Chris Brummer Talks with Former Obama CIA Deputy Director

Professor of Law : Georgetown University, and Director, Institute of International Economic Law

Chris Brummer Talks with Former Obama CIA Deputy Director

Chris Brummer interviews David Cohen former CIA deputy director and Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

Chris Brummer interviews David Cohen – Former Under Secretary for Terrorism & Financial Intelligence, Obama Administration, and Former CIA Deputy Director 2015 – 2017.

In a wide ranging conversation on Russia, North Korean and Venezuelan sanctions, David Cohen speaks with IIEL Faculty Director and Georgetown Law professor about US sanctions strategy in both Obama and Trump administrations for CSPAN. In the discussions Mr. Cohen discusses bilateral sanctions, and how sanctions approaches can be multilateralized.

Copyright 2019, Chris Brummer, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Latin America Goes Around Trump On Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Professor of Law : Georgetown University, and Director, Institute of International Economic Law

Latin America Willing to Finish TPP without Trump?

Latin American governments want to revive TPP agreement
image credit ESO

In regards to the TPP, Trump fulfilled one of his campaign promises right out of the gate by withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump has long maintained his stance against multilateral trading agreements.

He’s been in favor of bilateral trade agreements. And maybe even minilateralism.

However, multiple Latin American countries are potentially in favor of the TPP, even without the United States, though not all.

Read More.

Copyright 2019, Chris Brummer, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Trump to End NAFTA?

Professor of Law : Georgetown University, and Director, Institute of International Economic Law

Trump to end NAFTA?

Donald Trump talks ending NAFTA

A number of experts on both sides of the aisle agree something needs to be done about NAFTA. Even Canadian and Mexican representatives believe NAFTA deserves to be updated.

Trump railed against NAFTA during his campaign. He sees it as the United States being taken advantage of but doesn’t commit that he’s made up his mind to disband it yet.

Read more at AP.

Copyright 2019, Chris Brummer, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Trade War Looms Because of Missile Test?

Professor of Law : Georgetown University, and Director, Institute of International Economic Law

Trade War Looms Because of Missile Test?

Kevin Rudd, former Australia prime minister, talks global trade

One expert, Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister of Australia, believes this North Korean missile test represents a major provocation to the Trump administration.

Yet he also predicts that sanctions on China, one of North Korea’s few allies, could impact, Australia's economy perhaps severely.

Read the full story here.

Copyright 2019, Chris Brummer, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Contact Us

EU, Japan bilateral agreement is near to minilateralism

Copyright 2019, Chris Brummer, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Contact Us

United Kingdom Plans Free Trade Continuation with Poor Countries

Professor of Law : Georgetown University, and Director, Institute of International Economic Law

UK to Maintain Free Trade with Poorest Countries after Brexit

United Kingdom trade policy remains tariff free with poor countries
image credit http://www.geg.ox.ac.uk/brexit-opportunity-or-peril-trade-small-and-poor-developing-economies
The UK's policy is a break from the trade policy likely to be pursued by the United States. Of course, whether the tariffs talked about in the U.S. actually get implemented is yet to be determined.

Copyright 2019, Chris Brummer, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Cookbook of the Renminbi with Chris Brummer

 

 

 

Professor of Law : Georgetown University, and Director, Institute of International Economic Law

 

 

Cookbook of the Renminbi with Chris Brummer

China is a global powerhouse and the second largest economy. They saw tremendous growth in GDP again in June. Their premier and official position is they're confident in continued economic growth. They're also confident they can handle and manage any financial risks to the renminbi.

Here's an interview from a couple of years ago where Dr. Chris Brummer talks about the renminbi and China's rise and place in the global economy.

Keep reading for more about finance and Chris Brummer's take on minilateralism.

 

Copyright 2019, Chris Brummer, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Is the TPP Agreement Dead? Maybe Not

 

 

 

Professor of Law : Georgetown University, and Director,
Institute of International Economic Law

 

 

Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, donald trump, japan

Will the work that went into negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) go to waste?

The agreement cannot come into force unless ratified within two years by economies that constitute 85 per cent of the total GDP of the 12 members. This makes ratification by the United States and Japan indispensable. While President Trump is not noted for consistency of purpose, the prospect that he will not only reverse his stance on the TPP but also secure Congressional approval within two years is surely nil.

Full article here.

 

FT: UK must sign 759 agreements just to stay in the same place after Brexit

 

 

 

Professor of Law : Georgetown University, and Director,
Institute of International Economic Law

 

 

Populism’s Minilateral Foreign Policy

 

 

 

Professor of Law : Georgetown University, and Director,
Institute of International Economic Law

 

Populism’s Minilateral Foreign Policy

At last month’s meeting of Asia-Pacific states, US officials reiterated one of the less noticed positions of the 2016 Presidential campaign: we're willing to talk trade with pretty much anyone, but only bilaterally. Regional deals aren't really in the cards.
 
The change in tactics may seem minor, but the consequences for international economic law and diplomacy are already proving to be enormous. In his initial days in office, Mr. Trump pulled out of the TPP, put TTIP negotiations on hold and, after threatening to withdraw, called for the renegotiation of NAFTA. And, for now, the 190 member-plus multilateral Paris Agreement is off the table. These moves reflect a populist disquiet with regionalism present in a number of other countries, and most notably the UK, as epitomized in its withdrawal from the European Union.
 
The new Administration has been lambasted by critics for the setbacks the moves could mean for US interests, but bilateralism isn’t without its upsides. Trade deals always have elements of the unexpected, and the more countries that sit around the bargaining table, the more unpredictable the outcomes of any accord will be. Bilateralism, to its credit, limits the downside risk present in larger agreements—and is popular for the same reasons regional deals gained favor over multilateral forums like the WTO in the 2000s.
 
I’ve written before that small deals can also make it easier for countries to “get to yes.” For one, fewer issues may need negotiating. For example, a US free trade agreement with the United Kingdom would not necessarily require an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism since both countries have a shared legal history and a high degree of trust in one another's judicial systems. Furthermore, when dealing with emerging economies, the stronger country—invariably the US—would be well positioned to push (if it so wished) policies that reflect US interests like modern labor standards, currency manipulation and robust rules of origin.
 
That said, bilateralism comes with risks. Bilateral deals by definition require that a country’s leaders move individual treaties and agreements through local legislatures. The US experience has proven, however, that small deals are nearly as difficult to get through Congress as regional and multilateral accords. The bilateral Korean and Colombian treaties languished for years before being ratified. Pursuing an express policy of bilateralism would probably end up taxing an already overwhelmed legislative calendar with little to show for it.
 
Another problem is that bilateralism rarely creates straightforward rules for the global economy. Because they are negotiated individually, bilateral accords can entail very different tariffs and country obligations, and when all the negotiations are finished you end up with a hodgepodge of commitments understandable only with the help of advisors. It’s a boon for lawyers—but likely an albatross for start- ups and small businesses with fewer resources to navigate the global minefield.
 
Finally, some deals are only possible with the involvement of multiple countries—think of a multiplayer, multi-team deal in an NBA trade as an apt analogy. In North America, for example, Canada, the US and Mexico have developed complex regional value chains that in some instances can only be enhanced trilaterally. So you get NAFTA’s three party structure. Additionally, some problems (like the protection of the environment) require the participation of large numbers of countries to solve, and bilateral deals with varied standards may not, even collectively, be robust enough to have a meaningful impact on the behavior of governments and market participants.
 
Consequently, how the US goes about negotiating can dictate outcomes. Because of the limited bandwidth and resources countries have to conduct and process their foreign affairs, bilateralism requires prioritizing relationships in very explicit, and potentially embarrassing ways. And when combined with undoing pending regional accords, it probably entails slowing and perhaps even reversing the pace of cross border trade liberalization. In a world skeptical of globalization, and prepared for “glexit,” maybe that’s good enough. But make no mistake, there is also something deeper than global capitalism lurking not far under the surface—the substitution of Post-War aspirations of universal cooperation with a vision of global relations predicated on more narrow spheres of economic influence. Therein lies more unpredictability than any agreement made—or rescinded—thus far.