Example collocations logo

Bilateral in sentence

1533 examples of Bilateral in a sentence

Republicans have historically been more supportive of such bilateral free-trade agreements.
There is a fair chance that one or more of these bilateral accords will be approved (in part because the Obama administration seems finally to have recognized that trade can generate good jobs), but it is far less certain that the president will gain the authority needed to negotiate a new global trade deal.
Moreover, financial and human resources for military affairs are scarce and cannot be duplicated, while France and Britain want to restart the Saint-Malo process of bilateral defense efforts launched nearly ten years ago.
However, because prices of goods from these economies are higher, a shift in US imports would cut the bilateral deficit with China, but cause its deficits with these countries to rise.
Indeed, Abe’s visit to Yasukuni came only a day after he completed a long-elusive, US-backed bilateral deal to relocate America’s airbase in Okinawa to a less populous area of the island.
But America’s neutrality on sovereignty disputes threatens to undermine its bilateral security alliances (which, by preventing countries like Japan from turning toward militarism, actually serve Chinese interests).
For example, we are developing a new bilateral plan for the US-Japanese alliance’s future roles, missions, and capabilities, and reached an agreement to position an additional missile-defense radar to protect against the North Korean threat.
With India, we have developed an unprecedented bilateral initiative that will streamline our export processes and deepen our defense trade and co-production.
In Southeast Asia, we are expanding our engagement with the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), increasing bilateral engagement with traditional allies and partners like Thailand, the Philippines, and Singapore, and developing our cooperative partnerships with Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
During 2012, the US increased both the size and the number of bilateral and multilateral exercises across the Asia-Pacific region.
To be sure, not every issue in Eastern Slavonia was sorted out then or in the years since; but there is no longer a conflict, and Croatia and Serbia now enjoy constructive bilateral relations.
For one thing, a trilateral arrangement can help to defuse the tensions of bilateral relationships.
Efforts to strengthen Europe’s fiscal rules, for example, will take the form of bilateral agreements between governments, rather than changes in the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty.
As recently as June 2013, Putin and US President Barack Obama issued a statement that reaffirmed “their readiness to intensify bilateral cooperation based on the principles of mutual respect, equality, and genuine respect for each other’s interests.”
Russia’s bilateral relationship with China is no different.
These products are exported to Europe under bilateral trade agreements between the EU and Israel.
While Trump might pursue mutually beneficial bilateral agreements, one can expect that they will be subordinated to domestic priorities, especially distributional aims, and supported only insofar as they are consistent with these priorities.
Multilateralism – long enabled by the same sort of asymmetric contribution, though typically proportionate to countries’ income and wealth – will also lose steam, as the trend toward bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements accelerates.
Whereas poor and less-developed countries found opportunities to grow and prosper under the old order, they will struggle to negotiate effectively on a bilateral basis.
On his recent trip to Washington, DC, French President Emmanuel Macron attempted to use this history to reinforce the bilateral relationship today, potentially giving France more influence over US President Donald Trump’s unpredictable administration.
And its bilateral trade surplus of $65 billion with the United States presumably makes it an even more irresistible target.
Ignore the fact that bilateral balances are irrelevant for welfare when countries run surpluses with some trade partners and deficits with others.
Obama rejected his predecessor George W. Bush’s policy of isolating “rogue states,” recognizing that America’s only hope for influencing isolated countries’ behavior was to engage directly with them in a bilateral context.
And, as a bilateral strategy, engagement has proved to be astonishingly successful, having led to historic openings, first to Myanmar and now to Cuba, while driving progress toward an enduring nuclear agreement with Iran.
From the beginning, however, the Obama administration has made clear that engagement is not an end in itself, but a means to various goals, both bilateral and regional.
In Myanmar, the bilateral goal was to nudge the government toward greater openness and democracy – something that has unquestionably happened.
While the deal will stand or fall on the extent to which it pulls Iran back from the nuclear brink, it can also open the door to further bilateral negotiations on matters of common interest, from ending the war in Syria to cracking down on drug-running in Afghanistan.
Already, Obama’s policy of engagement has led to the most bilateral interaction since the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis in 1979.
Another source of doubt about America’s enduring influence lies in the fact that multilateral engagement is still needed, and this is always more difficult than bilateral engagement.
The more than 20 bilateral and multilateral donor agencies for agriculture are highly fragmented and of insufficient scale individually and collectively.
BackNext