Le président américain a également menacé de sortir de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce.

Le président américain Donald Trump a jugé jeudi que l’offre de l’Union européenne d’abandonner les droits de douane sur les importations automobiles américaines n’était pas suffisante, dans un entretien accordé à l’agence Bloomberg News.

« Ce n’est pas suffisant », a déclaré le président américain. « Leurs consommateurs ont l’habitude d’acheter leurs voitures, pas d’acheter nos voitures », a souligné M. Trump, qui s’est souvent dit irrité par le fait de voir des Mercedes dans les rues de New York.

Pour faire bonne mesure et montrer son déplaisir, le président a comparé l’Union européenne à la Chine, à laquelle il livre une véritable guerre commerciale.

« L’Union européenne est presque aussi terrible que la Chine, mais en plus petit », a-t-il lancé.

La commissaire européenne au Commerce Cecilia Malmström a affirmé jeudi à Bruxelles que l’Union européenne était prête à inclure l’automobile dans un éventuel accord commercial avec les États-Unis, afin de mettre un terme au conflit en cours avec Washington.

« Nous sommes prêts à réduire à zéro nos droits de douane même sur les automobiles. Tous les droits de douane à zéro si les États-Unis font de même. Il faut que ce soit réciproque », a-t-elle expliqué devant une commission au Parlement européen.

Menaces

M. Trump avait menacé d’imposer une taxe de 25 % sur les voitures importées et a demandé au ministère du Commerce de se pencher sur la question.

Le Canada fait lui aussi l’objet d’une menace de taxe sur ses voitures si Ottawa ne se joint pas à l’accord Etats-Unis-Mexique sur la modernisation du traité de libre-échange nord-américain (Aléna).

Les négociations entre les Canada et les États-Unis sur l’Aléna rénové se déroulent actuellement à Washington.

Dans la même veine de menaces, dont il a fait une tactique de négociations commerciales, M. Trump a averti que la première économie du monde pourrait sortir de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC), dont elle est un membre fondateur et qui a pour mission de libéraliser les échanges entre ses pays membres.

« S’ils ne mettent pas d’ordre là-dedans, je me retirerai de l’OMC », a déclaré le président. Pourtant le 29 juin, Donald Trump lui-même avait démenti avoir l’intention de retirer les États-Unis de l’OMC, qu’il a par le passé qualifiée d’« injuste ». « Je n’envisage pas de retrait », avait-il alors affirmé.

Son secrétaire au Trésor Steven Mnuchin avait lui aussi démenti la même information de presse.</s>BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union’s detente on tariffs with the United States has not put to rest “profound disagreements” on trade policy, the European commissioner in charge of trade said on Thursday.

U.S. President Donald Trump agreed in July to refrain from imposing car tariffs while the two sides sought to cut other trade barriers, in a move described then by the European Commission chief as major concession.

Speaking to the trade committee of the European Parliament on Thursday, European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom discussed a group that she and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer will lead to determine how tariffs might be removed on industrial goods.

“We are not negotiating anything, we have a working group. We have profound disagreements with the United States on trade policy,” Malmstrom told EU lawmakers.

A number of those lawmakers were fierce critics of a planned EU-U.S. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), negotiations on which ended after Trump’s election victory in 2016.

“We are not restarting TTIP ... This could be a more limited trade agreement, focused on tariffs on goods only,” Malmstrom said.

She also said the European Union would be willing to reduce its car tariffs to zero, if the United States did the same, going beyond the provisional agreement struck in July which referred only to “non-auto industrial goods”.

“We would do it if they do it. That remains to be seen,” she said, adding she hoped a deal could be finalised by the end of the Commission’s five-year term running until October 31, 2019.

The European Union remains at odds with the United States over U.S. blocking of the appointment of judges at the World Trade Organization, over tariffs set for reasons of national security and over Washington’s tough stance toward China.

Malmstrom said many U.S. companies and politicians were voicing concerns over goods becoming more expensive in the United States as a result of tariffs.

The European Union shared U.S. criticism of China over industry subsidies, state intervention and forced technology transfers, but believed its approach was wrong, she said.

“We share those concerns, but we do not agree with their methods of imposing massively billions of tariffs on China, as they have also done with Turkey. We do not share U.S. view that trade wars are good and easy to win,” the commissioner said.</s>BRUSSELS, Aug 31 — The European Union’s detente on tariffs with the United States has not put to rest “profound disagreements” on trade policy, the European commissioner in charge of trade said yesterday.

In Washington, US President Donald Trump rejected an EU offer to eliminate tariffs on cars and said the EU’s trade policies are “almost as bad as China,” Bloomberg News reported.

Trump agreed in July to refrain from imposing car tariffs while the two sides sought to cut other trade barriers, in a move described then by the European Commission chief as a major concession.

Speaking to the trade committee of the European Parliament yesterday, European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom discussed a group that she and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer will lead to determine how tariffs might be removed on industrial goods.

“We are not negotiating anything, we have a working group. We have profound disagreements with the United States on trade policy,” Malmstrom said.

A number of the European lawmakers were fierce critics of a planned EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), negotiations which ended after Trump’s election victory in 2016.

“We are not restarting TTIP ... This could be a more limited trade agreement, focused on tariffs on goods only,” Malmstrom said.

She also said the European Union would be willing to reduce its car tariffs to zero, if the United States did the same, going beyond the provisional agreement struck in July which referred only to “non-auto industrial goods”.

“We would do it if they do it. That remains to be seen,” she said, adding she hoped a deal could be finalised by the end of the Commission’s five-year term running until October 31, 2019.

Trump, in an interview with Bloomberg, said of the EU proposal to scrap auto tariffs: “It’s not good enough.”

“Their consumer habits are to buy their cars, not to buy our cars,” Trump added, according to Bloomberg.

“The European Union is almost as bad as China, just smaller,” Bloomberg quoted Trump as saying.

The European Union remains at odds with the United States over US blocking of the appointment of judges at the World Trade Organisation, over tariffs set for reasons of national security and over Washington’s tough stance towards China.

Malmstrom said many US companies and politicians were voicing concerns over goods becoming more expensive in the United States as a result of tariffs.

The European Union shared US criticism of China over industry subsidies, state intervention and forced technology transfers, but believed its approach was wrong, she said.

“We share those concerns, but we do not agree with their methods of imposing massively billions of tariffs on China, as they have also done with Turkey. We do not share US view that trade wars are good and easy to win,” the commissioner said. — Reuters</s>WASHINGTON, Aug 30 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump threatened in an interview with Bloomberg News on Thursday to withdraw from the World Trade Organization if "they don't shape up," in his latest criticism of the institution.

Such a move could undermine one of the foundations of the modern global trading system, which the United States was instrumental in creating.

"If they don't shape up, I would withdraw from the WTO," Trump said.

Trump has complained the United States is treated unfairly in global trade and has blamed the WTO for allowing that to happen. He has also warned he could take action against the global body, although he has not specified what form that could take.</s>BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union's top trade official says the bloc is in exploratory talks with the United States to see whether it would be possible to reach a limited trans-Atlantic agreement on the tariff of goods.

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said Thursday that "this could be, possibly, a more limited trade agreement focused on tariffs on goods only."

As an attempt to ease trade war tensions, U.S. President Donald Trump and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker agreed last month to start talks intended to achieve "zero tariffs" and "zero subsidies" on non-automotive industrial goods.

Malmstrom rejected suggestions the EU is caving in to U.S. pressure, saying "we are not negotiating anything." The two sides are likely to hold talks in Brussels in coming weeks.</s>Talks between the US and Canada about amending the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) are heading into their final day with no deal in sight.

US President Donald Trump set a Friday deadline for Canada to sign a new agreement with the US and Mexico.

He has threatened to leave Canada on the sidelines since announcing a breakthrough with Mexico on Monday.

However, he and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have both said they are hopeful a deal is close.
• Clock is ticking for Canada in US trade negotiations

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is holding talks in Washington with Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland aimed at reaching a new deal.

Ms Freeland said on Friday morning that negotiators are "not there yet" on a deal that can be agreed upon by both parties, and that talks would continue later in the day.

"We're looking for a good deal, not just any deal," she said. "And we'll only agree to a deal that is a good deal for Canada.

Issues that have led to discord between the neighbouring countries include Canada's dairy trade rules, dispute-handling mechanisms and patent protections for medicines.

Dairy in particular appeared to be a stumbling block in the negotiations on Friday, with US officials saying Canada had made no concessions on agriculture and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau saying he was standing firm on the issue.

In off-the-record comments made to Bloomberg on Thursday and leaked to the Toronto Star, Mr Trump said that any deal with Canada would be "totally on our terms".

"Here's the problem. If I say no - the answer's no," he said according to the report.

The president later acknowledged the remarks in a tweet, saying: "At least Canada knows where I stand!"

Mr Trump has threatened to levy tariffs on car parts exported from Canada to the US if a deal is not reached.

The White House wants to notify Congress on Friday that it intends to enter into a new trade agreement, to provide the necessary 90 days' notice that would allow the new Nafta deal to be signed by 1 December, the day Mexico's new left-wing president takes office.

"We are replacing Nafta with a beautiful, brand new US-Mexico trade deal," Mr Trump told supporters in Evansville, Indiana, on Thursday night.

Turning to Canada, he said: "I think it is going to happen and we really have developed a really good relationship. But they have to treat us fairly. They haven't treated us fairly."

Mr Trump has expressed his distaste for multilateral trade agreements on many occasions.

In a 2016 presidential debate with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, he described Nafta as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere" and a "killer" of US jobs.

Once in office he said he wanted to renegotiate - not scrap - the accord, triggering the last year of talks.

What about other trade agreements?

Mr Trump has also threatened to withdraw the US from the World Trade Organization (WTO), saying it treats his country unfairly.

"If they don't shape up, I would withdraw from the WTO," Mr Trump said in an interview with Bloomberg News.
• What is a trade war and should I worry?

The WTO was established to provide rules for global trade and resolve disputes between countries.

Mr Trump says the body too often rules against the US, although he concedes it has won some recent judgments.

Mr Trump's warning about a possible US pull-out from the WTO highlights the conflict between his protectionist trade policies and the open trade system that the WTO oversees.

The US has been embroiled in a tit-for-tat trade battle on several fronts in recent months.

The one creating the most interest is with China, as the world's two largest economies wrangle for global influence. Mr Trump has introduced tariffs on a number of Chinese goods imported into the US.

A third round of tariffs on $200bn (£154bn) of Chinese goods could come as soon as next week, according to a Bloomberg report. Asked to confirm this during the Bloomberg interview, President Trump said that it was "not totally wrong".

China has responded to US tariffs by imposing retaliatory taxes on the same value of US products and has filed complaints against the tariffs at the WTO.
• US-China trade row: What has happened so far?
• Six ways China could retaliate in a trade war
• What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Mr Trump has also turned up the heat on the European Union, rejecting its offer to eliminate car tariffs if the United States does the same.

The proposal was "not good enough", he told Bloomberg. "Their consumer habits are to buy their cars, not to buy our cars."

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker warned on Friday that the EU would respond with tariffs of its own if Mr Trump imposed duties on foreign cars.

Also during his election campaign, Mr Trump railed against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation trade deal that was a linchpin of President Barack Obama's Asia policy.

Mr Trump said the deal was a "potential disaster for our country".

One of his first acts as president was to withdraw the US from the TTP, although he has since said he might consider rejoining if the terms are "substantially better".</s>The European Union’s top trade official says the bloc is in exploratory talks with the United States to see whether it would be possible to reach a limited trans-Atlantic agreement on the tariff of goods. EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said Thursday that “this could be, possibly, a more limited trade agreement focused on tariffs on goods only.”

As an attempt to ease trade tensions, U.S. President Donald Trump and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker agreed last month to start talks intended to achieve “zero tariffs” and “zero subsidies” on non-automotive industrial goods. Malmstrom rejected suggestions the EU is caving in to U.S. pressure, saying “we are not negotiating anything.” “We have made no concessions. We have tried to see if there is a positive agenda,” she told EU lawmakers in Brussels.

The two sides are likely to hold talks in the Belgian capital in coming weeks. While she acknowledged that both sides might have greater ambitions, concluding something as broad as the now-shelved Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership “is not possible.”

If the sides can agree on its scope, Malmstroem said, a limited pact encompassing tariffs could be concluded before the current EU Commission’s mandate expires in October 2019. She noted that Trump and Juncker agreed no new tariffs would be imposed while talks are ongoing and that should Washington slap duties on European cars any negotiations would stop.</s>US President Donald Trump is prepared to quickly ramp up a trade war with China and has told aides he is ready to impose tariffs on $200 billion more in Chinese imports as soon as a public comment period on the plan ends next week, Bloomberg News reported on Thursday.

The White House declined comment on the Bloomberg report, which cited six unidentified sources, and deflated markets. The S&P hit session lows, and the US dollar, Chinese yuan and US Treasury yields also fell.

Trump has credited his electoral success to his hard line on trade, which he has argued hurts US workers and favors foreign competitors. Washington is demanding Beijing improve market access and intellectual property protections for US.companies, cut industrial subsidies and slash a $375 billion trade gap.

The world's two largest economies have already applied tariffs to $50 billion of each other's goods in a tit-for-tat trade war. Talks aimed at easing tensions ended last week without major breakthroughs.

"So-called hardline, pressure-exerting methods of the US side won't work on China and are not helpful to resolving the problem," Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said on Friday when asked about the report.

China's position is to resolve the issue via pragmatic talks on an equal basis, which is what the international community wants to see, she added.

Washington's new proposed 25 percent tariffs would affect consumer products including home building supplies, technology products, bicycles and apparel.

A public comment period on the proposal is set to end on Sept. 6, and Trump plans to impose the tariffs after that deadline, Bloomberg said.

Some sources said Trump had not made his final decision, the Bloomberg report said. Trump administration officials have been divided over how hard to push Beijing.

Trump, who has threatened to impose duties on virtually all of the more than $500 billion of Chinese goods exported to the United States each year, told Reuters in an interview earlier this month that resolving the trade war with China would "take time" and that he had "no time frame" for ending it.

The report on Trump's China stance coincides with US negotiators pushing to hammer out a deal with Canadian counterparts to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement.</s>One thing already seems clear in the Trump era: the world will not turn out to be the American president’s playground. His ultra-unilateralist, rejectionist policies on trade, the Iran denuclearization agreement, the costs of defense, and climate change are already creating an incipient anti-Trump movement globally (and in the United States as well). To a remarkable degree, the countries he has targeted are banding together to oppose him and his policies. That still inchoate but gathering opposition assures that, whatever Donald Trump’s view of America may be, it is no longer — in the phrase coined 20 years ago by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright — the “indispensable nation.” Abroad or even at home, with the president facing increasingly strong headwinds on climate change at the state and local level, we’re entering a new world order on the heels of the collapsed American domination of the past three-quarters of a century.

Let’s consider the opposition Trump has generated on an issue-by-issue basis.

In January 2017, on his first day in office, President Trump promptly withdrew the United States from the long-negotiated 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) pact, deeply disappointing among others a close ally, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. He had assiduously curried favor with Trump as soon as he was elected, on and off the golf course. A day earlier in January, Abe had even succeeded in getting his own parliament to approve the agreement.

But in an act by Washington’s allies unprecedented in the last seven decades, Abe, along with the leaders of the 10 other countries in that pact — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam — refused to take Trump’s executive order as TPP’s death sentence. Instead, in a groundbreaking step into a new world, they resumed negotiations on the pact in the Chilean city of Viña del Mar.

This March, after months of deliberation, they signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in Chile’s capital city, Santiago. For the signatories, it reduces tariffs drastically, while introducing sweeping new trade rules in markets covering half a billion people on either side of the Pacific Ocean.

This was a landmark event, inaugurating an era in which countries long accustomed to following cues from Washington forged ahead without its participation. In doing so, they rejected Trump’s view of trade as a zero-sum game, consisting of winners and losers. Reflecting the common perception of the signatories, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet said, “We need to stay on the course of globalization, yet learning from our past mistakes.”

Bachelet’s view was shared by Abe, who leads the country with the third largest economy in the world. Japan is a key player in global trade. So, too, is the 28-member European Union (EU) whose aggregate gross domestic product ($17.278 trillion) far exceeds Japan’s ($4.872 trillion).

Soon after recovering from Trump’s TPP exit, Abe decided to revive his country’s stalled free-trade talks with the EU. Their shared disapproval of the American president’s trade policy led the two sides to rapidly overcome their differences. In July 2017, Abe formally agreed to an outline of a free-trade deal with European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. By so doing, the EU and Japan, highly developed democracies, made clear their commitment to the liberal, free-trading, rules-based international order, which runs counter to Trump’s worldview.

In July 2018 in Brussels, the European Union and Japan inked the globe’s largest free-trade deal, the Economic Partnership Agreement. Remarkably, it covers almost a third of the globe’s gross domestic product and 600 million people. Toshimitsu Motegi, Japan’s minister for economic revitalization, summed up the situation in this way: “The signing of the Japan-EU deal today will show the world once again our unwavering political will to promote free trade.” Juncker was even more upbeat. “[The] impact of today’s agreement goes far beyond our shores,” he said. “We are showing that we are stronger and better off when we work together. And we are leading by example, showing that trade is about more than tariffs and barriers. It is about values, principles, and finding win-win solutions for all those concerned.”

For the first time since the end of World War II, Washington’s allies in the West as well as the East thumbed their noses at an American president. That made it a truly historic event.

The EU Goes Head to Head With Trump

In May, when Donald Trump exited the multilateral Iran denuclearization deal endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, Juncker was equally strident in his criticism of him. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had been signed in July 2015 by six world powers (America, Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia) and the EU, was being implemented as specified in the document. Yet Trump announced the reimposition of the American sanctions that had been in place before the JCPOA. These covered Iran’s energy, banking, and other sectors, and included a provision penalizing foreign businesses worldwide that continued trading with or investing in Iran.

The American president’s 11-minute TV address explaining his decision ignored the 10 quarterly reports by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming that Iran was in compliance with the pact. Altogether his address contained 10 false or misleading statements, including the howler that Iran was on the “cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Before launching economic warfare against Tehran, Trump had alienated the EU by refusing to grant it an exemption from steel and aluminum tariffs he started imposing on China and other countries in March. An American president is authorized to take such action only to protect “national security.” EU officials argued, to no avail, that their bloc was an ally of the United States and so, by definition, not a national security threat.

“We are witnessing today a new phenomenon: the capricious assertiveness of the American administration,” Tusk said, on the eve of an EU summit in Sofia, Bulgaria, in mid-May. “Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, some could even think, ‘With friends like that, who needs enemies?’” At that meeting, EU members agreed unanimously to stick to the JCPOA as long as Iran agreed to do the same.

On August 7th, U.S. sanctions went into effect on any financial transactions involving American dollars relating to Iran’s automotive sector, purchases of commercial planes, and metals, including gold. The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, immediately instructed European companies not to comply with Washington’s demand to cease trading with Iran. Those firms deciding to pull out would require the EU’s authorization to do so. The commission went on to set up a mechanism that would allow firms affected by the sanctions to sue the American government in the national courts of member states.

Russia and China, co-signatories to the JCPOA, concurred with the EU. “We are deeply disappointed by U.S. steps to reimpose its national sanctions against Iran,” said the Russian foreign ministry. “This is a clear example of Washington violating U.N. resolution 2231 [on the Iran deal] and international law.” China’s foreign ministry also regretted Washington’s decision and urged all involved parties to stay on track for full implementation of the 2015 accord.

The unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 2231, passed under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, had endorsed the Iran denuclearization pact, making it part of international law. It included a call for “promoting and facilitating the development of normal economic and trade contacts and cooperation with Iran.”

As if brazenly violating international law weren’t enough, the Trump administration decided to penalize U.N. member states for abiding by that resolution — a frontal attack on a rules-based international order. Fearing U.S. sanctions, some European companies had already backed off their Iranian investments and trade before August 7th. Consider that an apt illustration of a Trumpian world in which it’s the lawbreaker who punishes the law-abiding.

As a businessman occupying the White House, Donald Trump has introduced a profit-and-loss paradigm to foreign policy — be it cross-border trade or military budgets. That helps explain his continual drumbeat of criticism about how other NATO members are not spending enough on defense.

At the July NATO summit in Brussels, Trump was implacable on that issue, summing up his position in this way to CBS News: “Many of those countries are in NATO and they weren’t paying their bills.” A typical Trumpian claim, it bore no relation to reality. As German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen explained, “NATO does not have a debt account.”

Apparently, the president confused direct and indirect contributions to NATO. In 2017, NATO’s budget was $1.652 billion. Member states contribute according to an agreed-upon formula related to a country’s GDP. The U.S. contributes 22.14% of that budget, Germany 14.65%, France 10.63%, and Britain 9.84%. All paid on time.

Then there are indirect contributions to NATO. These are related to how much equipment and manpower a member state volunteers to a certain military operation, of which the best known at the moment continues to be the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan launched after the 9/11 attacks almost 17 years ago. In order to facilitate and encourage such contributions, NATO leaders agreed in 2014 to increase their spending on defense to at least 2% of their GDP by 2024. Many are on course to do so. Recently, however, Trump upped the ante, suggesting that the figure be 4%, a goal even the U.S., with by far the largest military budget in the world, does not now reach.

Currently, the U.S. is spending 3.6% of its GDP on its military. That amounts to $683 billion (and the military budget Trump just signed raised that to $717 billion), or 71% of total NATO defense spending. That is what led the American president to describe the present situation as “disproportionate and not fair to the taxpayers of the United States.” Unsurprisingly, Trump failed to compare like with like. Defense of country is normally defined in terms of a possible aggressor. In that sense, the European members of NATO are focused on Russia. Collectively, NATO’s EU members spend $254 billion on defense, or 10 times Russia’s $24.2 billion defense budget.

By contrast, since the end of World War II, the Pentagon has equipped itself to fight wars across the world and dominate both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. That explains why, of the 20 aircraft carriers in service around the globe, 10 belong to its navy. Constructing an aircraft carrier takes years and is hugely expensive, apart from the support ships it needs to form a complete carrier task force. But as a well-armed, aircraft-equipped, floating part of sovereign U.S. territory, powered by dual nuclear reactors, it is unmatched in its lethal power. This is what led former defense secretary William Cohen to state that, without “flattops,” the United States would have “less of a voice, less of an influence.”

In stark contrast, among Washington’s European allies, Britain has just one aircraft carrier, as does France. Notably, their carriers rarely steam past the Horn of Africa or the Persian Gulf.

Britain is already past the 2% mark for defense spending and France is just .2% short of the agreed-upon target. Since May of last year, France has been governed by 40-year-old President Emmanuel Macron, a staunch advocate of the closer integration, financially and otherwise, of EU members. In a September 2017 speech, he floated the idea of a joint enterprise to allow Europe’s militaries to coordinate and react swiftly together. As a result, this June, ministers from Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal signed a letter of intent in Luxembourg to form the European Intervention Initiative (EII). It would exist outside the EU’s structures and be focused on joint planning for future natural disasters, crisis intervention, and the evacuation of citizens from hostile countries, among other things.

At present, its aims remain modest, but the key point is simple. The principle that European militaries should act collectively without the involvement of the Pentagon is to be put into practice. That is likely to prove but one more step on the path toward turning Albright’s indispensable nation into an increasingly dispensable America. If Donald Trump or his successor persists in weakening NATO, he or she will only encourage the Europeans to build on the EII concept.

As a global opposition to Donald Trump begins to form, on one issue, climate change — that affects all humanity — a distinctly American opposition is preparing to join the growing international one. In June 2017, Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, while appointing an unparalleled crew of climate-change deniers to his administration and reneging on President Barack Obama’s pledge by 2025 to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% (from 2005 levels).

To the relief of most of the planet’s inhabitants, Trump’s withdrawal proved to be a solo act, with the remaining 194 signatories remaining firmly on board. Their representatives were among the 3,000 diplomats and observers who assembled in Bonn, Germany, in May to deliberate on giving the agreement further clout. To the consternation of the Trump administration, the next crucial meeting, a Global Climate Action Summit, will take place in September — and guess where? — in California.

That state’s governor, Jerry Brown, has been a key figure in rallying support for the Paris Accord and opposition to Trump’s climate-change deniers at the state and local levels. Along with former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, Brown has sponsored the We Are Still In coalition. In November 2017, the two of them published a remarkable report showing that cities, states, and businesses representing more than half of the U.S. economy and population had declared their support for the agreement. “If these non-federal actors were a country,” it pointed out, “their economy would be the third largest in the world, bigger than all but two national parties to the Paris Agreement.”

In his withdrawal statement, Trump stated that “the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.” That accord’s main aim was to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees centigrade from the preindustrial level. “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump added. Within a few hours, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto tweeted back, “I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future.”

Pittsburgh is one of 405 municipalities representing 70 million Americans that have signed on to a Climate Mayors initiative, which has only grown in the past year. More than 80 American cities — even some, like San Diego, run by Republicans — have committed to a future of 100% renewable energy. In fact, Trump’s decision actually spurred some cities to make new efforts to accelerate the pace of change. New York decided to electrify its bus fleet and pledged to divest from fossil fuels, while suing the world’s largest oil corporations for their role in escalating sea-level rise, heat waves, and other natural disasters. It also promised to abandon coal-fired electricity, as did Los Angeles.

Donald Trump is not going to change. He has declared his intention to seek reelection in 2020 and will continue to nurture his base by endlessly demonstrating his version of Make America Great Again. The 54 million followers he has on Twitter generally seem to applaud the macho bluster with which he conducts his bouts of disruptive diplomacy. So don’t expect him to moderate either his ultra-unilateralist policies or the style in which he delivers them.

The question for the future is this: To what extent can the incipient anti-Trump movement globally and domestically coalesce in ways that will set our world on a new course — one that will make Donald Trump and his Washington cronies the dinosaurs of Planet Earth?

Dilip Hiro, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of After Empire: The Birth of a Multipolar World. His 37th book, soon to be published, is Cold War in the Islamic World: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Struggle for Supremacy (Oxford University Press). Republished, with permission, from TomDispatch.</s>WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has threatened to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organization if it does not "shape up."

His remarks, made in an interview with Bloomberg News on Thursday, were the latest in a series of attacks on institutions of the global order that the US helped to build after World War II.

"If they don't shape up, I would withdraw from the WTO," Trump told the news agency, describing the agreement to set the organization up as "the single worst trade deal ever made".

Trump, who has previously criticized the WTO's dispute settlement system as being unfavorable to the US, said Washington had "rarely won a lawsuit" there although things began changing last year.

"In the last year, we're starting to win a lot," he said.

"You know why? Because they know if we don't, I’m out of there."

China, which is currently embroiled in a trade war with the US, joined the WTO in 2001 -- a move which US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has described as a mistake.

Trump made the threat as Washington presses challenges at the WTO against trading partners that have fought back against tariffs on importers that were imposed by the Trump administration.
European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström proposes to reduce all European Union import tariffs, also on automobiles, to zero if the United States reciprocates. President of the United States Donald Trump threatens to quit the World Trade Organization.