Connect with us

News

Xi’s visit stress-tests Macron’s plans for a sovereign Europe

Published

on

Xi’s visit stress-tests Macron’s plans for a sovereign Europe

This article is an on-site version of our Trade Secrets newsletter. Premium subscribers can sign up here to get the newsletter delivered every Monday. Standard subscribers can upgrade to Premium here, or explore all FT newsletters

Welcome to Trade Secrets. Last week Olaf Scholz was in Beijing; this week Xi Jinping is in the EU, stress-testing EU unity and particularly the Franco-German relationship. Today I’ll make a couple of observations on that score and then Thursday’s Trade Secrets column will look in detail at Brussels’ apparent new get-tough regime towards Chinese companies in Europe. The rest of today’s newsletter is an author Q&A on the new book by former Australian trade negotiator and Trade Secrets favourite Dmitry Grozoubinski, a rare exception to the rule that nothing interesting on trade ever comes out of Geneva. Charted Waters is on China’s currency.

Get in touch. Email me at alan.beattie@ft.com

Xi loves EU, yeah, yeah, yeah?

The dynamics around Xi Jinping’s visit to the EU aren’t exactly difficult to make out. It’s clear from Olaf Scholz’s muted rhetoric during his trip to China last month that Germany’s dependence on the Chinese market still restrains Berlin from regarding China as a full-on economic competitor, let alone a strategic rival.

Emmanuel Macron, whom Xi met yesterday, gives off a more combative air, and is trying to stop China from driving a wedge between France and Germany. The French president’s recent speech at the Sorbonne (here in translation) set out a strategy aiming to operationalise “strategic autonomy”, a concept the EU invented in 2020 and has been trying to define ever since, with much more interventionist trade and industrial policy to create European industries and actively to manage supply chains.

Advertisement

But though Macron’s vision sounds cohesive, it will struggle not just with Germany’s continued reliance on the Chinese market but a lack of trust elsewhere in the EU. For one, Macron has a history of lurching back and forth on China. It’s not just his notorious comments on Taiwan after his trip to China last year but also a sudden last-minute switch to support the doomed Comprehensive Agreement on Investment deal with Beijing in 2020, reportedly because some trade and investment goodies were dangled in front of France to get it to shift.

The immediate deliverable of yesterday’s Macron-Xi meeting was for China to hold off on retaliatory tariffs on cognac, another France-specific concession. (Meanwhile, Scholz’s trip to Beijing apparently won him some favours on German exports of beef, pork and apples: the Chinese approach to buying off trading partners’ discontent really isn’t subtle.)

This feeds the old suspicion, fair or not, that France’s EU-wide solutions reflect its own interests. It’s less a strategic vision of the EU car industry that caused France privately to push for the investigation into subsidies for electric vehicle imports than French carmakers suffering more than their German counterparts from Chinese competition.

One of France’s previous attempts to create a pan-EU industrial policy through a sovereignty fund essentially fizzled out, again partly because of a belief elsewhere in the EU that here was Paris wanting to bail out French companies again. Macron has identified pressing issues with an overarching analysis and proposed some solutions. But France unfortunately isn’t the best country to be pushing them, at least unless Macron can convince Scholz to embrace his vision as well.

Lying trade lies and the lying pols who tell them

Dmitry Grozoubinski’s “Why Politicians Lie About Trade” comes out in May. If you want a two-word review, it’s great. It describes official myths and distortions, from overselling trade deals to claiming distance no longer matters in trade to saying corporations control the world by infiltrating the WTO. To give you a flavour of the tone, corporate lobbyists’ occasional visits to a WTO meeting have “the bemused and mildly horrified ‘what’s all this then?’ air of an English constable arriving on the scene of an out of control food fight at the local clown college”.

Advertisement

AB You want the book to be “accessible hard work worth doing”. (Obviously a cynical play for the mass market.) Who most needs to know this stuff? Politicians themselves, journalists, businesses, voters?

DG My publisher’s preferred answer would be “every man, woman and child on planet Earth”, but that’s probably a touch ambitious. I wrote this book for people who have policy issues they care about, whether it’s climate change, job creation, national security or anything else. Trade and the decisions governments make about it impact all of these.

AB Brexit and Trump’s trade wars might be expensive ways to learn about trade, but have they oddly led to more appreciation of the issues?

DG Absolutely. One of the reasons trade has historically been so easy to lie about is how separated causes and effects are. You sign a free trade agreement today and 10 years from now you can look back and (if you squint) make some guesses about what it actually did.

Brexit and Trump’s trade wars, because they were about unpicking the existing order and potentially doing so very abruptly, forced all sorts of people to take these issues a lot more seriously and start asking far harder questions about what’s under the hood. There’s nothing like staring down the barrel of mile-long queues at the border and empty supermarket shelves to make everyone, from voters all the way up to prime ministers, ask a few follow-up questions.

Advertisement

AB You had a very interesting observation about economists being brought in only at the end of trade talks to make up some figures to justify the deal.

DG What I was trying to illustrate as gently as I could is that trade negotiations and trade policy are first and foremost about politics and power. In a fight between a policy the economic modelling says will have greater long-term GDP benefits, and a policy the political affairs folk say has the strong backing of a large and vocal interest group, my money is on the latter. Polish farmers aren’t being coddled on Ukrainian grain imports because some wonky IMF econometric analysis said so.

AB I remember talking to Doug Irwin once who said that Nafta boosters said it would create half a million jobs and Nafta bashers said it would destroy half a million jobs. In fact jobs-wise it was probably a wash. How much is overstatement on both sides a problem?

DG Overstatement is the greatest problem humanity has ever faced, or ever will. More seriously, yes I think it’s a problem that especially before the text is public, both supporters and detractors of a trade agreement can say literally anything about its impacts in an ultimately unfalsifiable way. A trade agreement could do just about anything. 

More practically though, I think the challenge is that we focus on tools like trade agreements when we should be having a discussion about the problems we’re trying to solve. A trade agreement isn’t a goal in and of itself, any more than “surgery” is an objective.

Advertisement

AB I literally can’t think of a question to ask you about the WTO. Is that OK?

DG Probably not a great sign for the organisation, but absolutely fine by me!

AB If you had to advise governments to make a positive but honest case for more trade that they’re currently not making, what would you say?

DG I would say that tariffs are taxes on your own citizens for being insufficiently patriotic in their purchasing choices, and that feels like there should be a high bar to clear before we reach for them as a policy tool.

I would say that climate change requires us to pool the ingenuity, creativity and productivity of the entire world and we can’t afford to caveat our climate ambitions on all solar panels and electric vehicles being made exclusively in our swing electoral districts.

Advertisement

And I would say that people are smarter than the current level of discourse and can be trusted to understand trade-offs if they’re clearly and honestly explained.

Charted waters

China doesn’t want a sharp destabilising devaluation of the renminbi, as George Magnus argues here, even if in theory it would help its renewed export drive. But downward pressure on the currency from falling interest rates and capital outflows suggests that at some point it might not have much choice.

Trade links

The OECD, WTO and IMF are all predicting a sharp rebound in global goods trade this year driven by strong US economic growth and falling inflation.

My FT colleagues consider the controversial plans among some of the rich democracies to seize Russia’s frozen assets.

A report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank looks at new tools the US can use to combat Chinese coercion.

Advertisement

The Economist examines how China and the US are trying to recruit countries as allies in their tussle with each other.

The EU agriculture commissioner has asked China not to target agriculture in trade disputes, one of the more quixotic requests to come out of Brussels in recent years and one that essentially confirms where Europe’s economic weak spot is.


Trade Secrets is edited by Jonathan Moules


Recommended newsletters for you

Britain after Brexit — Keep up to date with the latest developments as the UK economy adjusts to life outside the EU. Sign up here

Free Lunch — Your guide to the global economic policy debate. Sign up here

Advertisement

News

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Published

on

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Havana declares two days of mourning for the Cubans killed in US operation to abduct Nicolas Maduro.

Cuba has announced the death of 32 ⁠of its ​citizens during the United States military operation to abduct and detain Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Caracas.

Havana said on Sunday that there would be two days of mourning on ‌January 5 and ‌6 in ⁠honour of those killed and that ‌funeral arrangements would be announced.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The state-run Prensa Latina agency said the Cuban “fighters” were killed while “carrying out missions” on behalf of the country’s military, at the request of the Venezuelan government.

The agency said the slain Cubans “fell in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of the bombing of the facilities” after offering “fierce resistance”.

Advertisement

Cuba is a close ally of Venezuela’s government, and has sent military and police forces to assist in operations in the Latin American country for years.

Maduro and his wife have been flown to New York following the US operation to face prosecution on drug-related charges. The 63-year-old Venezuelan leader is due to appear in court on Monday.

He has previously denied criminal involvement.

Images of Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed by US forces have stunned Venezuelans.

Venezuelan Minister of Defence General Vladimir Padrino said on state television that the US attack killed soldiers, civilians and a “large part” of Maduro’s security detail “in cold blood”.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s armed forces have been activated to guarantee sovereignty, he said.

‘A lot of Cubans’ killed

US President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday, said that “there was a lot of death on the other side” during the raids.

He said that “a lot of Cubans” were killed and that there was “no death on our side”.

Trump went on to threaten Colombian President Gustavo Petro, saying that a US military operation in the country sounded “good” to him.

But he suggested that a US military intervention in Cuba is unlikely, because the island appears to be ready to fall on its own.

Advertisement

“Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know how they, if they can, hold that, but Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil,” Trump said.

“They’re not getting any of it. Cuba literally is ready to fall. And you have a lot of great Cuban Americans that are going to be very happy about this.”

The US attack on Venezuela marked the most controversial intervention in Latin America since the invasion of Panama 37 years ago.

The Trump administration has described Maduro’s abduction as a law-enforcement mission to force him to face US criminal charges filed in 2020, including “narco-terrorism” conspiracy.

But Trump also said that US oil companies needed “total access” to the country’s vast reserves and suggested that an influx of Venezuelan immigrants to the US also factored into the decision to abduct Maduro.

Advertisement

While many Western nations oppose Maduro, there were many calls for the US to respect international law, and questions arose over the legality of abducting a foreign head of state.

Left-leaning regional leaders, including those of Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, have largely denounced Maduro’s removal, while countries with right-wing governments, from Argentina to Ecuador, have largely welcomed it.

The United Nations Security Council plans to meet on Monday to discuss the attack. Russia and China, both major backers of Venezuela, have criticised the US.

Beijing on Sunday insisted that the safety of Maduro and his wife be a priority, and called on the US to “stop toppling the government of Venezuela”, calling the attack a “clear violation of international law“.

Moscow also said it was “extremely concerned” about the abduction of Maduro and his wife, and condemned what it called an “act of armed aggression” against Venezuela by the US.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Published

on

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Protesters rally outside the White House Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Washington, after the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a military operation.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

President Trump’s move to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has drawn praise inside the United States, especially from Republican leaders. But the invasion also faces significant skepticism, questions about legality, and full-throated opposition from some elected officials across the political spectrum.

Here’s a survey.

Some Republicans condemn, or question, Trump’s invasion

While most conservative lawmakers voiced support for Trump’s action, a small group of Republican House members and GOP Senators described the move as unlawful or misguided.

Advertisement

“If the President believes military action against Venezuela is needed, he should make the case and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, speaking on the House floor. “Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq or Syria?”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posting on social media, voiced skepticism that the true goal of Trump’s invasion was to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. She also described the military action as a violation of conservative “America First” principles.

“Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,” Greene posted on X. “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General, generally praised the military operation, but he also said the precedent of U.S. military intervention could embolden more aggressive action by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia.

Advertisement

“Freedom and rule of law were defended last night,” Bacon said on X, referring to the invasion of Venezuela, “but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”

At least three Republican Senators also voiced concern or skepticism about the invasion and its legal justification, while also celebrating the fall of Maduro.

“In this case, a leader who monopolized central power is removed in an action that monopolizes central power,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on the platform X. “Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorization for a reason—to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defense.”

GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both of Alaska, said Maduro’s ouster would make the United States and the world safer, but suggested the operation could turn into a quagmire for U.S. troops.

“Late last year, I voted to proceed to debate on two resolutions that would have terminated the escalation of U.S. military operations against Venezuela absent explicit authorization from Congress,” Murkowski wrote on the platform X. She added that she expects further briefings from Trump officials on the “legal basis for these operations.”

Advertisement

“The lessons learned from what took place after the United States deposed another Latin American indicted drug lord—Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989—could prove useful, as could the painful and difficult lessons learned after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Sullivan wrote on X.

Most Democrats condemn the invasion

Most Democratic lawmakers and elected officials also described Maduro as a dictator, but they generally condemned Trump’s action. At a press conference Saturday, New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani told reporters he phoned Trump and voiced opposition to the invasion.

“I called the President and spoke with him directly to register my opposition to this act and to make clear that it was an opposition based on being opposed to a pursuit of regime change, to the violation of federal and international law,” Mamdani said.

Democratic minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York accused Trump of acting in bad faith and violating the U.S. Constitution. “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said in a post on X. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

According to Schumer, the Trump administration assured him “three separate times that it was not pursuing regime change or or military action without congressional authorization.”

Advertisement

California’s Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, a frequent Trump critic, posted a series of comments on X describing Saturday’s military action and Trump’s proposed U.S. occupation of Venezuela as potentially disastrous.

“Acting without Congressional approval or the buy-in of the public, Trump risks plunging a hemisphere into chaos and has broken his promise to end wars instead of starting them,” Schiff wrote.

“Donald Trump has once again shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a video posted on social media, where he described the U.S. invasion as “imperialism.”

“This is the horrific logic of force that Putin used to justify his brutal attack on Ukraine,” Sanders said.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, also spoke harshly of the military strike, describing it as an effort by Trump to distract attention from domestic troubles in the United States.

“It’s not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn’t have pardoned one of the largest narco traffickers in the world last month,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to Trump’s decision to free former Honduran President Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted in the U.S. of helping smuggle more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.

Advertisement

“It’s about oil and regime change. And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn’t. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs,” Ocasio-Cortez added on X.

Continue Reading

News

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Published

on

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro during a US military operation in Venezuela, the command of the South American country has fallen into the hands of Executive Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.

That is what Venezuela’s constitution outlines in its different scenarios anticipating a president’s absence. Under Articles 233 and 234, whether the absence is temporary or absolute, the vice president takes over the presidential duties.

Rodríguez – also minister for both finance and oil – stepped into the role on Saturday afternoon. Hours after the capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, she chaired a National Defense Council session, surrounded by other ministers and senior officials, and demanded the couple’s “immediate release” while condemning the US military operation.

Standing before the Venezuelan flag, Rodríguez said the early-morning operation represents a blatant violation of international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. She added that the action must be rejected by Venezuelans and condemned by governments across Latin America.

“We call on the peoples of the great homeland to remain united, because what was done to Venezuela can be done to anyone. That brutal use of force to bend the will of the people can be carried out against any country,” she told the council in an address broadcast by state television channel VTV.

Advertisement

Rodríguez, 56, is from Caracas and studied law at the Central University of Venezuela.

She has spent more than two decades as one of the leading figures of chavismo, the political movement founded by President Hugo Chávez and led by Maduro since Chávez’s death in 2013.

Alongside her brother Jorge Rodríguez, the current president of the National Assembly, she has held various positions of power since the Chávez era. She served as minister of communication and information from 2013 to 2014 and later became foreign minister from 2014 to 2017. In that role, she defended Maduro’s government against international criticism, including allegations of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses in the country.

As foreign minister, Rodríguez represented Venezuela at forums such as the United Nations, where she accused other governments of seeking to undermine her country.

In 2017, Rodríguez became president of the Constituent National Assembly that expanded the government’s powers after the opposition won the 2015 legislative elections. In 2018, Maduro appointed her vice president for his second term. She retained the post during his third presidential term, which began on January 10, 2025, following the controversial July 28, 2024, elections. Until the president’s capture, she served as Venezuela’s chief economic authority and minister of petroleum.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s opposition maintains that the 2024 elections were fraudulent and that Maduro is not a legitimately elected president. They insist that the true winner was former ambassador Edmundo González Urrutia, a position supported by some governments in the region.

José Manuel Romano, a constitutional lawyer and political analyst, told CNN that the positions Rodríguez has held show she is a “very prominent” figure within the Venezuelan government and someone who enjoys the president’s “full trust.”

“The executive vice president of the republic is a highly effective operator, a woman with strong leadership skills for managing teams,” Romano said.

“She is very results-oriented and has significant influence over the entire government apparatus, including the Ministry of Defense. That is very important to note in the current circumstances,” he added.

On the path to an understanding with the US?

Hours after Maduro’s capture, and before Rodríguez addressed the National Defense Council, US President Donald Trump said at a press conference that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with the vice president. According to Trump, she appeared willing to work with Washington on a new phase for Venezuela.

Advertisement

“She had a conversation with Marco. She said, ‘We’re going to do whatever you need.’ I think she was quite courteous. We’re going to do this right,” Trump said.

Trump’s remarks, however, surprised some analysts, who believe Rodríguez is unlikely to make concessions to the United States.

“She is not a moderate alternative to Maduro. She has been one of the most powerful and hard-line figures in the entire system,” Imdat Oner, a policy analyst at the Jack D. Gordon Institute and a former Turkish diplomat based in Venezuela, told CNN.

“Her rise to power appears to be the result of some kind of understanding between the United States and key actors preparing for a post-Maduro scenario. In that context, she would essentially serve as a caretaker until a democratically elected leader takes office,” the analyst added.

In her first messages following Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez showed no signs of backing down and, without referencing Trump’s statements, closed the door to any potential cooperation with the United States.

Advertisement

Earlier in the morning, during a phone interview with VTV, Rodríguez said the whereabouts of Maduro and Flores were unknown and demanded proof that they were alive. Later in the afternoon, during the National Defense Council session, she escalated her rhetoric, condemned the US operation and, despite the circumstances, insisted that Maduro remains in charge of Venezuela.

“There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros,” said Rodríguez — now, by force of events, the most visible face of the government.

Reuters news agency contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending