Trump sees mixing trade, foreign policy as good politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Donald Trump pulled the plug on an upcoming trip to North Korea by his secretary of state, he pointed a finger of blame at China and the global superpower’s trade practices. In his recent trade breakthrough with Mexico, Trump praised the country’s outgoing president for his help on border security and agriculture. Both developments offered fresh evidence of how Trump has made trade policy the connective tissue that ties together different elements of his “America First” foreign policy and syncs up them with his political strategy for the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s 2016 triumph was paved in part by his support among blue-collar voters in Midwestern manufacturing states that narrowly supported him over Democrat Hillary Clinton, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. His aggressive trade tactics, epitomized by tariffs and standoffs with longtime economic partners and allies, are aimed at reversing what he has long viewed as unfair trade deals while maintaining support among largely white, working-class voters who have been hurt by the loss of manufacturing jobs. “Trump understands that economic policy is foreign policy and vice versa,” said Stephen Moore, a former Trump campaign adviser and visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “The most important element of foreign policy is to not just keep the world safe but to also promote America’s economic interest. That’s what Trump does — this is America First.” It’s also good politics, in Trump’s view. “It’s a populist position. But it’s also a popular position with a lot of Americans,” Moore said. As he puts a high premium on trade gains, Trump is intertwining the issue with a host of top foreign policy concerns. Trump, asked by reporters last week about North Korea living up to its commitments to denuclearize, said “part of the North Korean problem is caused by our trade disputes with China,” pointing to the U.S. trade imbalance with China. “We have to straighten out our trade relationship because too much money is being lost by us,” Trump said. “And as you know, China is the route to North Korea.” Trade has been a common refrain at the president’s rallies, where he has vowed to pursue “fair and reciprocal trade.” “We don’t want stupid trade like we had for so long,” Trump said during a rally in Duluth, Minn., in June. Trump’s second year as president has been marked by a number of trade disputes with traditional U.S. allies and global rivals alike, an approach cemented by his tweet that “trade wars are good.” He imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports in March, prompting retaliation from the European Union and other American allies. Later in the month, Trump announced tariffs on China to combat what he called the theft of U.S. technology from a wide range of goods and services. China struck back with its own sanctions on a variety of U.S. products, including Midwest farm-produced soybeans in a way to hit hard against the president’s base of voters. The two sides have clashed during the spring and summer, raising the stakes in their trade fight. In late July, Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker reached a temporary deal at the White House to avert tariffs on automobile imports and a ramping up of their trade dispute — although the threat still remains. After a breakthrough with Mexico, Trump’s team has been engaged in talks with Canada aimed at creating a new version of the 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement. While previous administrations have often used a carrot-and-stick approach to trade as a way to forge agreements, before Trump’s arrival trade agendas had emphasized multi-lateral and bilateral deals aimed at maintaining U.S. leadership around the world, promoting American values and improving human rights. This administration, by contrast, “is leveraging foreign policy tools to achieve its trade goals,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. Critics say Trump’s insistence on trade concessions could hamper his ability to move forward in other areas. On North Korea, for example, Trump has sought to turn his meeting with Kim Jong Un into a vivid example of how his unconventional style can bring longstanding U.S. adversaries to the bargaining table. But by raising China’s trade practices as essential to any progress to ensuring North Korea gets rid of its nuclear weapons, Trump runs the risk of getting bogged down in both areas — and having little to show for it. Mixing foreign policy and trade policy introduces so many variables it’s “virtually impossible to close on a precise policy decision,” said Daniel Ujczo, a trade attorney with Dickinson Wright PLLC in Columbus, Ohio. “You’re constantly chasing after the next issue as opposed to having a very targeted approach to the objective.”

Tariffs throw wrench into seafood supply chain

KENAI — Many seafood processors, fishermen and support businesses have been watching with increasing dismay as the trade war between U.S. and China heats up and impacts billions of dollars in trade. In March, President Donald Trump’s administration announced its intention to levy tariffs against China in connection with “unfair” trade practices, including theft of intellectual property. When the first round of tariffs on Chinese products were announced, the seafood industry hoped to escape the list of impacted items. That hope faded when a host of seafood products were included on the list of proposed retaliatory tariffs from the Chinese government. Then Office of the U.S. Trade Representative proposed another set of tariffs, including seafood products, at 10 percent in July. Then that number was upped to 25 percent in August. In a hearing hosted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Aug. 20–24, Bob DeHaan of the National Fisheries Institute said the tariffs will effectively punish American fishermen for Chinese intellectual property theft, which has nothing to do with them. Of the $2.7 billion in proposed tariffs on seafood, more than $95 million came from Alaskan fishermen. “In many cases such as the iconic Bristol Bay salmon run that just concluded this year, the fishermen are family-owned enterprises who sell their catch to seafood companies for processing, distribution and sale around the world,” he said. “How punishing these harvesters and these businesses for in effect buying American will convince China to respect its obligations regarding intellectual property rights and technology transfers is difficult to fathom.” Taking advantage of a growing consumer market and the country’s geographic position between Alaska and Europe, many seafood companies have been working to establish trade relations of their own with China. A number of seafood companies, including Copper River Seafoods, went along on a recent trade mission headed by Gov. Bill Walker to build relationships with Chinese businesses and government. The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute has been working to expand its international markets for the last 20 years, with a branch office in Shanghai, said Hannah Lindoff, the director of ASMI’s international marketing program. The marketing agency, which promotes Alaska’s wild seafood as a brand worldwide, has been following the tariff developments and providing regular updates with concerns about the far-reaching impacts of tariffs on the international supply chain. A major part of that is because much of Alaska’s seafood that is shipped to China is eventually re-shipped elsewhere — in that case, the only thing that happens in China is reprocessing. “Europe is still a major market for us,” she said. “It makes a lot of sense to go through where processors are already established.” A lot of processing still happens in Alaska. However, the reprocessing side in China and other international markets makes sense because of the better access to markets with frozen fillets — demand for fillets has replaced the demand for canned salmon over the years, Lindoff said. ASMI and other organizations have been working on building the domestic consumption market is China, as opposed to just re-exporting seafood from there, Lindoff said. In America, price is still king, and in Europe, people are more used to eating salmon and paying more for it, but in China the consumers are still getting used to eating salmon. Wild Alaska seafood is only a drop in the bucket of the international salmon supply — roughly 2 percent — and so ASMI markets it as a luxury, healthy alternative to farmed salmon, which commands a higher price. The tariffs on the U.S. side with product coming back from China after reprocessing would hit American consumers, pushing up prices. However, it would also lead to interruptions in the supply chain, which could also push up costs as companies reshuffle. DeHaan explained in his testimony that the tariffs could destabilize the year-round supply chain and cost jobs in the middle and tail ends of the supply chain. “Forced to abandon China sourcing, these companies in many instances will have no choice but to drop that product line or select a third country substitute, which itself will require significant cost and expense and time,” he said. “The existing supply chains in seafood as in any other sector can take many years to build, refine and perfect. Modifying them is neither simple nor inexpensive.” Sen. Dan Sullivan testified to the committee against the seafood tariffs as well, asking the administration to remove the seafood items. “The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of this product is American,” he said. “It is an American product. And yet we’re going to penalize this with almost a billion dollars of value of tariffs on our own products by our own people. I don’t think that’s what the president or his team has intended.” Lindoff said ASMI intends to continue its international operations for now, assessing the situation as it evolves. Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Pebble permit scoping report first step toward EIS

The summary released Aug. 31 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the topics the public wants studied in the lead up to a permitting decision for the proposed Pebble mine was met with criticism from groups who feel the mine review is being fast-tracked. The comments that make up the scoping report are, as the name implies, intended to guide the scope of analysis in the environmental impact statement, or EIS, the Corps is in the midst of drafting for the large mine project. Not meant to be a referendum on the controversial mine plan, the Corps received 174,889 comments during the 90-day scoping period that ran until June 29, according to the report. The Corps extended the original 30-day comment period shortly after it opened April 1 following requests to do so from Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Gov. Bill Walker’s administration, who suggested the month-long comment period could be insufficient given the scale and complexity of the project. Public meetings were also held in nine communities during scoping, but mine opponents contended more should have been held in the numerous remote villages and small towns across the Bristol Bay region that have the potential to be impacted by the project. Much more than a large surface mine, the Pebble project would stretch over 187 miles from the start of a natural gas pipeline near Anchor Point on the Kenai Peninsula, across Cook Inlet to a new port that would be built near Amakdedori on the west side of the Inlet. From there, the transportation corridor would include 53 miles of new road plus a ferry across massive Iliamna Lake that would lead to the mine itself. “The input we received is insightful and helpful, informing our analysis and potential alternatives to be included in the draft EIS,” Corps Project Manager Shane McCoy said in a prepared statement. Though the Corps received nearly 175,000 submissions during scoping, just 3,653 were considered individual comments, with the remaining roughly 171,000 being various form letters, according to the report. More than one-third of the non-form comments focused on the potential socioeconomic impacts of the project; the rest were split roughly evenly between suggestions and concerns regarding the National Environmental Policy Act process, the proposed tailings dam facility and prospective project impacts to fish and wildlife. More than half of the form letters focused on the NEPA process. Groups opposing the project were critical of the 37-page scoping report, alleging it glosses over many important issues that need review in the EIS. United Tribes of Bristol Bay, Commercial Fishermen For Bristol Bay and Trout Unlimited Alaska all called for state and federal leaders, particularly Murkowski, to pressure the Corps to slow or stop the EIS until a more thorough review of the project’s potential impacts is done. Trout Unlimited Alaska stated in a press release responding to the publication of the report that more than 400,000 comments were submitted that raise concerns about Pebble’s permit application. Pebble Limited Partnership spokesman Mike Heatwole said simply via email that the company will continue to work closely with the Corps to help the complete the draft EIS in a timely manner. The totality of the Corps’ review is unclear at this point given the draft EIS has not yet been published, but the aggressive schedule set for the Pebble EIS has also been a point of contention. Pebble Limited Partnership submitted its project plan to the Corps for review in late December 2017 and Corps officials plan to have a draft EIS finished in January 2019, or between six and seven months after the scoping period closed. Comparatively, it took the agency nearly three years to draft the first version of the EIS for the Donlin Gold mine permit application, a large surface mine proposal with extensive support infrastructure similar to Pebble. Corps regulatory officials insist they are applying best practices learned during the Donlin review to the Pebble EIS, allowing them to speed up the process while performing the same level of analysis. Aside from expected comments highlighting the economic opportunities the project could provide to a region with few year-round jobs and the potential harm a tailings dam failure could have on salmon habitat downstream of the mine, many commenters stressed the need to study possible impacts to subsistence activities not only in the Bristol Bay area but also near the gas pipeline origin on the Kenai Peninsula. Some noted the mine could reduce out-migration from the region, helping to maintain enrollment in small schools in the area, while others contended the mine — with a 20-year initial life — would simply create a greater boom-and-bust economic cycle that would end with lost jobs when the mine closed. Suggestions were made to require an economic assessment of the project be conducted to determine if Pebble Limited Partnership’s plan is financially viable. Pebble CEO Tom Collier said in an April interview with the Journal that the company plans to release a preliminary economic assessment of its latest project plan by the end of the year. Heatwole said in a Sept. 4 email that he had no further information to provide about the status of the economic report. Elwood Brehmer can be reached at [email protected]

After year in DC, Oliver reflects on fisheries progress

SOLDOTNA — Chris Oliver has had a busy year since he made the leap from Anchorage to Washington, D.C. to take the lead job at the National Marine Fisheries Service. As soon as he arrived, there was an annual priorities document to review, he said at a recent roundtable discussion event hosted by the Kenai River Sportfishing Association in Soldotna. The document is both internally-facing and public to help guide NMFS’ decisions. There were three goals listed in that document, the first of which was to ensure the sustainability of fisheries and fishing communities. He changed it to read “maximize fishing opportunities while ensuring the sustainability of fisheries and fishing communities.” “There are a number of fisheries around the country where we’re not fully utilizing the available harvest whether it’s choke species or bycatch constraints or outdated regulations,” he said. “We’ve been approaching that pretty aggressively in that form. There’s not a huge amount of headroom in our wild stock harvest fisheries, but there’s some.” The second was to manage protected species, including those under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. Under that, he added language to manage those species while supporting responsible fishing and resource development. NOAA encounters a variety of resource conflicts with endangered species, be they migrating salmon species impacting agriculture or fishermen wanting to harvest king salmon that whales feed on or, more recently in Alaska, fishermen concerned about the number of sea otters impacting the shellfish fisheries in Southeast. “I think that’s another reflection of the priorities of this administration, approaching things in a more business-minded manner while not disregarding the basic science mandate of our mission,” Oliver said. “Balancing that mandate of our mission to protect and conserve those protected resources with the administration’s focus on supporting energy and infrastructure development is a very delicate balancing act. And it’s really taken a lot of my focus and a lot of my time, but it’s an important balancing act.” The third goal he revised was to improve agency excellence, adding “regulatory efficiency,” in line with President Donald Trump’s administration’s goal to reduce regulatory burden on business. He said NMFS has “aggressively” moved that direction as fisheries managers move many more regulations than other agencies. Oliver spent 27 years in Alaska with much of that time as the executive director of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council — one of eight such regional councils established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act — and said he brought much of the experience he gained working with the council to the job in Washington. He’s now getting a better look into what other fisheries around the country are dealing with. His moves toward streamlining regulations and promoting simultaneous uses with fisheries align with another initiative the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is advancing known as the Blue Economy Initiative. Included in that is maximizing both recreational and commercial fishery opportunities and boosting the opportunities for aquaculture in the country. NOAA Acting Administrator Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet said at a July 24 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Science and Transportation the fact that U.S. aquaculture production is ranked 17th in the world despite its large Exclusive Economic Zone “unacceptable.” “We are changing that by executing a strategy to use existing authorities to expand aquaculture in federal waters,” he said. Aquaculture is a particularly hot-button topic in Alaska. Aquaculture is allowed in a variety of types: operations in Southeast and Kachemak Bay produce clams, mussels, oysters and kelp. In 2015, the state permitted 65 farms, though only 22 reported production, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. For finfish, it’s limited to the hatchery operations that dot Southeast, Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound and Kodiak; net-pen farming in the style that other countries and states like Washington allow is illegal in Alaska. Even hatcheries have recently come under fire from fishermen and environmentalists with concerns about the impact of increasing pink salmon hatchery numbers on the food web of the Gulf of Alaska and their interference with wild stocks by straying into nearby streams. Oliver said the initiative will include a set of incentives to invest, making it easier for potential aquaculture operations to make it through the permitting hoops and get going. “As I mentioned before, we don’t have a lot of headroom in our wild capture fisheries,” Oliver said. “but with the growing population of the world, and the amount of coastline that we have, promoting marine aquaculture is a huge initiative of this administration. I know in Alaska that’s not always a welcome prospect … nobody’s going to be forcing anybody to take on anything, but we want to make it (easier to permit).” Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Movers and Shakers for Sept. 9

Veteran athletics administrator Sterling Steward has been chosen as the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ new director of intercollegiate athletics, effective Oct. 8. Steward replaces Gary Gray, who resigned as head of the Alaska Nanooks in December. Steward comes to the Nanooks after serving the past seven years as the director of athletics at Savannah State University, an NCAA Division I program in Georgia. Steward was chosen from a nationwide pool of applicants and was among four finalists who visited the UAF campus this summer. Steward earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in human performance and recreation at the University of Southern Mississippi. Prior to working at SSU, Steward worked in the athletics departments at Mississippi Valley State University, Alabama State University, Kentucky State University, Eastern Oregon University and Xavier University. Corey E. Cooke was appointed as the regional administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration Northwest/Arctic Region. Cooke has been serving as acting regional administrator for the Northwest/Arctic Region since April 2018. As regional administrator, Cooke will continue to oversee all of GSA’s operations in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, including the management of federal real estate and information technology. Cooke will also be responsible for an inventory of more than 500 government-owned or leased buildings, and overseeing more than 400 employees. Cooke served in GSA’s central office as senior advisor for cyber and technology before being named acting regional administrator. Prior to joining GSA, Cooke served in several positions in the U.S. House of Representatives, including as counsel and deputy parliamentarian for the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and counsel on the Committee on Small Business. Cooke earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a juris doctor from the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Longtime Fairbanks resident Theresa Bakker has been named the new University of Alaska Fairbanks alumni relations director, effective Sept. 10. She will also serve as the executive director of the UAF Alumni Association. Before accepting her new position at UAF, Bakker served as the marketing and communications manager at the University of Alaska Museum of the North. She has also worked as a producer for KUAC, the public broadcasting station owned and operated by UAF, and as a journalist for a variety of print and broadcast media. She holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Pennsylvania and a master of fine arts degree in creative writing from Pacific Lutheran University. Bakker takes over for former alumni relations director Kate Ripley, who resigned in May.

Pages

Subscribe to Alaska Journal RSS