The Washington Post - 30.08.2019

FRIDAY, AUGUST 30 , 2019. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE K A21

FRIDAY Opinion

W

hat really happened in Biar-
ritz last weekend with the
mysterious visit of Iranian
Foreign Minister Moham-
mad Javad Zarif? U.S. officials saw it as
a bit of diplomatic freelancing by
French President Emmanuel Macron,
which sought to foster negotiations but
highlighted the obstacles that are in the
way.
The intrigue surrounding the summit
was described by knowledgeable
sources who requested anonymity to
describe the sensitive diplomacy. “It felt
like a gamble,” said one source, a bet by
Macron that he could engage President
Trump’s f lair for the dramatic by provid-
ing a venue for a face-to-face meeting. A
French Embassy spokesperson in Wash-
ington declined to comment.
Macron has been trying to coax Iran
and the United States toward talks that
would produce a new, broader nuclear
agreement since April 2018, when he
proposed during a visit to the White
House “four pillars” of such a revised
agreement. Macron wants to add curbs
on Iranian ballistic missiles and region-
al interference to an extended version of
the 2015 nuclear pact.
Macron, understanding Trump’s pen-
chant for disruptive diplomacy, appar-
ently thought that if he brought Zarif to
the Group of Seven summit meeting on
the French coast, it might prompt a
U.S.-Iran meeting t hat would jump-start
talks. Macron may have been modeling
his effort on South Korean President
Moon Jae-in’s success in leveraging the
2018 PyeongChang Olympics to encour-
age rapprochement with North Korea
and Trump’s subsequent meetings with
Kim Jong Un.
Macron’s bet didn’t pay off, and there
are some obvious explanations why:
Zarif wasn’t senior enough, he’s person-
ally disliked by the Trump team as the
favorite interlocutor of the Obama ad-
ministration, and he didn’t bring any
concessions from Te hran. Perhaps if
President Hassan Rouhani had arrived
in Biarritz, carrying a meaningful mes-
sage, then Trump would have found a
dramatic meeting irresistible.
Trump’s approach to such freelance
diplomacy has been coy. He encourages
the flirtations with Iran but doesn’t e ase
off on U.S. sanctions. That was the case
with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe, who wanted to play peacemaker
when he traveled to Te hran in June.
Abe’s good relations with Trump made
him a credible messenger, and Trump
assented.
But the Abe initiative proved a bust.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rebuffed the
channel, saying: “I do not see Trump as
worthy of any message exchange, and I
do not have any reply for him, now or in
future.” After thanking Abe for his
effort, a miffed Trump tweeted: “I
personally feel that it is too soon to even
think about making a deal. They are not
ready, and neither are we!”
Enter Macron. Despite Abe’s failure,
the French president thought he might
be able to save the 2015 nuclear deal by
repackaging it through a new negotia-
tion. Macron sent his top diplomatic
adviser to Te hran in both June and July
to chum the water.
“Hey, give me a shot,” was Macron’s
message to Trump, a source said. Trump
again assented. But he underlined in an
Aug. 8 tweet: “I know Emmanuel means
well, as do all others, but nobody speaks
for the United States but the United
States itself.”
After the Biarritz gambit, Trump
himself seemed to be inviting a meeting
with Rouhani. “I have a good feeling. I
think [Rouhani] is going to want to
meet and get their situation straight-
ened out. They are hurting badly,” he
said Monday as the G-7 ended. But the
next day, it was Rouhani’s turn to
express disdain, saying, “We will not
witness any positive development un-
less the United States abandons its
sanctions.”
There’s an element of cognitive disso-
nance here. The United States is waging
what amounts to economic war, but it
keeps insisting it wants to negotiate.
The Pentagon seems pleased that the
low-key U.S. military response to Irani-
an provocation t his summer has averted
escalation. “We want to talk with Iran
and talk about a diplomatic path for-
ward,” Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper
said Wednesday. The State Department
worries, meanwhile, that the United
States may be sending Te hran a message
of weakness.
Trump clearly doesn’t want war with
Iran, and neither do key U.S. allies. The
United Arab Emirates recently floated
the idea of a “Helsinki process,” under
United Nations sponsorship, that would
allow discussions among nations of the
Persian Gulf region, perhaps focused on
maritime security. And the United
States confirmed this week that it is
conducting secret talks with the Iran-
backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Ye t the war drums still beat. Israel
last weekend attacked Iran-backed reb-
els in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, in what
seemed a significant escalation. Con-
fused about where the Iran confronta-
tion is heading? Welcome to the club.
Twitter: @IgnatiusPost

DAVID IGNATIUS

Why Macron’s

Iran gamble

didn’t pay off biarritz, france

W

atching the Group of Seven

summit unfold live drives home

the massive amount of time,

effort and expense required to

pull off such a complex event. Just think of

the security arrangements, travel logistics,

advance preparation and untold millions of

dollars required to bring all those world

leaders together for dozens of meetings and

photo opportunities. The supposed justifi-

cation is that the G-7 summit represents a

unique opportunity for powerful countries

to converge to solve big, shared problems.

But when you look at the 264-word joint

statement, listen to the news conferences

and observe the leaders up close, you can’t

escape the conclusion that this G-7 summit

was a boondoggle of immense proportions

and a failure even when judged by its own

meager criteria. That w ould be bad enough.

What’s worse is that the summit’s failure

shows that the G-7 is failing more broadly.

“The French President wanted the

G7 Summit to be useful — it was,” s tates the

website of the Elysee Palace, pointing to the

statement’s boilerplate lines on trade, Iran,

Ukraine, Libya and Hong Kong. It was all

kept so vague that the heads of the seven

governments could easily agree.

French President Emmanuel Macron did

try to make something real happen in

Biarritz. But his various gambits all

flopped, and the only thing he succeeded in

doing was lowering the bar for success so

much that the G-7 leaders could all drag

their feet and still clear it.

The U.S.-Europe dispute over President

Trump’s trade war with China was not

bridged even a bit. Trump’s statements on

China ranged from confusing to wrong, as

he veered from harsh denunciations to

effusive praise of Xi Jinping to claims of

progress disputed by the other side. British

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s self-

described “faint, sheep-like” objection to

Trump’s approach was as close as the

leaders got to a public discussion, much

less resolution of their disagreement.

Macron’s attempt to push Trump and

Iran together by bringing Iranian Foreign

Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Biar-

ritz was a lemon. U.S. officials told me they

saw Macron’s Iran gambit as an ambush,

even though Trump said he “approved” i t in

advance. Regardless, Macron’s p roposal for

a follow-on meeting between Trump and

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was

quashed within a day.

U.S. officials also told me Macron was

playing a double game on the issue of

readmitting Russia to the G-7. Trump said

multiple people at the summit supported

his call for Vladimir Putin to attend next

year, when Trump will host. Trump was

referring to Macron, who has privately told

Trump he supports the idea, officials said.

In a private dinner at the summit, the

leaders of Britain, Germany and Canada

objected to readmitting Russia, because

Putin has not honored his promises regard-

ing Ukraine, officials told me. Publicly,

Macron still espouses that position. It’s

unclear why he is telling Trump something

different one on one. Regardless, any claim

of G-7 unity on Russia or Ukraine is not

believeable.

Macron’s s ide projects at t he G-7 summit

were also failures. Trump didn’t even show

up to the climate session. Seven of the most

powerful industrialized economies in the

world could muster only $20 million to

help save the Amazon rainforest, and even

that was rejected by Brazil’s president.

To be sure, some blame for the summit’s

failure lies with Trump. His press availabili-

ties were downright cringe-worthy, filled

with falsehoods, attacks on former presi-

dent Barack Obama, kind words about

dictators and generally poor command of

several foreign policy issues. Washingto-

nians have become used to these perform-

ances, unfortunately.

Now the rest of the West i s normalized to

the dysfunction and chaos of the Trump

era, as well. Macron didn’t even attempt to

forge a substantive joint statement, calling

it “pointless.” That’s understandable after

Trump un-signed last year’s G-7 statement

in Canada. But if the G-7 can’t produce a

statement about what it stands for, the

truth is it doesn’t stand for much.

“I applaud Macron for containing Trump

— but do we really want this to become the

new standard by which to measure the

success of a G-7 summit?” said Alice

Stollmeyer, executive director of Defending

Democracy.

The broader question is, do we really

want this to become the new standard for

the G-7 countries? They are, after all, the

only group of nations with the capability

and desire to tackle the generational chal-

lenges facing the world today, chiefly cli-

mate change and the rise of an economi-

cally aggressive and increasingly authori-

tarian China.

Can the fact that these seven countries

still share a common interest in preserving

and promoting (relatively) free and open

economies, international rule of law, hu-

man rights, democracy and liberalism be

enough to overcome their differences and

the oddities of their current leaders?

Macron’s slogan for this G-7 summit was

“It’s time to take action.” The needed action

is to reform and reinvigorate the institu-

tions that have underpinned global stabili-

ty and prosperity for the past 75 years,

which are now dysfunctional and out of

touch. The G-7 must be more than a self-

licking ice cream cone, a mechanism whose

primary purpose is to perpetuate its own

existence.

[email protected]

JOSH ROGIN

The G-7

boondoggle

BY ANNA GOSHUA

I

n the aftermath of mass s hootings

in Ohio and Te xas, President

Trump blamed violence in video

games f or the “glorification of v io-

lence i n our s ociety.” I t’s an old r efrain,

and gamers and their allies typically

respond by pointing to the facts. We

lack evidence that supports a causal

relationship between video games and

violence, and though some studies

have found links between violent vid-

eo games and aggression, which is

distinct from criminal violence, the

effect i s small.

But w hile r esearch matters, this line

of argument misses an important

point. Though some video games are

casually, thoughtlessly violent, many

others explore violence with nuance,

placing it in social context and giving

players a hands-on opportunity to ex-

plore moral conundrums they would

never face in real life.

Similar to many other forms of art,

gaming is a storytelling medium that

reflects upon and critiques the society

in which we live. Its unique strength

lies in the deeply immersive experience

that it offers relative to other media by

giving players the ability to impact the

world around them directly.

Sometimes that means exploring

the various settings, characters and

reasoning that give rise to violence

with deliberation and nuance — a

standard that our national dialogue

has yet to reach. In the wildly popular

“Grand Theft Auto IV,” recent immi-

grant Niko Bellic is gradually roped

into working as a hired gun despite

having escaped a similar life in Eu-

rope. If that wasn’t powerful social

commentary in and of itself, the trag-

edy of his criminal involvement even-

tually culminates i n the d eath of e ither

his cousin or his romantic interest,

depending on a choice made by the

player.

The “Uncharted” series critiques

treasure hunter Nathan Drake’s in-

creasingly destructive obsession with

his legacy and inability to extricate

himself from a profession that endan-

gers him and his loved ones. In “Un-

charted 4: A Thief’s End,” players are

placed squarely i n the midst of Drake’s

internal conflict, torn between the

thrill of his latest escapade and the

guilt of lying directly to his wife. The

interactivity of the game encourages

players to experience what Drake is

feeling and gain a better understand-

ing of the obsession that has previous-

ly caused him to become estranged

from his wife and led to the kidnap-

ping of h is mentor and father f igure.

While some games use these moral

dilemmas mostly to frame their plots,

others are rooted in sophisticated sys-

tems of morality that guide their

gameplay. These games put players

through a series of difficult decisions

and demand that they interrogate the

circumstances and justifications that

frame the v iolence they choose t o com-

mit. The most interesting morality sys-

tems steer away from the simplistic

dichotomy of good a nd evil and e nsure

that players feel the consequences of

their choices.

In the psychological thriller “Heavy

Rain,” players are tasked with hunting

down a serial killer who abducts and

drowns young boys. One of the four

playable characters is the father of an

abducted child, who must undergo

trials assigned by the killer to rescue

his son, including a demand that the

player kill an unsuspecting man. The

game has 17 different endings, from

the c apture of the k iller and survival of

the protagonist’s son to abject failure

on all ends.

While “Heavy Rain” allows viewers

to make choices in accordance with

their values without nudging them i n

any particular d irection, other games

have ethical frameworks of their own

and try to encourage players to adopt

them. The player character in “Un-

dertale” i s a child who has fallen into

the Underground, an isolated world

populated with monsters who were

banished from E arth in the aftermath

of a war with humans. Encounters

with the monsters can be resolved by

fighting or extending mercy, and the

game design encourages players to

opt for peaceful mediation. This can

be an especially challenging choice

when the player faces off with an

opponent such as Undyne, a guard

who tries to provoke the player into

physical confrontation. But the game

urges us to interrogate how we

respond to conflict, especially in the

context of our t reatment of marginal-

ized c ommunities.

A nd “Fallout: New Vegas” places an

interesting spin on morality systems

by using metrics that measure both a

player’s reputation and karma, and

putting them in tension. Predomi-

nantly set in post-apocalyptic Nevada,

the game features warring factions.

Killing members of an opposing fac-

tion might decrease your k arma. How-

ever, in a grimly accurate reflection of

our society, it will certainly improve

your reputation with your allies be-

cause you are using violence in ways

that suit t heir i nterests.

No other medium offers its audi-

ence the same opportunity to directly

wrestle with how we justify v iolence. If

we want to get Americans to think

seriously about the subject, we might

be better if more of us played video

games.

Th e writer is a medical student at Stanford

University.

How violent video games

can be good for you

MARK ALLEN MILLER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST

BY THOMAS J. DONOHUE

A

mid all the talk of a possible

recession, it’s important for

everyone to remember this: Eco-

nomic expansions do not die of

natural causes. They often die because of

missteps and policy mistakes. And the

biggest mistake our leaders could make

right now — putting our economy at

greater risk of a downturn — is to stoke

further uncertainty.

That’s why President Trump — and

Chinese President Xi Jinping — should

withdraw the additional tariffs sched-

uled to go into effect Sept. 1 and Dec. 15

and return to the negotiating table in

good faith.

When leaders make choices that foster

certainty, b usinesses have t he confidence

to invest, hire, grow and, i n turn, drive the

economy. Case in point: The one-two

punch o f tax reform a nd regulatory relief

early in the Trump administration sent

our e conomy s oaring, closing in o n 3 per-

cent growth and pushing the unemploy-

ment rate to a generational l ow.

We’re in the third straight year of

salary and wage growth, and employee

compensation rose 3 .4 p ercent i n the f irst

half of 2019. Inflation remains near rec-

ord lows. Consumer spending is strong,

with retail sales beating expectations in

June.

But with an escalating trade war and

signs o f a softening global e conomy beset

by numerous challenges from Iran to

Hong Kong to Brexit, business confi-

dence is faltering.

Companies are taking stock of the

uncertainty at home and abroad and

sitting on their cash. The result i s the first

decline in business investment in three

years. The manufacturing sector has

been in a downturn since December, and

farm incomes have plummeted. This

month, we all saw investors panic over

“inverted yield curves” in the bond mar-

ket, historically a harbinger of recession.

Wild swings in the stock market are

amplifying c oncerns.

At this moment of uncertainty, it is

critical that our leaders take decisive

steps to bolster the economy and avoid

actions that could turn talk of recession

into reality.

For the Trump administration’s part,

the e scalation of trade tensions with Chi-

na must come to an end. A U.S. Chamber

of Commerce survey of 138 recent earn-

ings calls of Fortune 500 companies re-

vealed that executives are overwhelm-

ingly concerned about the economic im-

pact of tariffs. Deterioration of the

U.S.-China relationship is affecting busi-

ness performance, many reported. And

that was before Trump called for

U.S. b usinesses t o halt commercial activi-

ty i n China.

The business community shares the

administration’s concern over China’s

trade and industrial practices, and the

U.S. Chamber strongly supports efforts to

secure a deal that addresses forced tech-

nology transfer, industrial s ubsidies, data

privacy and intellectual-property protec-

tion, and market access. The initial tariffs

have brought China to the negotiating

table, but the current path of constant

escalation doesn’t increase the likelihood

of a deal; it risks a recession here at h ome.

That’s why we believe Trump and Xi

should withdraw the tariffs scheduled to

take effect this weekend — and then

again in December — and instead restart

their negotiations.

Congress has an immediate opportu-

nity to boost confidence by approving

the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement

(USMCA) this fall. This hard-fought deal

will preserve and modernize our rela-

tionship with Canada and Mexico — our

largest trading partners. The chamber

has w orked closely with the White House

on this p riority, l eading the p rivate-sector

effort to advance the USMCA in

Congress.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert

E. Lighthizer, House Speaker N ancy Pelo-

si (D-Calif.) and congressional leaders

have worked on a bipartisan basis to

resolve a handful of remaining issues. On

the USMCA, we are within striking dis-

tance. With our economy on the edge,

lawmakers must finish the job without

delay and eliminate any question about

the future of our trade relationship with

our North American neighbors.

And if Congress really wants to show

that it’s committed to keeping the econo-

my o n track, it should enact a n infrastruc-

ture bill. That would boost Main Street

confidence in untold ways.

Just as growth is not guaranteed, nei-

ther is a recession. Both result from the

choices we make. We’re calling on our

leaders to eliminate the uncertainty, re-

build business confidence and keep this

economy w orking f or all Americans.

Th e writer is chief executive of the

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

It’s time to lift tariffs and talk to China

At this moment, it is

critical that our leaders

take decisive steps.