: “There could hardly be any study more important to our understanding of the origins of life in the solar system.”
- Drones will help Sherpas on Mount Everest by carrying heavy loads up to 35 pounds, reducing dangerous trips through the Khumbu Icefall and potentially delivering hot meals—all in a fraction of the time required by foot: “It takes six hours if you follow the normal route to reach Camp I, but the drone served food in six minutes.”
|
|
|
| ELSEWHERE |
- Tired of waking up to an inbox full of sensationalist headlines and negative stories? Stay informed without the drama, with the Donut. It’s quick, engaging, nonpartisan, and free. Sign up here.
|
|
|
|
|
| Become a member to access all new articles, open our full archive, and get the weekly Signal member’s despatch every Saturday—curating key developments, debates, books, music, and more. |
|
|
|
|
| Members play a vital role in backing our mission to develop a new genre of independent current-affairs coverage—for less than one fine cup of coffee every couple of weeks. Support The Signal. |
|
|
|
|
| Coming soon: Daniel Schlozman on why the U.S. Democrats’ relatively modest election loss is so devastating … |
|
|
|
|
|