Categories
Politics

Putin Biden summit in Geneva 2021

U.S. President Joe Biden and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin meet for the U.S.-Russia summit at Villa La Grange in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021.

Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

One of the most highly-anticipated political events of the year has begun with Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden meeting at their summit in Geneva.

The two leaders shook hands as they greeted each other at Villa La Grange in Switzerland, chosen as the location for the summit due to its history of political neutrality.

On meeting his U.S. counterpart, Putin said he hoped the meeting would be productive.

“Mr President, I’d like to thank you for your initiative to meet today,” Putin said, sitting next to Biden and accompanied by their respective foreign ministers. “It is always better to meet face to face,” Biden responded, Reuters reported.

The summit, which is expected to last up to five hours, includes an initial meeting between the presidents and their closest officials, and then talks between the wider Russia and U.S. delegations will be followed by separate press conferences with the two leaders.

Global media attention on the summit is intense and there were scuffles between Russian and American reporters at the entrance of the summit venue.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin waves next to Swiss President Guy Parmelin as he arrives at Villa La Grange for the U.S.-Russia summit, in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021.

Denis Balibous | Reuters

The summit begins with a first meeting between Biden and Putin accompanied by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, as well as translators.

After this initial meeting a wider delegation will meet for several sessions before both leaders give separate press conferences; Putin is expected to give the first media update, followed by Biden. No time has been set aside for a meal during the summit, but breaks for the leaders are expected.

The agenda

The Putin-Biden summit is being closely watched around the world as U.S.-Russia relations remain tense following a slew of geopolitical clashes and international sanctions in recent years.

U.S. president Joe Biden disembarks from Airforce One after arriving in Geneva, one day prior to the U.S. – Russia summit.

Pool | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 got it suspended from the then-Group of Eight and earned it international sanctions. Since then Russia has been accused of 2016 U.S. election meddling, two nerve agent attacks (in the U.K. in 2018 and allegedly on Alexei Navalny, an opposition leader and Putin critic, in 2020) as well as involvement in cyberattacks and human rights abuses.

Russia has always denied the multiple accusations leveled against it, saying it is a victim of anti-Russian sentiment in the West.

The summit comes hot on the heels of a flurry of American diplomacy with its allies in Europe and beyond. Biden visited the U.K. for the Group of Seven summit last weekend, then a NATO summit in Brussels on Monday and then an EU-U.S. summit on Tuesday, giving the U.S. leader plenty of food for thought for his meeting with Putin.

The agenda for the presidents’ meeting is expected to include “strategic stability,” climate change as well as nuclear stability, arms control and cybersecurity and potentially a range of other topics including the fate of Navalny, Ukraine, Belarus and the outlook for Russian and U.S. nationals imprisoned in each other’s countries.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (C) welcomed at Geneva Airport as he arrives for a Russia-United States summit.

Sergei Bobylev | TASS | Getty Images

No ‘big set of deliverables’

On Tuesday, a senior White House official said the Biden administration was “not expecting a big set of deliverables out of this meeting” but three basic things.

“First, a clear set of taskings about areas where working together can advance our national interest and make the world safer. Second, a clear laydown of the areas of America’s vital national interests, where Russian activities that run counter to those interests will be met with a response,” he said.

“And third, a clear explication of the President’s vision for American values and our national priorities,” he said. The official added that, as for talking points with Putin, “for the American President, nothing is off the table.”

Given the adversarial nature of the U.S. and Russia’s relationship in recent years, analysts see little chance of “breakthrough” moments at the Geneva summit.

Read more: Biden and Putin are about to have a high-stakes meeting: Here’s what you need to know

People walk under Russian and American flags on a bridge in the city center prior to a meeting between U.S. President, Joe Biden and Russian President, Vladimir Putin on June 15, 2021 in Geneva, Switzerland.

Sean Gallup | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Still, the meeting is seen as a chance to calm relations and introduce some much needed stability into affairs.

“This is an attempt to stabilize the situation,” Ian Bond, director of foreign policy at the Centre for European Reform, told CNBC Wednesday. “The slogan from the Americans has been that they want predictability and stability in the relationship and it has been on a downward spiral, things have been getting worse.”

Still, Bond did not think that there would be a return to “business as usual” with Putin unlikely to change, particularly given domestic pressures due to the Covid crisis and its impact on the Russian economy and living standards.

“It makes sense for him (Putin) to try and keep his adversaries off balance and guessing what his next move will be,” Bond noted. “The Americans will try and impose more framework on this relationship but I’m not sure they will necessarily succeed.”

Correction: This story has been updated to delete an incorrect reference to the capital of Switzerland.

Categories
Politics

Biden and G-7 leaders will endorse a world minimal company tax

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks about his government’s pledge to deliver 500 million doses of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine (PFE.N) to the world’s poorest countries during a visit to St. Ives, Cornwall, UK on June 10, 2021 donate.

Kevin Lemarque | Reuters

WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden and G7 Group leaders will publicly advocate a minimum global corporate tax of at least 15% on Friday, part of a broader agreement to update international tax laws for a globalized, digital economy.

The leaders will also announce a plan to replace digital services taxes that targeted America’s largest tech companies with a new tax plan targeting the places where multinational corporations actually do business, rather than their headquarters.

For the Biden government, the Global Minimum Tax Plan is a concrete step towards its goal of creating a “foreign policy for the middle class”.

This strategy aims to ensure that globalization and trade are used for the benefit of working Americans, not just billionaires and multinational corporations.

For the rest of the world, GMT aims to end the arms race for tax cuts that has resulted in some countries cutting their corporate taxes much lower than others to attract multinational corporations.

If passed widely, GMT would effectively end the practice of global corporations looking for low-tax areas such as Ireland and the British Virgin Islands to relocate their headquarters even though their customers, operations and executives are located elsewhere.

The second major initiative that the Biden and G-7 leaders will announce on Friday is a plan they are “actively considering,” the International Monetary Fund’s offer of Special Drawing Rights, an internal IMF currency, the low-income countries are available to expand.

This plan aims to expand international development finance to poor countries and help them buy Covid vaccines and recover faster from the effects of the pandemic, according to a White House factsheet.

The White House also said G-7 leaders will agree to “provide political support to the global economy for as long as necessary to create a strong, balanced and inclusive economic recovery.”

But it is the GMT plan that has the greatest potential to affect business results and influence investor decisions.

The G-7 tax deal “will serve as a stepping stone to broader agreement in the G-20,” said a senior administration official, who spoke with reporters for background information to discuss the ongoing talks.

A joint statement by Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Thursday offers an outlook on what to expect from the global tax deal between G-7 partner countries.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks with US President Joe Biden during their pre-G7 meeting in Carbis Bay, Cornwall, UK, June 10, 2021.

Toby Melville | Reuters

“We are committed to finding an equitable solution to the allocation of taxation rights, with market countries being granted taxation rights on at least 20% of profits that exceed a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational corporations,” the said Explanation.

“We are also committed to a minimum global tax of at least 15% on a country basis.”

As part of this agreement, “we will see to … the elimination of all taxes on digital services and other relevant similar measures for all businesses.”

The elimination of taxes on digital services, a patchwork of country-specific taxes specifically targeting America’s largest tech companies, is a real victory for the United States.

Analysts say that getting rid of these taxes – and ending the looming threat of new DSTs – would give the international tax system a level of security that would ultimately benefit big tech companies in the long term, even if a new global minimum tax were raised in the short term .

Once the G7 leaders adopt the GMT proposal, the next step will be to gain support among the G20, a diverse group of economies that includes China, India, Brazil and Russia.

In July, the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors meet in Venice, Italy. Both the IMF funding proposal and the international tax plan are expected to be high on the agenda.

It is currently unclear whether the GMT plan will win the support of the 19 member states and the European Union.

Details of the plan are yet to be worked out, and some of the G-20 are keeping corporate tax rates relatively low to attract businesses.

Much of the groundwork for the introduction of a GMT has already been laid by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which published a blueprint last fall outlining the two-pillar approach to international taxation.

The OECD Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, known as BEPS, is the result of negotiations with 137 member countries and legal systems.

One pillar is the plan for countries to levy taxes on multinational corporations based on that company’s share of the profits that comes from a given country’s consumers.

The second pillar is the global minimum corporate income tax, a rate of at least 15% that would apply even if the tax rates in a particular country were lower.

Categories
Politics

To Counter China’s Belt-and-Highway, Biden Tries to Unite G7

PLYMOUTH, England – President Biden on Saturday urged the nations of Europe and Japan to counter China’s growing economic and security influence by providing hundreds of billions in funding to developing countries as an alternative to building new roads, railways, ports and communications networks in Beijing offer.

It was the first time the world’s richest nations discussed organizing a direct alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping’s overseas loan and investment plan that now spans Africa, Latin America and, hesitantly until it has spread to Europe itself. But the White House made no financial commitments, and there is sharp disagreement between the United States and its allies over how to respond to China’s rising power.

Mr Biden has made the challenge of an emerging China and a disruptive Russia at the heart of a foreign policy aimed at building democracies around the world as bulwarks against the spread of authoritarianism. For its part, Beijing has pointed to the US’s poor response to the pandemic and divisive American policies – particularly the January 6 uprising in the Capitol – as a sign that democracy is failing.

In scope and ambition, China’s development efforts far surpass the Marshall Plan, the United States’ program to rebuild Europe after World War II. At the Summit of the Group of Seven, discussions on Saturday about how to counteract this mirrored the debate in the West over whether to see China as a partner, a competitor, an adversary or an absolute security threat.

It is far from clear that the wealthy democracies will be able to come up with a comprehensive answer.

The plan described by the White House appeared to bring together existing projects in the United States, Europe, and Japan, and encourage private funding. An information sheet distributed to reporters named it “Build Back Better for the World,” with roots in Mr. Biden’s campaign theme – B3W for short, a game about China’s BRI.

He stressed the environment, anti-corruption efforts, the free flow of information and funding conditions that would allow developing countries to avoid excessive debt. One of the criticisms of Belt and Road is that the nations that sign it become dependent on China, which gives Beijing too much leverage over them.

It was a sign of growing concern about the ubiquitous Chinese surveillance that the UK hosts of this year’s G7 meeting cut all Internet and Wi-Fi connections in the room where the leaders met and so they away from uncoupled from the outside world.

Leaders broadly agree that China is using its investment strategy to both strengthen its state-owned enterprises and build a network of commercial ports and communication systems through Huawei, over which it would have significant control. But officials emerging from the meeting said Germany, Italy and the European Union are clearly concerned about risking their huge trade and investment deals with Beijing or accelerating what has increasingly taken on the tone of a new Cold War.

Mr Biden used the meeting to advance his argument that the fundamental struggle in the post-pandemic era will be democracy versus autocracies.

The first test could be whether he can convince the Allies to refuse participation in projects that rely on forced labor. It is unclear, American officials said what language about rejecting goods or investing in such projects would be included in the meeting’s final communiqué, which will be released on Sunday.

But the meeting comes just one day after Foreign Minister Antony J. Blinken, who is traveling here with Mr. Biden, told his Chinese counterpart in a telephone conversation that the United States is actively opposing “ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing” of Muslims in Xinjiang in far west China and “the deterioration of democratic norms” in Hong Kong. The European heads of state and government have largely avoided this terminology.

The divisions on how to view China help explain why the West has not yet found a coordinated response to the Belt and Road. A recent study by the Council on Foreign Relations described Washington’s own reactions as a “scattershot,” a mixture of modest adjustments by Congress to rules governing the Export-Import Bank to compete with high-tech Chinese loans and efforts to get Huawei to China’s telecommunications, outlaw champion.

The risk to American strategy is that dealing with a patchwork of separate programs – and Western insistence on good environmental and human rights practices – may seem less attractive to developing countries than Beijing’s all-in-one package of finance and new technology .

“Many BRI countries appreciate the speed with which China can move from planning to construction,” said the council report, written by a bipartisan group of China experts and former US officials.

These countries, she added, also value China’s “willingness to build what host countries want instead of telling them what to do and the ease with which to deal with a single group of builders, financiers and government officials.”

Still, Mr Biden feels an opening as European nations have begun to understand the risks of reliance on Chinese supply chains and watch China’s reach expand into their own backyards.

Britain, which once pursued arguably the most China-friendly policies in Europe, has firmly stood behind the American hard line, especially with regard to Huawei, which the US sees as a security threat. After trying to accommodate Huawei, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that it was ripping older Huawei devices from its networks.

Biden in Europe

Updated

June 12, 2021, 7:11 a.m. ET

Germany, for which China has become the number 1 market for Volkswagen and BMW, remains committed to its commitment and is profoundly opposed to a new Cold War. It has launched decisions about the use of Huawei and other Chinese-made network devices after Chinese officials threatened to retaliate by banning the sale of German luxury cars in China.

Italy became the first member of the G7 to join the “Belt and Road” in 2019. It then had to resign in part under pressure from NATO allies who feared that Italian infrastructure, including the telecommunications network, would depend on Chinese technology.

When China sent face masks and ventilators to a desperate Italy during the Covid outbreak, an Italian official told his fellow Europeans stressed that the country would remember who its friends were after the pandemic.

France has not joined Belt and Road, despite welcoming Chinese investment in the country and not banning Huawei from its wireless network. Relations with China have cooled after President Emmanuel Macron criticized Beijing for its lack of transparency about the origins of the coronavirus.

“America would be well served if the European Union works together and defines a coherent China strategy,” said Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to the USA. “Interests are not served well if there is a German China strategy, a French China strategy and a British China strategy.”

That’s easier said than done. Britain moved closer to the US under pressure from former President Donald J. Trump – less because it changed its view of China’s strategy or security risks than because it feared being isolated from its key ally after Brexit.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who firmly believes in her commitment to China, will resign in a few months. But not much is likely to change in Germany’s politics, especially if her successor as CDU leader Armin Laschet replaces her in the Chancellery. He is considered to be in step with Ms. Merkel.

France is a different story. Macron faces a formidable challenge from the populist right in next year’s elections. Right-wing leader Marine LePen has vowed to counter China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific region.

“Whenever you have one of these meetings, you will see a fluid movement in one country or another,” said Simon Fraser, a former top official in the UK Foreign Office. But he added: “There is a lack of cohesion on the European side that needs to be addressed”.

Italy is a good test case of how China has tried to build influence in Europe. Since joining Belt and Road, Rome has signed nearly two dozen agreements with Beijing, ranging from tax rules to sanitary rules for pork exports. However, Italy also vetoed a 5G deal between Huawei and one of its telecommunications companies.

At the heart of China’s investment in Europe is a rail network that would connect its factories on the Pacific Ocean to London – a project China’s Prime Minister Li Keqiang once called an expressway to Europe. Italy, which has a terminus on the route, welcomes the investment as a tonic for its ailing economy.

But Britain’s relations with China are frozen. The government imposed sanctions on China’s treatment of the Uyghur population and offered residency and access to citizenship to more than 300,000 British foreign passport holders in Hong Kong after China imposed a draconian national security law on the former British colony.

Analysts say China’s human rights record is hardening European attitudes across the board. The European Parliament refused to ratify a landmark investment agreement backed by Germany as China stubbornly responded to sanctions for its treatment of the Uyghurs. China has sanctioned ten EU politicians.

There is also evidence that Mr Biden realizes that his aggressive language about China – as the great adversary in a fateful struggle between democracies and autocracies – is uncomfortable for many Europeans. He largely avoided this framing in the days leading up to his European tour and spoke more generally about the need to promote democracies in a competitive world.

For some analysts, this opens the door to a hopeful scenario in which the United States and Europe are moving towards each other, moderating the most extreme aspects of the confrontation towards reconciliation in each other’s approaches.

“America becomes more realistic from the hard line to China, while Europe becomes more realistic from the soft line,” said Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, a think tank in London.

Categories
World News

Meet the researcher attempting to get Biden to forgive pupil debt

Charlie Eaton

Courtesy: Charlie Eaton

The odds of student loan forgiveness happening have never been greater, experts say. Yet a number of large obstacles stand in the way, some practical and others ideological.

Does the president have the authority to cancel the debt? Officials at the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice are currently trying to find answers to that question.

If they conclude President Joe Biden can do so, will he? And if they decide he doesn’t, will Democrats, despite their razor-thin majority, manage to pass legislation forgiving student debt?

At the center of the ideological debate, meanwhile, is the question over who would really benefit from a jubilee. A number of critics of broad student loan forgiveness say the policy would direct taxpayer dollars to people who are already relatively well-off, since college degrees lead to higher earnings.

More from Invest in You:
Almost half of Americans to take on debt as a treat post-pandemic
How to resist the urge to splurge in a post-pandemic spending spree
How to avoid overspending in this hot housing market

Biden has also questioned the fairness of canceling student debt, framing borrowers on multiple recent occasions as more privileged than others. “The idea that you go to Penn and you’re paying a total of 70,000 bucks a year and the public should pay for that? Biden said in an interview with The New York Times in May. “I don’t agree.”

And at a CNN town hall back in February, Biden said it didn’t make sense to cancel the loans “for people who have gone to Harvard and Yale and Penn.”

Now a group of scholars at the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank, have published research they hope will change the minds of Biden and other critics when it comes to student loan forgiveness.

Their biggest finding is that canceling $50,000 for all student loan borrowers would wipe out more than $17,000 per person among Black households in the bottom 10% of net worth, and over $11,000 among white and Latinx households in that lowest range.

Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards

Meanwhile, the average cancellation would be just $562 per person for those in the top 10% of net worth.

In other words: A jubilee would most benefit those who are least well-off.

CNBC spoke this week with Charlie Eaton, an economic sociologist and one of the report’s authors, about its findings and how he hopes they will impact the ongoing debate about student loan forgiveness. (The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.)

Annie Nova: Where do you think the idea that student loan forgiveness would help those who are well-off comes from?

Charlie Eaton: Part of the myth that cancellation would help wealthy people comes from the original theory that was used to justify student loans: that individuals are better off borrowing to go to college than not going to college at all. Folks are committed to this model and justify it as something that promotes equity.

Student loan forgiveness would only be a small initial step toward redressing the economic legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. But it’s necessary.

AN: You write that race is “a glaring omission” in the arguments against student loan forgiveness. Why do you think race has been left out?

CE: A lot of the most groundbreaking work on wealth inequality has happened in the last decade. I think the newness of this knowledge is part of it. But there’s also been a willful ignorance on racial inequality by those folks who wanted to see student loans as an easy way to pay for higher education in America in place of adequate taxes and spending.

AN: You talk about student loan forgiveness as a form of racial reparations. Why?

CE: Student loan forgiveness would only be a small initial step toward redressing the economic legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. But it’s necessary to enable Black borrowers to build wealth, because Black college-goers borrow at much higher rates than white borrowers. And, as a result, it’s much harder for them to get home loans and accumulate savings.

AN: Your report expresses doubts about the effectiveness of more narrow student loan forgiveness policies, such as one that would target low-income borrowers. Why do you think a broader cancellation is the way to go?

CE: If you try to layer on these exclusions, you have greater risk of failing to undo the inequities that have been created by our student loan system. For example, if you were going to go just by income, and you said we’re not going to cancel student loans for folks who make more than $75,000 a year, you’d be excluding the disproportionate number of Black professionals who may have incomes at that level but also have much more student debt than their white counterparts.

AN: What do you see as the biggest challenge to getting student loans cancelled?

CE: Joe Biden. He seems to have accepted this myth that student debt cancellation disproportionally helps wealthier folks when the opposite is true. He has said it wouldn’t be fair to cancel debt for folks who went to Harvard or Yale or Penn. The thing is Harvard has essentially already cancelled debt for its students: Only 3% of undergraduates at Harvard have any student loan debt at all. I’m hoping our research will get through to Biden to help him understand student debt cancellation will flow to those who need it.

AN: Do you know if anyone in the Biden administration has seen your research yet?

CE: We’ve shared our work directly with White House and Department of Education staff. And we’re optimistic that the Biden administration is looking seriously at the president’s ability to cancel student debt.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Categories
Politics

Eighty Years Later, Biden and Johnson Revise the Atlantic Constitution for a New Period

CARBIS BAY, UK – UK President Biden and Prime Minister Boris Johnson signed a new version of the 80-year-old Atlantic Charter on Thursday, using their first meeting to redefine the Western alliance and what they see as the growing divide between troubled democracies and their autocratic rivals, led by Russia and China.

The two leaders unveiled the new charter as they tried to draw the world’s attention to emerging cyberattack threats, the Covid-19 pandemic that has turned the global economy on its head, and climate change it would hoped make clear that America First’s Trump era was over.

But the two men continued to grapple with old world challenges, including Mr Biden’s private admonition to the Prime Minister to take action that could spark sectarian violence in Northern Ireland.

The new charter, a 604-word declaration, was an attempt to outline a grand vision for global relations in the 21st century, just like the original, first drafted by Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, a declaration for a western one Commitment was to democracy and territorial integrity just months before the United States entered World War II.

“It was a policy statement, a promise that the UK and United States will meet the challenges of their time and that we will meet them together,” said Biden after his private meeting with Mr Johnson. “Today we are building on that commitment with a revitalized Atlantic Charter that has been updated to reaffirm that promise while addressing directly the key challenges of this century.”

The two men met at a seaside resort on the Cornish coast in England while Royal Navy ships were patrolling to protect the in-person meeting of the Group of 7 Industrialized Leaders, clearly trying to put themselves in the shape of Churchill and FDR . Looking at a small display of the original Atlantic Charter agreed on aboard a ship off Newfoundland in August 1941, less than four months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Johnson noted that “this was the beginning of the alliance and “NATO.”

But Mr Biden’s advisors said they thought the charter had grown musty and did not reflect a world of diverse challenges – from cyberspace to China – in which Britain is a greatly reduced power.

Where the original charter provided for the “ultimate destruction of Nazi tyranny” and demanded freedom “to cross the high seas and oceans unhindered”, the new version focused on the “climate crisis” and the need to “protect biodiversity” . It is peppered with references to “emerging technologies”, “cyberspace” and “sustainable global development”.

As a direct reprimand for Russia and China, the new agreement calls on the Western allies to “resist interference through disinformation or other malicious influences, including in elections”. She assesses the threats to democratic nations in a technological age: “We reaffirm our shared responsibility for maintaining our collective security and international stability and resilience against the full spectrum of modern threats, including cyber threats.”

And it promises that “NATO will remain a nuclear alliance as long as there are nuclear weapons. Our NATO allies and partners will always be able to count on us, even if they continue to strengthen their own national armed forces. “

It would be hard to imagine that Mr Johnson, who nurtured his relationship with President Donald Trump, would sign such a document in the Trump era. Nonetheless, he is clearly addressing Mr Biden, who was born barely two years after the first charter was signed and who throughout his political life embraced the alliance it created.

The new charter specifically urges both countries to abide by “the rules-based international order,” a phrase that Trump and his staff tried unsuccessfully to banish from previous statements by Western leaders, believing it was a globalist threat represented Mr. Trump’s America First Agenda at home.

Updated

June 11, 2021 at 12:31 p.m. ET

Mr Biden also used his first full day abroad to officially announce that the United States will donate 500 million doses of the Pfizer BioNTech Covid vaccine to 100 poorer countries, a program that, according to official figures, will donate US $ 3.5 billion. Would cost $ 2 billion, including $ 2 billion in donations to the previously announced Covax consortium.

“Right now, our values ​​are asking us to do everything in our power to vaccinate the world against Covid-19,” said Biden. He brushed aside concerns that his government would use vaccine distribution as a diplomatic weapon in the world market.

“The United States is making these half a billion doses available without any conditions,” he said. “Our vaccine donations do not involve pressure for favors or possible concessions. We do this to save lives. To end this pandemic. That’s it. Period.”

But the donation, which is presented as a humanitarian action that was also in the US’s own interest, also carries a political message. Mr Biden’s advisors say this is a strong demonstration that democracies – and not China or Russia – are able to respond to the world’s crises, faster and more effectively.

By taking the lead in efforts to vaccinate the world and make resources available to meet its greatest public health challenges, officials said the United States is regaining a role it has been playing since the end of World War II tried to play.

Desperate to use the summit as a showcase for a post-Brexit identity with the Global Britain brand, Mr Johnson has also outlined ambitious plans to end the pandemic. Ahead of the summit, Mr Johnson urged leaders to commit to vaccinating everyone in the world against the coronavirus by the end of 2022.

Public health experts applauded Mr Biden’s announcement. If previous donations had been little more than a patch on a huge global vaccine deficit, the 500 million doses were more in line with the scale of the challenge, they said.

The announcement came when Covax, the vaccine-sharing partnership, struggled to deliver enough doses, especially as India blocked supplies from a large factory there to speed up its domestic vaccination campaign. Covax has shipped 82 million cans, less than a fifth of the shipment it expected by June.

But it continues to be difficult to get doses into people’s arms. Public health officials around the world have urged wealthy nations to start distributing their donations soon, rather than releasing additional doses at once later this year so that countries can administer the doses when they arrive.

In his meeting with Mr Johnson, Mr Biden also dealt with an old subject that he knows well: the British Territory of Northern Ireland. It first erupted as a source of tension between Mr Biden and Mr Johnson during the 2020 presidential campaign when Mr Biden warned on Twitter that “we cannot allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to be sacrificed”. of Brexit. “He added that any trade deal between the United States and Britain would depend on preventing the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that lies within the European Union.

As a proud Irish American who loves to quote poetry by Yeats, Mr. Biden’s loyalty on this matter has never been in question. They are in stark contrast to Trump, who campaigned for Brexit and once urged Johnson’s predecessor Theresa May to sue the European Union. Mr Biden, on the other hand, described Brexit as a mistake.

The problem is that post-Brexit trade tensions in Northern Ireland have only increased since the election of Mr Biden. The UK has blamed the European Union for trade disruptions that resulted in some supermarket shelves in Northern Ireland being empty after the UK officially exited the bloc in January.

Negotiations over the arrangements, known as the Northern Ireland Protocol, are increasingly controversial, with Britain threatening to pull the plug if Brussels does not make concessions. Last week, the most senior American diplomat in London, Yael Lempert, bluntly expressed government concerns over mounting tensions against British Brexit chief negotiator David Frost.

News of the meeting surfaced in the Times of London on Wednesday evening when Mr Biden arrived in the country. While some analysts predicted it would overshadow Mr. Biden’s meeting with Mr. Johnson, others indicated that it served a purpose – publicly registering American concerns in a way that saved Mr. Biden the need to highlight the point in person.

White House officials have gone out of their way to say they do not want to be drawn into a dispute between London and Brussels. At the same time, they leave no doubt as to the depth of Mr. Biden’s feeling for the Good Friday Agreement conveyed through one of his Democratic predecessors, Bill Clinton.

“He’s not making threats or ultimatums,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told Air Force One reporters. “He will simply convey his ingrained belief that we stand behind this protocol and must protect it.”

Mark Landler contributed the coverage from Falmouth, England, and Benjamin Mueller from London.

Categories
Health

Biden to Ship Thousands and thousands of Pfizer Vaccine Doses to 100 Nations

WASHINGTON – President Biden, under pressure to aggressively address the global coronavirus vaccine shortage, will announce Thursday that his government will buy 500 million doses of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine and deliver them to about 100 countries next year The donation will be made by people familiar with the plan.

The White House reached the deal just in time for Mr Biden’s eight-day tour of Europe, which will be his first opportunity to assert the United States as world leader and to re-establish ties that have been badly frayed by President Donald J. Trump.

“We have to end Covid-19, not just at home we do, but everywhere,” Biden told American troops after landing at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk, England. “There is no wall high enough to protect us from this pandemic or the next biological threat we face, and there will be others. It requires coordinated multilateral action. “

People familiar with the Pfizer deal said the United States would pay for the cans at a “not for profit” price. The first 200 million cans will be distributed by the end of this year, followed by 300 million by next June, they said. The doses will be distributed through Covax, the international vaccine exchange initiative.

Mr Biden is in Europe for a week to attend the NATO and Group of 7 summits and to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin in Geneva. He will likely use the trip to urge other nations to step up vaccine distribution.

In a statement Wednesday, Jeffrey D. Zients, White House official in charge of developing a global vaccination strategy, said Biden will “bring the world’s democracies together to resolve this global crisis, with America leading the way, the vaccine arsenal that will be of vital importance in our global fight against Covid-19. “

The White House is trying to highlight its success in fighting the pandemic – especially its vaccination campaign – and using that success as a diplomatic tool, especially as China and Russia are trying to do the same. Mr Biden has insisted that unlike China and Russia, who share their vaccines with dozens of countries, the United States will not attempt to extort promises from countries that receive US-made vaccines.

The 500 million doses are still well below the 11 billion the World Health Organization estimates to vaccinate the world, but well above what the United States has promised so far. Other nations have asked the United States to give up some of its ample vaccine supplies. In some African countries, less than 1 percent of people are fully vaccinated compared to 42 percent in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Global health advocates welcomed the news but reiterated their stance that it is not enough for the United States to simply give away vaccines. They say the Biden government needs to create the conditions for other countries to manufacture vaccines themselves, including transferring technology to make the cans.

“The world desperately needs new productions to produce billions more doses within a year, not just pledges to buy planned inadequate supplies,” Peter Maybarduk, director of the Citizens’ Access to Medicines Program, said in a Explanation. He added, “We have not yet seen a US government or G7 plan with the ambition or urgency to add billions more doses and end the pandemic.”

The Pfizer deal has the potential to open the door to similar agreements with other vaccine makers, including Moderna, whose vaccine, unlike Pfizer’s, was developed with US taxpayers’ money. In addition, the Biden government has negotiated a deal whereby Merck will help manufacture Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine, and those doses may be available for use overseas.

The United States has already signed a contract to purchase 300 million doses of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, which requires two vaccinations to be distributed in the United States; the 500 million cans are on top of that, according to people familiar with the deal.

Biden in Europe

Updated

June 9, 2021, 8:50 p.m. ET

Neither Pfizer nor administrators would tell what the company is charging the government for the cans. Pfizer is also offering the Biden government the option to purchase an additional 200 million cans at cost to be donated overseas.

For Pfizer, the decision to sell so much of the supply to the Biden government for no profit is a significant step.

The vaccine accounted for $ 3.5 billion in sales for the first three months of this year, nearly a quarter of Pfizer’s total sales. By some estimates, the company made approximately $ 900 million in pre-tax income from the vaccine in the first quarter.

However, the company has also been criticized for disproportionately supporting wealthy nations, despite Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla promising in January to ensure that “developing countries have equal access to the rest of the world.”

The 200 million Pfizer cans the Biden government plans to donate accounts for about 7 percent of the three billion cans the company is expected to produce this year. Pfizer expects to deliver an additional 800 million doses to lower and lower middle income countries through other agreements with individual countries or Covax, a spokeswoman said.

For Mr Biden, the deal shows that his government is ready to intervene deeper in the treasury to help poorer countries.

Last week, Mr Biden said the United States would be distributing 25 million doses to countries in the Caribbean and Latin America this month; South and Southeast Asia; Africa; and the Palestinian Territories, Gaza and the West Bank.

These cans are the first of 80 million that Mr Biden intended to send abroad by the end of June; three quarters of these are sold by Covax. The rest will be used to address urgent and urgent crises in countries like India, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, government officials said. Many of the 80 million cans were manufactured by AstraZeneca and are still subject to a complex review by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mr Biden has also pledged to support a waiver of an international intellectual property treaty that would make it difficult for companies to refuse their technology. But European leaders are blocking the proposed exemption, and pharmaceutical companies are firmly against it. The World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Council meets this week to review the derogation.

The president’s promise of vaccines for the world market comes as he prepares on Thursday for a meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has urged leaders to pledge to feed everyone in the world by the end of 2022 vaccinate. Mr Biden’s announcement is likely welcome news to Mr Johnson, whose critics have questioned where the money will come from to keep his promise.

“The truth is, world leaders have been stepping down the street for months – to the point where they ran out of streets,” Edwin Ikhouria, executive director for Africa at ONE Campaign, a nonprofit that dedicated to eradicating global poverty, said in a statement on Wednesday.

About 64 percent of adults in the United States are at least partially vaccinated, and the president’s goal is to increase that number to 70 percent by July 4th, following an accessibility strategy and incentives to reach Americans who have not yet received any injections.

Despite these efforts, there are unused doses of vaccine that could be wasted. Once thawed, cans have a limited shelf life and millions could expire within two weeks, according to federal officials.

Equal access to vaccines has become one of the most persistent challenges in containing the pandemic. Wealthier nations and private corporations have pledged tens of millions of doses and billions of dollars to sustain global supplies, but the disparities in vaccine allocations so far have been stark.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, warned this week that the world is facing a “two-pronged pandemic” with countries short of vaccines struggling with virus cases even as better-served countries return to normal.

These lower-income countries will largely depend on wealthier ones until vaccines can be distributed and produced on a more equitable basis, he said.

Daniel E. Slotnik contributed the coverage from New York and Michael D. Shear from Plymouth, England.

Categories
World News

With a Ban on Navalny’s Group, Putin Sends a Message to Biden

MOSCOW – A court on Wednesday ruled the political movement of Aleksei A. Navalny as extremist, a notable broadside from President Vladimir V. Putin, who also sent a message to President Biden ahead of their meeting next week: Russian internal affairs are not up Discussion.

The judicial decision – almost certainly with the blessing of the Kremlin – seemed to push the resistance against Putin further underground after years of efforts by the Russian government to suppress dissenting opinions entered a new, more aggressive phase for several months. Under the law, Mr Navalny’s organizers, donors or even social media supporters could now face criminal prosecution and face jail terms.

The ruling increases the commitment of the Geneva summit to Mr Biden, who has promised to defend himself against Mr Putin’s violation of international norms. But the Russian President has said that while he is ready to discuss cyberspace and geopolitics with Mr Biden, he will not have talks about how he governs his country. The question is how much Mr Biden accepts these demands.

“The views on our political system can be different,” Putin told the heads of international news agencies last week. “Please give us the right to organize this part of our life.”

The June 16 Geneva meeting will come after months in which Mr Putin has dismantled much of what remains of Russian political pluralism – and made it clear that he would ignore Western criticism.

Mr Navalny was arrested in January after returning to Moscow after recovering from poisoning carried out by Russian agents last year, according to Western officials. Since then, thousands of Russians have been arrested during protests; opposition leaders have been imprisoned or forced into exile; Online media were branded as “foreign agents”; and Twitter and other social networks have come under pressure from the government.

“The state has decided to fight all independent organizations with total bombing,” said Nawalny’s anti-corruption foundation – one of the groups declared extremist on Wednesday – in a Twitter post anticipating the verdict.

The Kremlin denies having played any role in the campaign against Navalny and his movement and insists that Russia’s judiciary is independent. However, analysts and lawyers largely see the courts as subordinate to the Kremlin and the security services, especially in politically sensitive cases.

Mr Putin has already signaled that he will reject any criticism of the Kremlin’s handling of the Navalny case by claiming that the United States has no power to teach others. At Russia’s annual economic conference in St. Petersburg last week, Putin repeatedly referred to the January arrests of Capitol rioters in Washington when challenged over repression in Russia or its ally Belarus.

“Look at the sad events in the United States where people refused to accept the election results and stormed Congress,” Putin said. “Why are you only interested in our non-systemic opposition?”

The “non-systemic opposition” is the Russian term for factions that are not represented in parliament and that openly demand Putin’s impeachment. For years they were tolerated, even if they were closely monitored and often persecuted. The court’s ruling on Wednesday signaled that this era of tolerance is coming to an end.

Prosecutors harassed Navalny and other opposition activists, mostly on pretexts such as violating rules for public gatherings, laws unrelated to their political activities, or, more recently, anti-gathering regulations designed to limit the spread of the coronavirus.

Behind the scenes, according to Western governments and human rights groups, the Kremlin had gone further: murdering or expelling journalists, dissidents and leaders of the political opposition in exile. Mr Navalny only barely survived an attack with a chemical weapon last summer. In 2015, another opposition leader and former First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, Boris Y. Nemtsov, was shot dead with a pistol. But officials denied any role in these actions.

The dissolution of Mr Navalny’s nationwide network marked a new phase in the fight against dissent through a formal, legal process to dissolve opposition organizations despite the country’s 1993 Constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression.

The Kremlin’s campaign against the opposition increased after Navalny returned from Germany in January, where he received medical treatment after the neurotoxin attack. Police arrested Mr. Navalny at the airport and a court sentenced him to two and a half years in prison for violating parole on conviction in a case of embezzlement alleged by a human rights organization to be politically motivated.

In power since 1999, either as Prime Minister or President, Mr Putin has gradually tightened the screws on dissent and opposition. In a long twilight of post-Soviet democracy during his rule, elections took place, the internet remained largely free, and opposition was tolerated to a limited extent. His system has been called “gentle authoritarianism”.

But prosecutors this spring demanded that the court outlaw Mr Navalny’s move by using a term that compares its members to terrorists without bothering to publicly argue that the nonprofits were, in fact, seditious organizations . The evidence was classified and the case was held behind closed doors in a Moscow courtroom.

A lawyer representing the organizations, Ivan Pavlov, who had access to the evidence but was not empowered to disclose it, said after a preliminary hearing that it was not convincing and that he would publish as much as the law allows . Within a few days, police arrested Mr. Pavlov on charges of divulging secret evidence in another unrelated case, in what looked like a warning to avoid an aggressive defense of Mr. Navalny’s organization. He faces up to three years in prison.

According to Russian legal experts, the anti-extremism law offers a lot of scope for comprehensive action against the opposition in the coming days or months, but it remains unclear how it will be enforced.

According to the law, the organizers of the group face prison sentences of up to 10 years for continuing their activities. Anyone who donates money can be punished with up to eight years in prison. Public comments such as social media posts in favor of Mr Navalny’s groups could also be prosecuted in support of extremists.

The case was directed against three non-profit groups, Navalny headquarters, the Anti-Corruption Fund and the Civil Rights Defense Fund. In a preliminary ruling last month, the court ordered the activities of some of these groups to be suspended.

Pending the final verdict, Mr. Navalny’s staff disbanded one of the groups, Navalny’s headquarters, which operated its network of 40 political offices, before the court had a chance to designate it as an extremist group. Mr Navalny’s staff said they hoped some offices would continue to operate as independent, local political organizations.

“Unfortunately, we have to be honest: it is impossible to work in these conditions,” said an adviser to Mr Navalny, Leonid Volkov, in a YouTube video, warning that continuing the operation would prosecute supporters of the opposition leader. “We are officially dissolving the network of Navalny offices.”

When they announced the case in April, prosecutors argued that Mr Navalny’s groups were in fact riotous organizations disguised as a political movement. In a press release, the prosecutor said that “under the guise of liberal slogans, these organizations are busy creating conditions for the destabilization of the social and socio-political situation”.

Since he is forbidden from founding a political party, Mr Navalny has worked for various non-governmental organizations instead. Despite relentless pressure from the Russian authorities, these groups have for years insisted on promoting an anti-corruption campaign that frustrated and embarrassed Mr Putin, and have often used social media to great effect.

Mr Navalny’s movement was the most prominent in Russia, openly calling for Mr Putin’s ousting through elections, and its supporters say the Kremlin is determined to crush those efforts before they can bear fruit.

Categories
Politics

Biden Goals to Bolster U.S. Alliances in Europe, however Challenges Loom

WASHINGTON – It shouldn’t be that difficult being an American leader visiting Europe for the first time since President Donald J. Trump.

But President Biden will face his own challenges as he leaves on Wednesday, especially as the United States faces a disruptive Russia and an emerging China as it seeks to reassemble and rally the shaken Western alliance after the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr. Biden, who will be coming to a series of summits backed by a successful vaccination program and a recovering economy, will spend the next week making sure America is back and ready to face the West again in a, as he calls it, leading an existential collision between democracies and autocracies.

The agenda includes meetings in the UK with leaders from the Group of 7 Nations, followed by visits to NATO and the European Union. On the last day of Mr Biden, he will hold his first meeting as President with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin in Geneva.

Mr Biden’s overarching role is to convey the diplomatic serenity that eluded such gatherings during four years as Mr Trump destroyed longstanding relationships with close allies, threatened to withdraw from NATO, and hugged Mr Putin and other autocrats and admired her strength.

But the goodwill that Mr. Biden brings, simply by being not Mr. Trump papers, over persistent doubts about his durability, American reliability and the cost Europe is likely to pay. At 78, is Mr. Biden the last breath of an old-style internationalist foreign policy? Will Europe pay for a new Cold War with Russia? Will it be asked to sign up for a China Containment Policy? And will Mr. Biden deliver on the climate?

These questions will arise when he deals with disagreements over trade, new restrictions on investments and purchases in China, and his ever-evolving stance on a natural gas pipeline that will run directly from Russia to Europe, bypassing Ukraine.

Throughout this time, Mr. Biden will face European leaders who face the United States in a way it has not been since 1945, wondering where we are headed.

“You saw the state of the Republican Party,” said Barry Pavel, director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at Atlantic Council. “You saw January 6th. You know you could have another president in 2024.”

White House officials say that stable American diplomacy has finally returned, but of course they can no longer offer guarantees after January 2025. European officials are following the angry political clashes in the United States and finding that Mr Trump has his party firmly under control, he is barely faltering.

Days before Mr Biden’s departure, Republicans in Congress opposed the establishment of a bipartisan commission to investigate the Capitol Rebellion. Republican lawmakers applauds Mr Trump’s false claims that the 2020 elections were stolen. The Democrats are stalling in their efforts to pass sweeping laws to counter the Republican attacks on state suffrage.

Despite everything, Trump repeatedly points to a political comeback in four years.

“There is a concern about American politics,” said Ian Lesser, vice president of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “Simple, what will happen in the midterm elections? Whether Trumpism will prove to be more permanent than Mr. Trump. What’s next in American politics? “

If the future of the United States is the long-term concern, dealing with a disruptive Russia is the immediate agenda. No part of the trip will be more expensive than a full-day meeting with Mr Putin.

Mr Biden called for the meeting – the first since Mr Trump accepted Putin’s denial of electoral interference at a summit in Helsinki, Finland three years ago – despite warnings from human rights activists that it would empower and encourage the Russian leader. Jake Sullivan, Mr Biden’s national security advisor, noted that American presidents met with their Soviet counterparts during the Cold War and then with their Russian successors. But on Monday he said Mr Biden would warn Mr Putin directly that without a change in behavior, there will be “answers”.

However, veterans of the Washington-Moscow battle say disrupting Putin is a true superpower.

“Putin doesn’t necessarily want a more stable or predictable relationship,” said Alexander Vershbow, who was ambassador to Russia under President George W. Bush. “The best case one can hope for is that the two leaders argue about many things but continue the dialogue.”

White House officials say the president has no intention of reshaping relations with Russia. After Mr Biden called Putin a “killer” earlier this year, he is clear about his adversary. They said: He regards Mr Putin as a die-hard mafia boss ordering beatings with the country’s nerve gas supplies than a national leader.

But Mr Biden is determined to guardrail the relationship and ensure some level of collaboration, starting with the future of their nuclear arsenals.

But there is a dawning awareness in Europe that while Putin values ​​his growing arsenal, Russia’s nuclear capabilities are a strategic holdover from an era of superpower conflict. In what Putin recently dubbed a new Cold War with the United States, the weapons of choice are cyber weapons, ransomware used by gangs operating out of Russian territory, and the ability to target neighbors like Ukraine by mass troops To shake the limit.

Mr Biden will adopt NATO and Article V of its charter, the section requiring every member of the alliance to view an armed attack on one as an armed attack on all. But it’s less clear what an armed attack is in the modern age: a cyberattack like the SolarWinds hacking that infiltrates corporate and government networks? The transfer of medium-range missiles and Russian troops to the border of Ukraine, which is not a NATO member?

Mr Biden’s staff say the key for him is to make it clear that he has seen Putin’s courage before and that it does not concern him.

“Joe Biden is not Donald Trump,” said Thomas E. Donilon, who was a national security adviser to President Barack Obama and whose wife and brother are important helpers to Mr. Biden. “You will not have this inexplicable reluctance of a US president to criticize a Russian president who runs a country that is actively hostile to the United States in so many areas. You won’t have that. “

However, when Mr Biden defines the current struggle as “a struggle between the benefits of 21st century democracies and autocracies,” he appears to be more concerned about China’s attractiveness as a trading partner and source of technology than Russia’s disruption. And while Europeans largely do not see China as the kind of growing technological, ideological, and military threat Washington is doing, that is an argument that Biden is starting to win.

The British have been using the largest fleet of their warships in the Pacific since the Falklands War almost 40 years ago. The idea is to restore at least one visitor presence in a region that was once part of his empire with stations in Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. At the same time, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has agreed to efforts by Washington – started by Mr Trump and accelerated by Mr Biden – to ensure Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications company, does not win new contracts to install 5G cellular networks in the UK.

Some in Europe are following suit, but Mr Biden’s advisors said they felt taken aback last year when the European Union announced an investment deal with China days before Mr Biden’s inauguration. It reflected fears that European companies would bear the brunt of the brunt if the continent were drawn into the US-China rivalry, starting with the luxury auto industry in Germany.

The future of the deal is unclear, but Biden is going the other way: last week he signed an executive order banning Americans from investing in Chinese companies affiliated with the country’s military or selling surveillance technology that is used to To suppress dissenting opinions or religious minorities inside and outside of China. But to be effective, the allies would have to join; So far, few have expressed enthusiasm for the effort.

Perhaps Biden’s commitment to tackling climate change can win over skeptics, even if he will wonder if he’s doing enough.

Four years ago, at Mr Trump’s first G7 meeting, six leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement while the United States declared it was “unable to join the consensus”.

Reversing that stance, Mr Biden promises to cut US emissions 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by the end of the decade, and writes in a pre-summit comment in the Washington Post that the United States will be back on Sitting at the table, countries “have the opportunity to make ambitious progress”.

However, world leaders said they continued to be suspicious of the United States’ willingness to pass serious laws to tackle its emissions and deliver on financial promises to poorer countries.

“They showed the right approach, not necessarily as much as they could,” said Graça Machel, Mozambique’s former Minister of Education and Culture.

The key to achieving ambitious climate targets is China, which emits more than the US, Europe and Japan combined. Peter Betts, the former UK and European Union lead climate negotiator, said the test for Mr Biden is whether he can lead the G7 in a successful print campaign.

China, he said, “cares what developing countries think”.

Lisa Friedman contributed the reporting.

Categories
Politics

Biden Administration Strikes to Unkink Provide Chain Bottlenecks

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Tuesday planned to issue a swath of actions and recommendations meant to address supply chain disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic and decrease reliance on other countries for crucial goods by increasing domestic production capacity.

In a call on Monday evening detailing the plan to reporters, White House officials said the administration had created a task force that would “tackle near-term bottlenecks” in construction, transportation, semiconductor production and agriculture.

The officials also outlined steps that had been taken to address an executive order from President Biden that required a review of critical supply chains in four product areas where the United States relies on imports: semiconductors, high-capacity batteries, pharmaceuticals and their active ingredients, and critical minerals and strategic materials, like rare earths.

“This is about making sure the United States can meet every challenge we face in the new era,” Mr. Biden said in February, when he signed the order.

The review has been governmentwide, the officials said: Cabinet members were ordered to provide reports to the White House within 100 days. The move was intended to address concerns about supply chain resiliency and long-term competition with China.

The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, will use $60 million from the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill to develop technologies to increase domestic production of active ingredients in key pharmaceuticals. The Interior Department will work to identify sites where critical minerals could be produced in the United States. And several agencies will work on creating supply chains for new technologies that will reduce reliance on imports of key materials.

The Biden administration also signaled that it was prepared to use trade policy to bolster domestic supplies of key minerals and components. As part of that effort, the Office of the United States Trade Representative said it would establish a so-called strike force that could propose actions against overseas companies deemed to be engaged in unfair trade practices.

The Commerce Department will evaluate whether to investigate the global trade of neodymium magnets under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The Trump administration wielded that law to impose tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, after concluding that domestic production of those materials was essential for national security.

As part of his plans to address climate change, Mr. Biden wants Americans to drive millions of new electric vehicles and get more of their energy from renewable sources like wind and solar power. But experts have long pointed out that the shift to cleaner energy will require vast supplies of critical minerals, many of which are currently produced and processed overseas.

Most of the world’s lithium, a key ingredient in the batteries that power electric vehicles, is mined in Australia, China, Chile and Argentina. China dominates global production of rare earth minerals such as neodymium, used to make magnets in wind turbines. It has also largely cornered the market in lithium-ion batteries, accounting for 77 percent of the world’s capacity for producing battery cells and 80 percent of its raw-material refining, according to BloombergNEF, an energy research group.

The United States lags far behind other countries in manufacturing many clean energy technologies, leaving it heavily reliant on imports.

The Biden administration has vowed to bring back more of that manufacturing and mining, but progress has been slow. In the United States, companies are racing to unlock lithium supplies in states like Nevada and North Dakota, though those efforts face opposition because of their environmental effects. The country also has only one mine that produces rare earth minerals, in Mountain Pass, Calif.

As part of its announcement on Tuesday, the Biden administration said it would work to identify new domestic sites where such critical minerals could be mined with environmental safeguards, asking Congress to increase funding for a mapping program at the U.S. Geological Survey.

The Energy Department announced that it would offer loans for companies that could sustainably refine, process and recycle rare earths and other materials used in electric vehicles. The agency on Tuesday will also release a plan to develop a domestic supply chain for lithium-ion batteries.

The Energy Department has $17.7 billion in authority to issue loans under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, which Congress created in 2007 and used in 2010 to support the electric-vehicle manufacturer Tesla in its early days. In its announcement, the agency said it would seek to offer loans to manufacturers of advanced battery technology that established factories in the United States. It also announced a new policy in which future funding of new clean-energy technologies would require recipients to “substantially manufacture those products in the United States.”

Semiconductors — a key component in cars and electronic devices — were also another key research area for officials, though they did not describe immediate plans to increase production. A global semiconductor shortage has forced several American auto plants to close or scale back production and sent the administration scrambling to appeal to allies like Taiwan for emergency supplies. Instead, the 100-day review report said Congress should support a $50 billion investment in domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research.

The findings are partly a push for the president’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, which could fund some of the research and job training to bring American workers up to speed on producing advanced technologies like semiconductors.

The effort comes as the Senate is poised to pass a huge industrial policy bill to counter China’s rising influence, a rare bipartisan development as lawmakers suddenly embrace an enormous investment in semiconductor manufacturing, artificial intelligence research, robotics, quantum computing and a range of other technologies.

Categories
Politics

Biden prohibits U.S. funding in 59 Chinese language firms

United States President Joe Biden speaks during a commemoration ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre at the Greenwood Cultural Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on June 1, 2021.

Almond Ngan | AFP | Getty Images

President Joe Biden on Thursday expanded restrictions on American investments in certain Chinese companies with alleged links to the country’s military and surveillance efforts, adding more companies to a growing blacklist.

In an executive order, Biden banned US investors for fear of ties to the Chinese government’s geopolitical ambitions, thereby continuing some parts of former President Donald Trump’s tough stance in talks with Beijing.

“This EO enables the United States to specifically and enrichingly prohibit US investments in Chinese companies that undermine the security or democratic values ​​of the United States and our allies,” a White House press release said.

The move will prevent US dollars from supporting the “Chinese defense sector” while expanding the US government’s ability to counter the threat posed by Chinese surveillance technology firms that – both inside and outside of China – monitor religious or ethnic minorities contribute to or otherwise facilitate repression and serious human rights violations, “added the government.

The 59 excluded companies include Aero Engine Corp. of China, Aerosun Corp., Fujian Torch Electron Technology and Huawei Technologies.

The bans go into effect on August 2 at 00:01 a.m. ET.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

The move is one of the strongest yet against its leading U.S. rival, and yet another sign that the Biden administration could adopt or advance many of the Trump administration’s tactics to stay competitive with China.

Biden and his economic advisors also need to decide what to do with a range of tariffs and whether to increase sanctions against Chinese officials involved in the mass incarceration of mainly Muslim ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region.

A representative from the Chinese State Department challenged the move by the Biden administration, telling press officials that the Trump administration’s original order was carried out “in complete disregard for the facts.”

“The US should respect the rule of law and the market, correct its mistakes and stop actions that undermine the global financial market order and the legitimate rights and interests of investors,” said spokesman Wang Wenbin to reporters in Beijing.

The previous order of the Trump administration created a list of 48 companies.