Trump’s tariffs didn’t work last time – and wouldn’t likely now – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Donald Trump loves tariffs. Making things more expensive if they come from foreign countries is at the heart of his bid for a second term in the White House.

“Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented,” he said in September 2024 at a town hall event in Michigan. And he has promised that if he becomes US president again, he will impose an across-the-board tariff of up to 20% on imports – and even 200% on cars from Mexico – in a bid to encourage American manufacturing.

This is familiar ground for Trump, who showed he was fond of tariffs during his 2017-2021 presidency. Back then, he claimed his policy would address the trade imbalance with China, bring manufacturing jobs back to the US and raise revenues.

Tariffs were then imposed on a wide range of goods, from imported steel and aluminum to solar panels and washing machines.

But did they work? Our research suggests not.

In fact, we found that imposing tariffs actually made the US even more reliant on foreign suppliers – and failed to stimulate the domestic job market. They also raised costs for US consumers and provoked retaliatory tariffs from trading partners including China, the EU, Canada, Mexico, India and Turkey.

China for example, responded by trebling tariffs on American cars. The EU filed a dispute with the World Trade Organization and substantially raised tariffs on US exports including Harley Davidson motorcycles, jeans and bourbon whiskey.

And Trump’s tariffs did not lead to a boost for US manufacturing either. After tariffs were imposed, our research shows US manufacturing supply chains evolved to have fewer suppliers – but it was often US firms that got forced out of those supply chains, not their competitors from overseas.

We found that US manufacturers appeared to reduce their global reach, while actually increasing their dependence on a select few foreign companies – further evidence that Trump’s tariffs failed to produce the intended outcome.

Our research also suggests that “reshoring” – bringing production and manufacturing back to a company’s home country – is not feasible without an established ecosystem of suppliers, intermediaries and customers.

So introducing trade barriers without adequate support for the development of regional supply chains is unlikely to result in stronger local economies or more jobs.

Essentially, for reshoring to work, the domestic economy needs to have the capacity to match demand. But the US (like the UK) has lost manufacturing capability in many areas, and rebuilding it is not going to happen overnight.

Establishing a new industry requires buildings, skilled staff and supply chains – and a very specific approach is required for each industry. Getting the right skills and labor is often the trickiest part and may require immigration.

However, even this may not work in the most complex industries. In the case of computer chips, for example, there are generous incentives in the US under the Biden administration to encourage chip manufacturing.

Yet Taiwan still massively dominates the market, raising questions over whether the US could ever really compete.

Glass of brown liquid inside wooden barrel.
Bourbon whiskey exports, on the rocks? Photo: Smit / Shutterstock via The Conversation

Other industries that can use automation and robotics in manufacturing (such as chemicals and transportation equipment) might be easier to reboot, but they may not generate the expected number and range of jobs.

And often reshoring strategies involve higher investment in automation, machinery and robotics, rather than jobs. Trump’s focus may have been bringing back manufacturing jobs back to the US, but the truth is that many of these jobs may be gone forever.

Trading places

Overall then, imposing tariffs without adequate domestic support mechanisms in place has led to US manufacturers increasing their dependence on foreign suppliers and reducing their dependence on local ones.

Yet tariffs are not exclusively favored by Trump – or even right-wing politics. And there seems to be a fairly common view among politicians in the west that some tariffs can be an effective economic tool.

Trade barriers against China for instance, have continued under Joe Biden’s administration (although he has somewhat relaxed tariffs for imports from the EU, Canada and Mexico). And recently, Canada imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese cars and 25% on Chinese steel and aluminium, while the EU has also imposed tariffs on Chinese goods.

One of the few voices speaking out against tariffs is former US vice president Mike Pence. He recently proposed scrapping tariffs, saying they just made products more expensive for consumers and failed to improve prosperity.

His old boss clearly disagrees. And if Trump does win a second term in office, it seems certain that imposing international tariffs will be high up on his “to-do” list. But if their impact is anything like the last time, they will be of little benefit to the US economy or the voters who depend upon it.

Mark Johnson is professor of operations management, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick and Mehmet Chakkol is associate professor of operations management, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

 ,000 Gold? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Subscribe now for access at a special price of only $99/year.

BRICS and their limitations

David Goldman writes that while BRICS nations have discussed alternative currency-based settlement systems, financing long-term trade deficits outside the US dollar system, which has historically dominated international credit and trade financing, remains a critical issue.

Gold hedges against US dependency on foreign financing

David Goldman explains that gold is increasingly seen as a hedge against US dependency on foreign financing, especially after the US froze $300 billion in Russian reserves, which prompted central banks and private entities to diversify away from dollar reserves.

Germany’s geopolitical path being quietly redrawn

Diego Faßnacht reports that coalition negotiations in East Germany are reshaping Germany’s political landscape, challenging its steadfast NATO alignment and support for Ukraine and raising questions about the country’s future foreign policy direction.

Putin hosts Global South at Kazan BRICS Summit

James Davis highlights the recent BRICS summit in Kazan as a pivotal global event, with leaders from over 40 Global South countries and UN Secretary-General António Guterres in attendance, illustrating the failure of G-7 countries to isolate Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

Unimagined consequences on the Korean Peninsula

Scott Foster explores the heightened tension on the Korean peninsula as a new political alignment emerges with North Korea intensifying its stance against the South and openly supporting Russia’s war effort with soldiers and weaponry in exchange for essentials like food and oil.

Continue Reading

Palauans can decide themselves between US and China – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

I was in Palau in September when, by coincidence, an article was published in the Island Times that described the Compacts of Free Association as American “imperial” oppression in service to a “Permanent Oceanic Empire.”

All in all, the article argues Americans are harmful. Remove them and all will be well. But what really got my attention was that the article quoted me. And the quote was placed “front and center.” Here it is: 

“’This relationship that the freely associated states has with the United States is unprecedented,’” Col. Grant Newsham (ret.) told Congress as (COFA) negotiations were ongoing in June 2023. They may be ‘the only three countries on Earth that have given up their sovereignty and control of a part of their government to the United States.’”

This is what I said. But it is not what I said. The quote was from my US Congressional testimony last year. And the meaning was very different than the reporter suggests.

I was highlighting to the US Congress, Capitol Hill, and American officialdom in general the importance of the COFA agreements with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Marshall Islands. 

I emphasized that the United States should value and prioritize this relationship – and pass the renewal of key elements of the COFA agreements immediately. As for giving up sovereignty, I emphasized the voluntary decision by Palau and others to enter the Compact is, in fact, an act of trust that needs to be properly valued in Washington.

As my written testimony underlined, “the COFA agreements can be terminated. Additionally, even if the United States has the sole legal right to conduct military operations in the COFA states – and even set up military bases if it wants to do so, local popular and political support is nonetheless necessary.”

And if, as the article claims, Palau is undermining its sovereignty by having defense agreements with the US, it is in good company – so have major powers like Japan, Britain, and a number of countries that have entered into agreements with the United States that allow the stationing of US forces and even establishment of US bases in their nations. And all in exchange for a promise the United States will protect them. 

Japan, for example, hosts about ten major US bases and around 50,000 US troops. Meanwhile, in all the Compact countries – in spite of all the talk of military domination in the article, and the fact Palau asked the United States to base there – there is only one major base, at Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands.

And through the defense agreements, the Americans are giving up some of their own “sovereignty” via the obligation to defend Palau (and Japan and others), including to sacrifice American lives, should it be necessary.

Is defense necessary?

As long as the world is populated by humans, there will be bad, dangerous regimes that want to control, dominate and take what belongs to others. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is one such country – and Palau and the Pacific Islands are in its crosshairs. 

So you don’t want to choose between China and the United States? That’s understandable. But remove the US presence – and the US military – from the Pacific region and you’ve created a vacuum.

Vacuums get filled, and eventually, the PRC and the Chinese Communist Party will fill the vacuum and choose for you.

Is the PRC a “dangerous” regime? Look at its actions. It has seized the South China Sea and daily threatens and bullies its neighbors – ask Manila, Tokyo, Taipei and Hanoi about this.  And its subversion and political warfare campaign in the Pacific – to include on and against Palau – is longstanding. 

As for “bad”?  Removing and selling organs from live prisoners who are guilty of nothing more than being religious, and locking up a million of its own citizens – Muslims – in concentration camps is by definition “bad.”

Chinese people themselves want out. The United States has an illegal immigration problem – including thousands from the PRC. The PRC does not.

Palau’s people have made a thoughtful decision to formally align with the United States.  Just as Japan, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea, Thailand 31 members of NATO, and others have. And these nations all have far more resources with which to defend themselves than does Palau.

What the article is really about

But you know all this—Palau debated this decades ago and still does. So why did that article piece appear in September—just before a JCM meeting and in the lead-up to the election?

The reporter has an agenda. He’s not just anti-military, but anti-American. You can tell a lot about a reporter by looking at where they publish and what they’ve written. In this case, the author is writing in Responsible Statecraft.

Responsible Statecraft is the online magazine of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Among the funders of Quincy is East West Bank.

East West Bank CEO and chairman is Dominic Ng, a Hong Kong-born American who has strong ties to China. The Hollywood Reporter wrote in 2016 that Ng “has emerged as one of only a handful of top US-based bank­ers connecting American studios with wealthy Chinese
investors.”

A 2023 letter from six Republican members of Congress raised concerns about his appointment as a US member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Business Advisory Council. The letter states:

Between 2013 and 2017, he served as the executive director of the China Overseas Exchange Association (COEA) which is a front organization for the United Front Work Department (UFWD). UFWD is a Chinese intelligence service whose mission is to liaison with foreign political parties, influence operations, and collect intelligence.

According to the US-
China Economic and Security Exchange Commission (USCC), COEA merged with the China Overseas Friendship Association (COFA), which remained a front group for UFWD when Mr. Ng began a 5-year term as COFA’s executive director in 2019.

Organizations like the UFWD and its affiliated groups play an increasingly important role in Chinese foreign policy and allow political actors like Mr Ng to gain influence in sensitive American institutions to advocate for the interests of communist China. This tactic is regularly employed by the CCP to infiltrate governments and influence policies for CCP-oriented outcomes.

There’s more, of course. Quincy Institute’s other backers include Arca Foundation, which has long focused on making life easier for the rulers of another communist country, Cuba.

And then there’s the writer himself: A list of some of his articles show a common theme. It seems there is no problem that isn’t caused by what he regards as the worst country on the planet, the United States. Palau is just the latest prop in his anti-American attacks.

Note he has no feature-length coverage of China killing their own citizens to sell their organs, attacking neighbors like the Philippines and trying to steal its territory or, indeed, trying to deliberately crash the Palauan economy to force policy changes – and bringing crime, drugs, corruption and environmental damage to Palau.

This isn’t the only recent article about Palau trying to muddy the waters – with the seeming end result of lowering the pressure on China. While the first author focused on undermining US defense activities, the second focused on undermining investigations into PRC-linked activities.

That article by a non-Palauan writer warned against “labeling respected leaders and media outlets as “‘pro-Beijing’ with no basis” – even though one of the people he mentioned speaks about his desire to do business with China – adding “if you call someone ‘pro-China’ for long enough, one day you might get your wish.”

So, essentially saying any reporting on Chinese influence activities is likely to result in PRC influence activities. 

Palauans decide

Bottom line is, Palauans can decide for themselves if the United States is a good or bad country. 

Ultimately, these articles and others like them reveal that their authors have a low regard for Palauans and that they think they know more than the people who have survived for centuries through occupations, war and more complicated geopolitics than most Americans can imagine – and emerged as, yes, a sovereign country. 

They apparently believe Palauans are too unintelligent to make sound, reasoned decisions on their own. 

And if they decide on a course of action different than the author and the institutions behind them approve of, they are stupid, dumb, or deluded by Yankee militarists. Palauans clearly are not stupid nor deserving of condescension. But Island Times readers know that.

Successive Palauan leaders and citizens have themselves decided the COFA agreements are in their nation’s interests.  These are voluntary agreements and can be terminated at will. 

Yes, this means giving up some sovereignty – and having the other side give up some of its sovereignty in return. But that’s how free nations stay free.

This article was originally published by Island Times. It is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Trump or Harris, US and S Korea must stick together – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Pacific Forum published this article at its original publication. It is republished with authority.

With the US presidential poll just around the corner, in South Korea there are &nbsp, concerns&nbsp, about the potential gain to the White House of former President Donald Trump.

Trump previously mentioned the&nbsp, withdrawal&nbsp, of US troops from Korea, but he was not the only one: There have been past historical instances in which the ROK-US empire faced major changes depending on who might be US leader.

After the end of the Vietnam War, President Nixon&nbsp, reduced&nbsp, US forces in Korea to really above 40, 000. During the Iraq War, President George W. Bush made a second attempt at this problem.

But this look directly. North Korea continues to advance its nuclear weapon features and has amended its law, declaring a&nbsp, shift&nbsp, in its coverage regarding South Korea.

China&nbsp, launched&nbsp, an ICBM for the first time in 40 times and exchanged strong warnings with Japan, the Philippines and Taiwan. Russia, after dragging out the war in Ukraine for over two and a half centuries, is threatening&nbsp, atomic weapons use and has restored its nearby Cold War&nbsp, ties&nbsp, with North Korea.

Not just South Korea, but also the US are in for a difficult time for the empire. In this environment, neither country may defend its protection alone. Through the release of the” Indo-Pacific Strategy,” Washington and its allies have shared situational awareness and are developing a robust defense network using the concept of” Integrated Deterrence” from the United States.

While issues and elections within the alliance are unavoidable, they may be conducted with a&nbsp, objective aligned with the group’s goals.

I think the US government is fully aware of the challenges the empire is facing. However, shared risk perceptions do not immediately improve the ally, nor can the US wholeheartedly understand South Korea’s regional interest. Through discourse, where differences in danger understanding and national interests are adjusted, is managed to form an alliance.

The government of South Korea should n’t be just worried about the ambiguities in US policy. South Korea may create a clear course of action in order to advance its passions, not as one of two distinct countries but as a member of the alliance.

  • South Korea should first create a list of its national interests as a focus within the empire.
  • Second, it does manage to develop South Korea’s guidelines in US coverage on the Asian Peninsula.
  • Third, special attention should be paid to upcoming situations that might alter the public’s opinions of important numbers following the US election.
  • Secondly, there must be a complex approach to important topics and issues.

The new US administration should prioritize effectively separating the problems to be emphasized from those that should be minimized. This must be done with careful thought of the new government’s impulses, the change team’s tendencies, and the occasions that may affect their perceptions.

The alliance’s benefits should be at the forefront of consideration. For instance:

  • It is a values-based ally.
  • South Korea’s defense budget is a great 2.7 %&nbsp, of GDP.
  • The proper benefit of Camp Humphreys.
  • South Korea has built a solid defense business base – manufacturing, low-grade fighter planes, artillery and rockets.

On the other hand, evidently complex and complicated ROK-US security discussion bodies or international consultation systems, as well as past commitments or policy directions, may burden the new administration. Those should be addressed slowly.

Important concerns

We remember the issues surrounding President Trump’s extraordinary policies, which materialized soon after his opening. His Northern Korea-related claims had been challenged yet before they materialized, with a series of North Korean missile tests that reshaped Trump’s view of the Asian Peninsula and led to a&nbsp, near-war problems.

However, the situation also provided North Korea and the US with an unprecedented opportunity to negotiate.

The next US administration, whether it continues the legacy of Trump’s first term or, under Harris, follows Biden’s policy direction, will not represent an entirely new path for South Korea.

Although election promises are gradually becoming more specific, there is still uncertainty regarding which Korean Peninsula policies or defense issues will come up. In addition to South Korea’s pressing issues surrounding the 2024 election, the following chart contains key points:

*KOPEN = Korean Peninsula

None of these is insignificant, but a few issues stand out:

    The US will continue to exert influence in the Indo-Pacific region while shifting the costs and obligations to its allies. As a result, there will be more pressure on nations like South Korea, Japan, and Australia to contribute more financially and assume leadership positions. South Korea should &nbsp, pledge&nbsp, strong efforts on regional issues while emphasizing its clear responsibility for the security of the Korean Peninsula. This does not mean ignoring regional issues, but rather actively managing Korea’s part in regional security, which is a pillar of Korean Peninsula.

  • Ukraine War: The&nbsp, stark difference&nbsp, in stance between Republicans and Democrats regarding support for Ukraine will lead to significant changes depending on the election outcome. However, as European nations ‘ threat perceptions evolve and they accelerate their military buildup, efforts by NATO and the US to&nbsp, strengthen military cooperation&nbsp, and defense trade with their Indo-Pacific partners will likely increase. South Korea will take an active role in establishing connections between the Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic regions.
  • North Korea’s nuclear problem: It is one of South Korea’s most pressing issues, but it also has a lot of uncertainty. In the short term, it is unlikely to be a top priority for the new US administration. However, the current international system, with its unstable balance of power and increasing fragmentation, gives North Korea significant maneuvering room and opportunities. Expected North Korean actions may include the&nbsp, seventh nuclear test&nbsp, to deploy tactical nuclear warheads ( Hwasan–31 ), a standard-angle ICBM test to demonstrate the capability to strike the US mainland and tests of&nbsp, SLBMs&nbsp, equipped with MIRVs to demonstrate the ability to penetrate US missile defense systems. These provocations must be anticipated in advance by South Korea and the US together.
  • Extended deterrence: The US will continue to provide its nuclear umbrella to its allies in order to maintain the international non-proliferation regime in light of Russia’s nuclear threats against Ukraine along with North Korea’s developing nuclear capabilities and its potential for preemptive strikes. The US Congress ‘ bipartisan” Strategic Posture Commission ( SPC )” also made a point about how important it is to optimize military postures abroad. For its part, South Korea must institutionalize the accomplishments of the newly established Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) &nbsp ) system to ensure that the United States ‘ extended deterrence and assurance commitment continues to be strong.
  • Trilateral ROK-Japan-US cooperation and US military redeployments: There is a stark&nbsp, difference&nbsp, between the two presidential candidates regarding multilateralism. The institutionalization and growth of the trilateral cooperation established at Camp David must continue. If the US Department of Defense reviews the&nbsp, Global Posture Review&nbsp, and considers redeployments of US troops overseas, including in South Korea, careful consideration of related complex issues like the&nbsp, transition of wartime operational control&nbsp, will be necessary. South Korea will take active part in enhancing regional security structures.
  • Defense and military technology cooperation: As global supply chains are restructured, South Korea’s role in defense and military technology cooperation will become increasingly important. The vulnerabilities in the US’s defense industry have been highlighted, and the concept of “friendshoring” with reliable allies in the Indo-Pacific region is being emphasized on a bipartisan basis. The ROK-US alliance, although currently limited by&nbsp, US domestic laws&nbsp, and focused on functional cooperation through&nbsp, committees, provides an opportunity for South Korea to enhance its capabilities and expand the alliance’s overall strength.

No business as usual

Elections allow a new government to be inaugurated, which is a great blessing of democracy. Citizens reflect their will through elections and, in turn, formulate, implement and evaluate new policies.

While allied countries do not have voting rights, they still have expectations. South Korea works with the new US government to protect its national security from common external threats. ” We are living in a decisive decade”, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin emphasized in&nbsp, the 2022 US National Defense Strategy. ” Business as usual at the department is not acceptable”.

The ROK-US alliance is indeed at a turning point. It can no longer deter threats and make appropriate responses by going on. I think that time will favor those who are united by shared values and mutual trust rather than those who are splintered by conflict and mistrust.

Dr. Hanbyeol Sohn ( han. b. [email protected] ) is a professor at the Korea National Defense University (KNDU) and&nbsp, also serves concurrently&nbsp, as&nbsp, the&nbsp, director of the Center for Nuclear/WMD Affairs at the Research Institute for National Security Affairs ( RINSA ).

Continue Reading

Trump win potential puts Asia on a tariff-ied edge – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Asia is suddenly starting to think about the “what-if” storm that will sweep Donald Trump and his Republican Party to win on November 5th. situations.

Despite the extremely close election in the US, Kamala Harris ‘ Democrats constantly had a statistical advantage. The GOP-controlled White House, Senate, and House of Representatives is currently influencing betting markets, which will force Asia to fight a” Trump business” circumstance in 2025.

Most Asian officials prefer Harris, as she would represent stability from Joe Biden’s administration. Trump’s industry policies alone had transform the world economic system, which is unusual.

The most immediate danger from Tokyo to Jakarta to the rest&nbsp, of export-oriented Asia is Trump’s supersized taxes. The Trump plan for a 60 % tax on China will stifle growth in Asia’s largest economy and stifle supply stores everywhere.

UBS&nbsp, Group thinks that tariff alone will cut China’s annual growth by more than half – chopping 2.5 percentage points off the gross domestic product ( GDP ) of the globe’s top trading nation. Due to weak retail spending, property purchase, and new home sales, China increased just 4.6 % in the third quarter year over year.

Over time, UBS&nbsp, analyst Wang Tao warns of the “risk of various nations raising tariffs on imports from China as well”, kicking off a prospective hands culture of tit-for-tat trade restrictions.

It’s not the end of the world, of training. As Tianchen Xu, senior analyst at The Economist Intelligence Unit, information, China’s full-year GDP target of around 5 % &nbsp, “is presently within approach with more stimulus in the third fourth”.

Despite the magnitude of these” challenges”, Xu notes,” China’s economy is not incurable as some would suggest”. However, Trump’s return to the height of massive trade wars was quickly alter that situation.

Trump has threatened to impose taxes of between 100 % and 20 % on imported cars from Mexico, and he has threatened to increase Biden’s new punitive tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles even further. But how long will it be before Chinese, South Asian and Indian-made cars face comparable Trump levies?

For maneuvers did put Thailand and other Southeast Asian export-oriented economies in harm’s way. Trump 2.0 may aggravate Thailand’s” Detroit of Asia” styles on being the leading China fence for international automakers.

According to Capital Economics ‘ chief economist, Neil Shearing, Asia is anticipating a “universal tariff on all imports to the US” as well as higher Trump taxes.

Additionally, Eastern policymakers must figure out how much more stringent the restrictions on US immigration will cost. Additionally, Trump has promised fresh tax breaks, which will only help the US’s$ 35 trillion national debt grow.

” While it’s reasonable to assume that many of Trump ‘s&nbsp, campaign pledges will be diluted&nbsp, when faced with the reality of government, the common thread running through each of these proposals is that they will end in higher inflation”, Shearing says.

By the middle of 2026, according to Capital Economics, Trump 2.0 plans could increase prices by two percentage points over recent levels. Real GDP may be roughly 0. 75 % lower while the federal funds rate would be roughly 50 basis points higher. ” Used up”, Shearing says,” this would be bad for both US bonds&nbsp, and&nbsp, stocks”.

The comments effects may be felt worldwide. Shearing notes that “emerging markets with higher levels of additional debt or northern banks that are especially vulnerable to movements in the exchange rate – somewhat Turkey, Indonesia, and, given its latest inflation problems, Brazil – would probably dial up the pace of monetary easing.”

Shearing adds that” the risk of higher tariffs, if implemented, could also have a significant impact on countries that trade with the US – Mexico, Korea, Vietnam and, of course, China— especially if Trump imposes a general tariff, which would be much harder to avoid through trans-shipment”.

Trump’s policies may have an impact on emerging markets and investment. ” Tariff concerns have been a drag on EU equities”, says Emmanuel Cau, a strategist at Barclays.

Emre Peker, an analyst at Eurasia Group, notes that&nbsp,” Trump’s threat of at least 60 % tariffs on all Chinese goods and a 10 % levy on US imports from the rest of the world, as well as his potential suspension of China’s most-favored-nation trading status under World Trade Organization rules, would stoke EU-China&nbsp, trade&nbsp, tensions as more Chinese overcapacity flows to Europe. It could also increase the pressure on European industries, which are already struggling against US and Chinese rivals, from metals to automotive, green energy, and technology.

This, Peker adds,” could put pressure on Brussels to be more forward-leaning on its own duty or tariff posture toward Beijing. Furthermore, a&nbsp, Trump&nbsp, administration would likely monitor third countries for possible trans-shipment of Chinese goods and/or circumvention of US tariffs against Chinese overcapacity, threatening additional duties on the EU and others to close any backdoors into the US market”.

One of the bigger wildcards about a Trump presidency is that the US dollar will increase, putting downward pressure on China’s exchange rate. Carie Li, a global market strategist at DBS Bank, says “markets are watching if the Trump trade is heating up and pushing the yuan back to 7.15 against the dollar.”

Some people believe there is a reason to worry about Trump. According to Bilal Hafeez, CEO and head of research at Macro Hive,” The fixed income selloff accompanying rising odds of a Republican sweep could be overdone because Trumponomics is likely to be more rational than the media conveys.”

Hafeez goes on to say that” the impact of the tariffs on inflation has been greatly exaggerated. The US is a domestic-driven economy. Consumer goods imports, excluding cars, represent only about 5 % of total consumer spending, with imports from China accounting for about 40 %”.

A 60 % tariff increase on imports from China and a 10 % tariff increase on imports from other countries could increase consumer price indices by about 150 basis points, according to Hafeez.

However, crypto bets and other assets are all being negatively impacted by Trump’s re-election specter. ” Elections remain hard to call, but if you are long crypto here, you are likely taking a Trump trade”, says Bernstein analyst Gautam Chhugani.

Most troubling about Trump 2.0 is what Asia does n’t know. Imponderables abound. Trump’s first act as president in 2017, remember, was pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP ). A President Harris, by sharp contrast, will almost certainly attend next year’s Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation ( APEC ) summit and as she did in Bangkok in 2022 declare the US a” Pacific nation”.

But it’s easy to count the ways Trump might shake up Asia’s 2025 and beyond. He would undoubtedly act to lower the dollar in order to boost US manufacturers ‘ competitiveness, for instance. That could worsen the negative effects China’s current headwinds and undermine confidence in the dollar as a global reserve currency.

Trump will undoubtedly pounce on the Federal Reserve during a second term. Trump will browbeat Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to lower rates in 2019. Trump also considered firing Powell, along with criticizing the Fed on social media. Thus, Powell injected unneeded liquidity into a struggling economy.

Recently, Trump argued that&nbsp,” the president should have at least a say in” Fed interest rate decisions. Meanwhile, the” Project 2025″ scheme that the Heritage Foundation right-wing think tank devised for Trump 2.0 favors meddling with the Fed’s mandate.

Then there’s the default risk. &nbsp, As a businessman in decades past, Trump was a serial bankruptcy filer. Trump made hints about US debt default while campaigning in 2016 and spooked Wall Street.

” I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal”, Trump told CNBC when asked about his fiscal plans. ” And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you ca n’t lose”.

In 2020, the Washington Post reported that Trump officials, looking to punish China, mulled canceling debt held by Beijing. It’s not difficult to comprehend how catastrophic a catastrophe would be because the US national debt is now twice the size of the Chinese GDP.

Trump is not going away, even if Harris wins on November 5. There is only a slim chance that Trump will graciously concede defeat and go back to his golf courses. Trump’s legal team is already working on the election results, which could incite a 2021-like insurrection that will be staged at locations across the country.

Washington’s political polarization could lead to unexpected risks that would cause the laws of financial gravity to resurface. The last insurrection&nbsp, Trump fomented dragged Washington’s credit&nbsp, rating&nbsp, down with it. When&nbsp, Fitch&nbsp, Ratings&nbsp, yanked away Washington’s AAA status last year, it cited the insurrection as a key factor.

As&nbsp, Fitch&nbsp, put it, the chaos on&nbsp, January&nbsp, 6, 2021, was a “reflection of the deterioration in governance” imperiling US finances. The US national debt is now twice the size of&nbsp, China’s GDP, threatening Washington’s last remaining AAA&nbsp, rating&nbsp, from Moody’s Investors Service.

Here, it’s worth noting how a Trump 2.0 presidency would play into Beijing’s hands. Surely, Team Xi is n’t looking forward to Trump’s coming onslaught of tariffs. However, the ways that nations like Japan and Korea could end up as collateral damage may make China appear more appealing as a trading partner.

At the same time, the more Trump 2.0 blocks Asia’s access to US markets, the more governments in Bangkok, Jakarta, Manila, Putrajaya and Singapore might be incentivized to draw closer to Beijing.

Hence Asia’s worries about a “red wave” 11 days from now that makes economic paranoia great again. Policymakers in the region are already weighing how hard their economies would be hit by tariff-sealed US markets and how to respond as the odds of Trump’s return rise.

Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Huawei uses TSMC loophole to bypass US chip ban – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Technology

After a 7-nanometer artificial intelligence ( AI ) chip it produced was discovered in a product of the heavily-sanctioned Huawei Technologies, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co ( TSMC), the world’s largest contract chip manufacturer, was urged to improve its end-user checks. &nbsp, &nbsp,

Republican senator John Moolenaar, who is also the chairman of the House Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), called using TSMC-manufactured chips in Huawei’s AI startups a” catastrophic loss of export control plan.”

In a press release on Wednesday, Moolenaar stated that” AI startups, like the one these cards fueled, are at the forefront of our technology contest with the CCP, and I fear the harm done these will have major implications for our national safety.” &nbsp,

He claimed that Congress needs to receive immediate responses regarding the scope and size of this disaster from both the Bureau of Industry and Security ( BIS ) of the US Commerce Department ( BIS ) and TSMC. He demanded that the US federal take immediate action to prevent this from occurring again.

On October 9, TechInsights, a Canada-based data platform for the semiconductor industry, published a document with the subject” Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer – Die Analysis”.

TechInsights reported that it purchased the Huawei Atlas 300T A2 AI education cards, which it believes has the Ascend 910B computer. The media described the Ascend 910B, a second-generation device launched in 2022 following the debut of the original Ascend 910 in 2019, as a 7nm chip produced by the Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp ( SMIC ).

According to a Reuters report on Wednesday, TechInsights had informed TSMC of the device evaluation prior to publishing its findings, citing an unnamed Chinese trade and economic established. &nbsp, &nbsp,

After discovering that its cards had been discovered in a Huawei goods, the official said TSMC launched an investigation and suspended its supplies to a client in the country in mid-October. The official described the incident as an “important notice event” within TSMC, refusing to publish the lawyer’s title.

According to the official, October 11 is the earliest the affair may be traced back to. The US Commerce Department and the Japanese government were finally informed that the delivery of the chip might indicate a potential infraction of US export restrictions against Huawei. &nbsp,

The US Commerce Department opened an exploration into whether TSMC broke US trade regulations to produce chips for Huawei, according to The Info on October 18. &nbsp,

The incidents ‘ timelines also matched what a Chinese technology columnist said on October 9 in an article titled” Hinduwei will achieve self-sufficiency after TSMC and Huawei split up.”

The journalist claimed that TSMC and Huawei have decided to break up because they will no longer produce chips for the latter, who will then have to produce the country’s 5G and Traverse chips internally. &nbsp,

Ascend 910C

Past media reports revealed that Huawei and SMIC attempted to create Ascend 910B cards by themselves earlier this year, but they failed to produce acceptable results.

The Information revealed on June 25 that Huawei and SMIC encountered challenges in the production of the Ascend 910B as a result of an inadequate supply of chip-making equipment pieces. On June 27, The Chosun Daily in South Korea reported that the production of Ascend 910B is only about 20 %. &nbsp,

Whether Huawei has now given up on this generation is a mystery. However, it appears that Huawei you rely solely on SMIC’s N 2 process to produce 7nm cards, including the upcoming Ascend 910C chips.

The South China Morning Post reported on September 30 that Huawei gave examples of the Ascend 910C to big Chinese client companies for equipment testing and design. It planned to immediately make 70, 000 products of this device, which aims to engage with Nvidia’s H100.

End-user balances

On the basis of national security, the US Commerce Department placed Huawei and its 70 members on its’Entity Record’ in May 2019. Due to diplomatic pressure from the US, the Dutch government in the same year imposed a ban on the exports of ASML’s extreme ultraviolet ( EUV) lithography machines to China.

On September 15, 2020, TSMC stopped producing Kirin cards, resulting in a timer for HiSilicon’s device products.

Reports in the media over the past few years claimed Huawei used SMIC’s N 2 process to create 7nm Kirin 9000S bits despite the company’s limited supply of high-end chips for its flagship phones. &nbsp,

TechInsights even confirmed that SMIC made the Kirin 9000S chips used in Huawei’s Mate 60 phones next month.

Huawei’s Ascend 910 chips and Ascend 910B were previously reported in Chinese media, despite Huawei’s significant expansion of site production. &nbsp,

Huawei announced on July 6 that it would increase the number of AI handling cards in each of its seven Chinese cities from 4 000 to 16 000.

At that time, some Taiwanese observers said TSMC was allowed to produce Ascend 910 for Huawei as the device used Huawei’s self-developed Da Vinci structures. However, these papers were taken down from China’s Internet. &nbsp,

Other observers thought that all the Ascend 910B bits, with an expected source of 500, 000 products in 2024, were all made by SMIC. They may have to reevaluate their choices now that they are aware that Huawei’s goods contain TSMC-manufactured Ascend 910B cards.

On Wednesday, Huawei said it has not produced any bits via TSMC since 2020. Additionally, TSMC claimed to have not supplied Huawei since September 2020. The Chinese chipmaker claimed to not be aware that it was being investigated at this time about itself. &nbsp,

The US Commerce Department’s director declined to comment on the status of any inquiries. &nbsp,

Nazak Nikakhtar, an assistant secretary for industry and analysis at the US Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration ( ITA ) from 2018 to 2021, told Asia Times in an interview in June that he was aware that sanctioned entities could easily circumvent US sanctions by setting up layers of shell companies or holding only minority stakes in companies.

No matter whether the US is looking into TSMC or not, it will have to explain why it did n’t raise any red flags when a client from the mainland placed an order to make the Ascend 910B, which is comparable to the Ascend 910 on which i had already finished the design process.
taped out “in business language ) before 2019. TSMC had likewise taped-out and mass-produced another Huawei AI cards such as Ascend 310 and 990.

Read: Huawei bypasses US device limits with TSMC hole

Observe Jeff Pao on X: &nbsp, @jeffpao3

Continue Reading

Europe can’t be defended against Russian attack: report – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

A shocking but accurate record on European and European defense has been released by the German Kiel Institute. According to the report, the state of Germany, Europe, and the United States is nevertheless terrible.

Bottom line: Despite all the talk of a NATO combat, the alliance, including the United States, is not prepared for any conflict with Russia. Additionally, it makes the suggestion that the cost of security products is causing profit for defense companies but not for the sake of security as a whole.

The Kiel Institute, founded in 1914, is regarded as Germany’s leading significant think tank. In September, the Institute&nbsp, produced a study &nbsp, called” Fit for war in decades: Europe’s and Germany’s slow rearmament vis-a-vis Russia”.

The review makes a significant point about how ready Germany and other European nations are when Russia attacks them. Additionally, it tells a terrible story about how expensive and unsatisfactory European protection manufacturing has become. &nbsp, &nbsp,

A fantastic example is Germany’s Caracal weather abuse car. A Caracal is a kind of crazy rabbit found in Africa, Pakistan, the Middle East and parts of India. The German car, an unarmored gussied-up car based on a Mercedes G group vehicle, was put up by Rheinmetall, Mercedes-Benz AG and ACS Armored Car Systems GmbH.

A European Caracal Air Assault Vehicle.

The Caracal lacks weapons on its wide-open sides. Over 3, 000 of these cars have been provided to Ukraine at a cost of&nbsp, 1.9 billion dollars, which works out to 620, 000 dollars per product. &nbsp,

For less than$ 35, 000 per copy, you could pin an antitank weapons or equipment gun on a four-wheel drive industrial jeep. And since Ukraine has no evacuation ability, an air abuse aircraft dropped onto the field is a non-starter. ( The euro now trades at$ 1.08 to the US dollar. )

30mm weapons for the German Puma troops fighting car is an equally abhorrent case. The Puma costs a remarkable$ 5.3 million each, while its 30mm weapons charges around &nbsp, 1, 000 dollars per chance! &nbsp,

Puma you fire up to 600 rounds per minute. That compares to a US 30mm High Explosive Dual Purpose round ( more specialized than a run-of-the-mill bullet ) at$ 100. European 30mm ammunition costs ten times more than American 30mm weapons.

Additionally, soldiers are getting defensive defense headsets from the German army. Tactically available commercially available tactical headsets retail for$ 299. If additional features like noise cancellation are added, the price may go up to$ 400, but not more. But European devices cost a whopping&nbsp, 2, 700 dollars each.

Bottom line: People and businesses are making a lot of money by providing Western armies or sending goods to Ukraine. Some people believe it to be openly corruption because institutions are involved in these transactions. Mind that the Kiel Institute just goes as far as to claim these payments are uber-expensive, no more. &nbsp,

A European Puma Tank.

The fact that Russia’s defense industry is growing rapidly and that North Korea is then adding more supplies with artillery shells and missiles is a lot, according to the Kiel record. &nbsp,

North Korea, it seems, has been grinding out weapons also in excess of anything it can use, and until now, it did not trade them. Of course, the Kim Jong Un tyranny is sustained by the Russian agreement with North Korea by providing funds or the equivalent and funding the projects.

All of this helps present, in part, that Germany’s opportunities in security are corrupted ( I think that is the right word ) by excessively expensive equipment. &nbsp,

Also if Germany really meets the NATO target of 2.1 % of GDP for defence spending, what the European military ends up receiving is incredibly expensive. Not to mention that a lot of it ends up in Ukraine and is only gradually, if at all, replaced on the domestic before.

Even with sufficient saving, what money is spent on boggles the mind. Very much, for instance, is going into heat defense, something that is important for Germany’s potential defense needs.

Nevertheless, NATO-supplied air defenses have done a poor to horrible work in Ukraine, a forerunner of a dangerous upcoming in Europe unless the problem is corrected. An interesting note ( website 25 ) in the statement, set in ultra-small form, discusses Ukraine’s ability to shoot down Russian missiles and uavs:

Sample interception rates for commonly used Russian missiles in 2024: 50 % for the older Kalibr subsonic cruise missiles, 22 % for modern subsonic cruise missiles ( e. g. Kh-69 ), 4 % for modern ballistic missiles ( e. g. Iskander-M), 0.6 % for S-300/400 supersonic long-range SAM, and 0.55 % for the Kh-22 supersonic anti-ship missile.

There is little information about the infiltration levels of hypersonic weapons: Ukraine claims a 25 % intrusion price for the Kinzhal and Zircon, but Ukrainian options also claim that to interceptions of this nature require the fire of all 32 launchers in a Patriot battery made of US-style to have any chance to shoot down a single hypersonic missile. By contrast, European Nationalist batteries have 16 rockets, and Germany has 72 launchers in full.

Take notice that Patriot’s interceptor missiles are in extremely limited stock. Manufacturing these weapons takes a long time, and setting up these weapons has proved difficult. Bolloxing manufacturing lines is also caused by a lack of crucial parts. &nbsp,

Boeing provides crucial components for the missile’s target ( when it works ) while US defense contractor Lockheed Martin is the main manufacturer. Boeing wo n’t solve that problem, at the earliest, until 2027. In addition, Boeing is currently facing a significant business strike and a crisis internally that is still far from resolved.

But there are great questions about air mechanisms. The US has given Ukraine the Patriot and other methods. The Russians put a lot of effort into destroying them, but even when they succeed, their catch level is below par. Europe has supplied IRIS-T, NSAMS and other methods that, so far as can be determined, are almost similar to the Patriot. &nbsp,

On the whole, Jewish methods are greater, but they are not deployed in Ukraine. What is regarded as the major US method for air defence, AEGIS ( in the form of AEGIS Ashore ), is not in Ukraine. The devices are in use in Romania and Poland.

Europe largely has none of its own air defense deployed in Europe. The US is not much more prosperous. Some systems, particularly the Ground-Based Mid-Course Interceptor based in Alaska, are a combined case.

The Pentagon is then searching for better-performing fighter weapons to replace its current ones. The 40 or so weapons in stock merely function about half the time despite some tests that were optimized to ensure success.

The potential is also concerning as fast weapons arrive on the field, seen in Ukraine in the form of Russia’s Kinzhal and Zircon. Hypersonic assault weapons are hardly ever a possibility for systems like the Patriot, Iris-T, or any other NATO air defense systems.

The Kh-47M2 Kinzhal weapon as seen at the 2018 Moscow&nbsp, Victory Day Parades.

The image is n’t particularly beautiful when it comes to drones, which are being shot off by Ukrainians and Russians in droves. They are difficult to kill, and present war tanks and troops fighting vehicles can be destroyed by systems like the Russian Lancet helicopter. &nbsp,

No one has yet devised a successful strategy to stop swarms of drones, not yet Israel, and stop some of the smaller attacks that pass by.

Above all, the Kiel record puts a new and important view on Europe’s security position and, by extension, the US, which is pledged by treaty to help protect Europe.

It is time to step back and assess whether a credible defense of Europe is possible in the wake of NATO’s continued expansion and growing angst in Europe and Russia. Right now, judging by the Kiel report, the answer is no.

At Asia Times, Stephen Bryen is the senior correspondent. He also served as the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s staff director and its deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. &nbsp,

This&nbsp, article was originally published on his&nbsp, Weapons and Strategy&nbsp, Substack, and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

How Harris and Trump diverge on the last frontier – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The future American president might be the first to pick up a telephone call from the Moon and pick up the line’s voice. To do so, they’ll first need to create a series of corporate place policy decisions. They’ll also need a small success.

The US leader has an enormous role in shaping place scheme during their time in office because of the huge state funding that supports place activities.

Former US presidents have benefited from this authority to strengthen their own product in place and advance the US’s position. The US has benefited from National advocacy, which has helped to secure important space milestones for the country, establish long-lasting global partnerships with civil space agencies abroad, and achieve some other important milestones.

Most presidential candidates, however, do n’t go into great detail about space policy while campaigning, leaving voters in the dark about their plans for the final frontier.

For several candidates, getting into the weeds of their room coverage plans may be more problems than it’s worth. For one, not every president also gets the chance for valuable and memorable place policy decision-making, since space missions can work on decades-long timelines. And in previous elections, those who do display support for storage initiatives have often been criticized by their competitors because of how great the costs are.

But the 2024 election is unique. For storage fans casting their ballots in November, both candidates have impressive records in space plan.

I’m interested in how those records relate to the use of that domain in a proper and green way as a scientist who studies foreign affairs in space. When given a closer look, former US presidents Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have constantly used their positions to prioritize US space leadership, but they have done so with noticeably different approaches and outcomes.

Trump’s place policy report

As president, Trump established a record of significant and lasting place policy decisions, but did so while attracting more attention to his government’s room actions than his predecessors. He frequently accepted funds for contributions and thoughts that were prior to his time in office.

The previous leader was in charge of the US Space Command‘s reorganization and the US Space Force’s re-establishment, as well as the National Space Council. These organizations coordinate governmental agencies working in the room domain, support the development and function of military space technologies, and defend national security satellites in upcoming conflicts.

A commander in military uniform waves a black flag with the emblem of the US Space Force (an arrow pointing up in front of a sphere representing the Earth).
While leader, Donald Trump oversaw the creation of the U. S. Space Force. Photo: AP via The Conversation / Alex Brandon

He also had the most effective record of recent space plan guidelines. These coverage guidelines clarify the US government’s objectives in space, including how it does help and concentrate on the private sector, monitor objects in Earth’s circle, and protect satellites from cyberattacks.

One of his most proud accomplishments of his presidency was his support for the development of the Space Force. However, this campaigning contributed to divided support for the new unit. This fragmentation disintegrated the more prevalent style of republican public assistance for space programming.

Like many leaders, not all of Trump’s views for room were realized. He safely returned the Moon to Mars, which is crucial for NASA’s mission. Given his agency’s funds request, his explicit goal of pilots reaching the moon area by 2024 was hardly practical.

Should he be elected again, the former senator may wish to promote NASA’s Moon programs by expanding investment in the company’s Artemis programme, which houses its celestial initiatives.

He might characterize the initiative as a new space race against China.

Harris in space

The Biden administration has continued to support Trump-era initiatives, resisting the temptation to undo or cancel past proposals. Its space legacy is noticeably less significant.

Harris has set the US space policy priorities and made a global impact as the head of the National Space Council.

A group of people gathered around a large table, with Kamala Harris standing at a podium at the front next to a screen that says 'National Space Council.'
As vice president, Harris has chaired the National Space Council. Photo: NASA / Joel Kowsky, CC BY-NC-ND

Notably, the Trump administration maintained a precedent that the Biden administration upheld that the president could change at any time.

In this role, Harris led the United States ‘ commitment to refrain from testing weapons in space that produce dangerous, long-lasting space debris. This decision is an example for the US for continuing to sustain space operations and acting as a model for the rest of the world’s space community.

Like some Trump administration space policy priorities, not all of Harris ‘ proposals found footing in Washington.

The council’s plan to establish a framework for comprehensively regulating commercial space activities in the US, for example, stalled in Congress.

If these new regulations had been implemented, they would have made sure that future space activities, like private businesses operating on the Moon or taking tourists to and from orbit and back, would have passed strict safety checks.

Harris may choose to continue working to organize oversight over the space industry and establish responsible standards of behavior in space should she be elected.

Alternatively, she could cede the portfolio to her own vice president, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who has virtually no track record on space policy issues.

Stability in major space policy decisions

Voters can anticipate stability in US space policy as a result of this year’s election, despite the two candidates ‘ divisive platforms.

Given their previous leadership, it’s unlikely that either candidate will attempt to significantly alter the long-term missions that the world’s largest government space organizations are currently conducting during the upcoming presidential term. And neither is likely to undercut their predecessors ‘ accomplishments.

Thomas G Roberts is postdoctoral fellow in international affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

West needs to realize Ukraine cannot defeat Russia – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

A friend of mine, usually an intensely optimistic pro-Ukraine analyst, returned from Ukraine last week and told me:” It’s like the German Army in January 1945″.

The Russians are being repelled on all sides, including the Kursk state of Russia, which they had opened with little fervor and fuss in August. More important, they are running out of men.

For most of 2024, Ukraine has been losing floor. The only thing to keep in mind is how many Russians will lose in the process. This year, the eastern Donetsk region’s city of Selidove is being surrounded and, like Vuhledar earlier this month, is likely to drop in the next week or so. The terrible possibility of a significant conflict looming over Pokrovsk, a strategically important business community, looms over the winter.

Unfortunately, this is not a battle of place but of retention. Soldiers are the only thing that counts, and the calculus for Ukraine is not good in this situation.

Ukraine claims to have “liquidated” almost 700, 000 Soviet military – with more than 120, 000 killed and upwards of 500, 000 injured. Its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, admitted in February this year to 31, 000 Ukrainian mortality, with no number given for injured.

The issue is that these Polish numbers are believed by American authorities, despite the possibility that the reality is very different. According to US options, 1 million people have been killed and wounded on both sides of the conflict. Critically, this includes a growing number of Russian citizens.

Low confidence and abandonment, as well as draft-dodging, are now major issues for Ukraine. These elements are only making the now troubling selection issues worse, making it difficult to send in new troops from the front lines.

ISW map showing the state of the confict in western Donestsk region of east Ukraine.
In the eastern Donetsk area, Pokrovsk, a strategically important town, is consistently losing ground to Ukrainian forces. Institute for the Study of War

In Ukraine, there is a terrible conversation. The issue is whether to organize the 18 to 25 age group and risk serious fatalities for them. Ukraine’s delivery charge significantly decreased in the first half of the year, leaving fewer people between the ages of 15 and 25.

Given the country’s now severe demographic crisis, the country may not be able to afford the significant attrition and mobilization of this team.

And even if this participation does go forward, by the time the required politics, policy, government and coaching have run their course, the battle may be over.

There is no instance in history where challenging Russia in an protracted battle has been successful. This be clear: this means there is a genuine possibility of fight– there is no sugar-coating this.

Zelensky’s realist war aims of&nbsp, restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 edges, along with other doubtful problems – which were uncontested and urged by a&nbsp, confused but self-aggrandizing West&nbsp, – will not be achieved, and the West’s officials are partly to blame.

American armed forces were dull, ill armed, and completely prepared for a severe and protracted discord, with ammunition stocks likely to final weeks at most due to misguided wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Simply 650, 000 of the 650, 000 that were supplied to Kiev this year have been fulfilled, whereas North Korea has provided at least twice that amount to Russia.

Only the US has major weapons stocks in reserve, including thousands of armoured vehicles, tanks, and artillery pieces, and it is unlikely that it will abandon its current drip-feeding strategy for Ukraine. Even if such a decision is made, the lead-time for supply will be years, not weeks.

The environment was depressing during a personal briefing that I just had with Western defense officials. The condition is “perilous” and” since terrible as it has ever been” for Ukraine.

Western powers cannot afford another strategic disaster like Afghanistan which, in the words of Ernest Hemingway ( aptly quoted by the strategist Lawrence Freedman ), happened “gradually, then suddenly”.

There will be no decisive breakthrough by Russia’s army when they take this town or that ( say, Pokrovsk ). They have n’t the capability to do it. So, there wo n’t be a collapse – no” Kiev as Kabul” moment.

However, there are limitations to the costs Ukraine can get. We do not understand where that control lies, but we’ll know when it happens. Critically, there will be no success for Ukraine. Inexcusably, there is not, and never has been, a European plan except to burn Russia as long as possible.

Ultimately, two eminently old social questions, one involving whether a battle is just, must now be posed and resolved: whether there is a good chance of winning and whether the potential gain is a fair price.

The difficulty, as so often before, is that the West has never defined what it considers a success. The cost, however, is becoming all too apparent.

The West lacks the clarity it needs to have its objectives and limitations, which would have been the start of a plan. Officials of NATO now need to move quickly to stop using cheesy language and other nonsense. We saw where that led in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

We need a practical view of what a “win” or at least an appropriate settlement currently looks like, as well as the extent to which it is feasible and whether the west will actually do it. And then for European leaders to act appropriately.

Accepting that Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk are lost, things that an increasing number of Ukrainians are beginning to declare boldly, could be a good place to start. Therefore, we need to begin making serious plans for a post-war Ukraine that may require the support of the West more than ever.

Russia may possibly get all, or even the large of, Ukraine’s place. Even if it could, it could not perhaps carry it. There is abundant evidence that there will be a settlement agreement.

Therefore, it is time for NATO, and specifically the US, to put a real close to this agonizing suffering and come up with a logical strategy to deal with Russia in the coming century. More significantly, the West has plan how to help a noble, shattered – but also independent – Ukraine.

University of Portsmouth senior lecturer in defense strategy and rules Frank Ledwidge

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

Shooting the climate change messenger in Vietnam – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The challenges of climate change loom large as Vietnam struggles to cope with the effects of Typhoon Yagi, including prolonged energy interruptions, serious damage to roads and bridges, and the forced evacuation of over 100, 000 people.

Rising sea levels threaten to bury sections of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam’s grain dish. Farmland are already being destroyed by saltwater intrusion, and more intense storms and floods are wreaking havoc on areas.

Vietnam is not the only country to have experienced catastrophic and record-breaking floods in the lower Mekong basin over the past month. The need for strong climate actions and resilience planning in the region is underscored by these growing climate impacts.

Yet at this critical moment, one of Vietnam’s most important climate defenders, Dang Dinh Bach, is two weeks into a hunger strike – not from the frontlines of the climate challenge, but from behind prison bars.

The Asian government’s continued crackdown on civil society, climate activists, and other environmental activists is undermining both global climate goals and fundamental human rights, according to Bach’s protest. &nbsp,

Bach and his family have lodged almost 30 formal complaints about abuse and cruel conditions in jail, only to have the prison officials ignore during his three years behind bars.

Bach feels compelled to take this drastic step, which is in great danger for his health, to raise awareness of the plight of elderly and infirm captives who are living alongside him in terrible detention conditions.

Bach’s demands are simple and fair: prohibit solitary confinement, enable prisoners time outdoors for exercise and social contact, ensure electric safety, allow the exchange of books and enough lighting for reading, and ensure contact and communication with family are not unilaterally restricted.

Most immediately, Bach calls for proper medical care for prisoners with hidden disease, a critical public health measure in the high-risk prison setting. These fundamental changes may help Vietnam’s prisons more closely adhere to the UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and Convention Against Torture.

The Universal Periodic Review for Vietnam, a friend review of Vietnam’s human rights report that occurs every 4.5 years, came to an end last week at the 57th treatment of the UN Human Rights Council.

During the engaging speech, the International Federation for Human Rights&nbsp, made a statement&nbsp, highlighting Bach’s event and the cruel treatment he is enduring in jail. The statement emphasized the continuous and comprehensive harassment and harassment of human rights activists in Vietnam, as well as the oppression of civil society, including those promoting environmental and climate change.

The Taiwanese authorities accepted suggestions for improving the famous prison system, including ensuring problems in accordance with the UN Standard Minimum Rules, as part of its response to the evaluation process. The necessity of putting these pledges into exercise is highlighted by Bach’s hunger strike. &nbsp,

Contrary to its stated commitments to both human right and weather justice, the state rejected all suggestions that would call for an end to the abuse and targeting of human rights supporters and the oppression of civil society.

Bach has worked since joining the Law and Policy of Sustainable Development Research Centre and has dedicated his legal advocacy occupation to empowering areas.

He played a significant role in rewriting Vietnam’s environmental protection laws, enforcing regulations for cheap waste, and pushing for a shift from coal power. Composers trained over 100 young professionals, building a new generation of climate soldiers in Vietnam.

Bach became a target for this powerful job in particular. In the weeks before his imprisonment, Bach led a 17-day strategy to decrease Vietnam’s rely on fuel.

Soon after, he was detained on trumped-up charges of tax evasion – claims that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention&nbsp, has deemed&nbsp,” a violation of international law on the grounds of prejudice based on political or other view, related to his economic work”.

Bach’s case is not isolated. Since 2021, six of Vietnam’s most prominent climate leaders have been imprisoned on similar dubious charges. The silencing of influential voices like Bach’s fundamentally reduces the ability for Vietnam and other nations to make crucial transitions to clean energy.

Without active civil society involvement, there is a real chance that global climate agreements wo n’t produce meaningful change or even worsen existing disparities or harms to the environment. &nbsp,

Bach’s hunger strike is a stark and appropriate reminder of both the human and climate costs of state oppression. The 29th Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( COP29 ) will convene next month in Azerbaijan, where the international community will gather.

Azerbaijan is also incarcerating prominent climate activists and environmentalists in parallel with Vietnam, accelerating a crackdown on independent civil society. &nbsp,

Allowing these injustices to remain unreported eliminates crucial opportunities to challenge the status quo, undermining international efforts to address climate change and the credibility of multilateral forums. This is true in Vietnam, Azerbaijan, and throughout the world.

The international community must make every diplomatic and economic tool available to secure Bach’s immediate and unconditional release, as well as the release of climate activists and environmental advocates from other countries, and ensure that all commitments are based on respect for human rights. &nbsp,

As Bach wrote shortly before his arrest,” Only when]we ] enter an era of genuine national development, built on rule of law and respect for human rights, can we hope to address the climate crisis”.

Andrea Giorgetta is the International Federation for Human Rights ( FIDH)’s Asia desk director, and Maureen Harris is the Vietnam Climate Defenders Coalition’s coordinator and senior advisor at International Rivers.

Continue Reading