Trump’s ‘clearing out’ Gaza call assures ceasefire won’t last – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The area has been shocked by Donald Trump’s most recent speech, which described Gaza as a “demolition blog” and his advice to “evacuate” Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt and Jordan to” clear out that entire thing.”

Trump officially told Air Force One reporters that he had spoken with King Abdullah of Jordan and that he intended to speak with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the president of Egypt, over the weekend. “You’re talking about probably a million and a half individuals, and we just clear out that entire thing”, he said.

He added that relocating Palestinian civilians to” some of the Arab nations, and build]ing ] housing in a different location, where they can maybe live in peace for a change” could be “done temporarily or could be long term”.

Israel’s serious ultra-nationalist events, both in and outside of the Jewish state, are thrilled by the plan. It’s one they have much advocated.

However, it has received a lot of negative reviews in the region as a possible” second Nakba” – in reference to the displacement and violence against Palestinians following Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence in 1948. Egypt and Jordan have likewise completely rejected the proposal. It has also been highly condemned by the Palestinians.

Although it’s not clear how closely this ties with US policy and diplomacy, such speech could undermine local political efforts that are crucial. These work, led by Qatar and Egypt in nearby cooperation with Washington, are focused on continuing the conversations on the peace, monitoring progress, and evaluating compliance.

So it’s not sure whether this is a US president’s official statement or another instance of the president’s stance being untrue. However, it is obvious that his most recent statement will make the January 17 peace agreement even more complicated.

Not the least of which is the underlying hostility between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, the agreement now faces significant challenges and risks. History tells us that this lack of trust has developed, in element, because of the many times ceasefires have been used for purposes other than pursuing long-term arrangement, such as opportunities to recover, regroup or reposition carefully.

The current deal’s staged character also poses a significant risk, as it opens up the door for” trailers” on both sides to disrupt the process. Other examples of events that could thwart the ceasefire include the latest riots by Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Hamas ‘ active encouragement of conflict.

The negotiation procedure is more complicated by relationships tied to the social life of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. One party, the Jewish Power, has now dissolved his coalition government in protest of the peace. However, the president of the Catholic Zionist group, Bezalel Smotrich, has threatened to do the same if the military operation against Hamas is no resumed.

Hamas, in move, has attempted to establish its power in Gaza. During the prisoner swap process, when Hamas fighters were glaringly present during the handovers, we witnessed instances of this. Hamas may have experienced a significant decline, but it still has power over much of Gaza’s police and government and wants the rest of the world to understand.

There is a high chance that one area may blame the other for violating the terms of the peace if any part of the agreement fails. In the second phase, choosing who will rule Gaza and how to employ a full Israeli withdrawal are two of the most controversial issues.

Israel continues to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority ( PA ) in the West Bank for security, but it is vehemently opposed to any PA presence in Gaza. There is also a lot of uncertainty as to whether Israel will consent to a long-term solution that calls for the Israeli Defense Forces ( IDF) to completely leave Gaza.

The IDF’s chief of staff Herzl Halevi’s resignation on October 7 as he accepted responsibility for its mistakes has more destabilized the political and military relationships in Israel. A lot will depend on his leader.

Transactional politics

Regional dynamics have been reshaped by new political shifts. This presents difficulties and options for any political efforts involving Israel and Palestine.

The deterioration of Iran’s so-called” shaft of weight,” which includes Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon and the now defunct Assad government in Syria, may provide an option for normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

This, in turn, will provide an opportunity to restructure the Middle East’s political landscape. This potential discovery builds on the Abraham Accords, which was one of Trump’s international policy initiatives. It’s a interpersonal approach to politics, which prioritizes logical and results-oriented conversations.

The new US Middle East minister, original real estate developer Steve Witkoff, has emphasised” valiant diplomacy”, as well as strong leadership and what he called “reciprocal behavior” from the events to the peace deal. It’s uncertain whether the fresh US administration may revive the Arab state’s 2020 plan.

Palestinians would receive 70 % of the West Bank and Gaza, according to the plan, while Israel would be able to maintain Jerusalem’s sovereignty. Additionally, the US approved the invasion of Jewish-occupied West Bank regions by Israel.

For Israel, standardization with Saudi Arabia would be a significant diplomatic triumph. Washington is critical in this situation by offering incentives like Riyadh the sale of sophisticated American weapons systems.

However, according to reports, Saudi Arabia has reportedly demanded immediate action to establish a Palestinian position as part of the package. Trump’s latest strategy, if it becomes standard US coverage, would make that a non-starter.

Karin Aggestam is professor of social knowledge, CMES Director, Lund University

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

China lacks control over provinces expanding distant-water fishing – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Since the late 2010s, China has shown a growing sensitivity to the negative effects of its distant-water fishing ( DWF ) growth, as well as the reputational damage that some international environmental advocates have caused.

DWF describes nations that seafood outside their own borders and expand their range of activities to the financial exclusive areas or high seas of other nations.

Was China’s hyperbolic DWF development always a direct result of Beijing’s great strategy to create what’s known as a “blue economy” and became a maritime power? What are China’s major obstacles to halting this progress, exactly?

In an article published in Marine Policy, I want to examine the pivotal part of Chinese regions in driving this growth and change the state-centric view on China’s rapidly expanding DWF.

Municipal versions

Not all of China’s southern counties are extremely interested in expanding their DWF sector. Between 2010 and 2020, Liaoning, Shandong, Zhejiang, Fujian and the China National Agricultural Development Group Co. Ltd. played a significant role in boosting China’s DWF pursuits, as measured by the number of vessels, power and fish get.

These institutions collectively owned 84 percent of China’s DWF vessels as of 2020, and they combined foresaw a complete power of 86.6 % of the total horsepower for all other Chinese DWF vessels. Additionally, their catch made up 87 percent of the total fat and 86.8 % of the total value of China’s DWF find.

Fujian was the state where the highest returns on investment in catch fish were found in Fujian. It didn’t have the most powerful DWF fleet ( Zhejiang did ) or the largest DWF fleet ( Shandong did ). However, it was only next to Shandong in terms of capture value per vessel and full DWF catch volume, which was both second.

Strategic Fujian

Fujian was not immediately selected as a captain province for the development of the marine economy in 2010, but it soon established what is known as a leading small group, led by the provincial governor, to renew.

In 2011, this endeavor was successful, giving Fujian more managerial and budgetary authority to grow its marine economy. To improve coordination and conformity across administrative levels, sub-provincial leading little groups were also established.

When Fujian’s sea business development gained national significance, it rapidly expanded its DWF industry. The municipal authorities urged attempts to” float to the Western Ocean for the next time” in the year 2013. Regional businesses seized this chance to gain help from their provincial counterparts.

Starting in 2014, the provincial government promoted targeted plan incentives across the company’s value chain: vehicle construction, access to angling grounds, business operations and human resources. The development of the Maritime Silk Road was further aided by Fujian’s participation in the developing of the Maritime Silk Road in 2015.

These steps led to a production-focused, extraction-driven DWF progress in Fujian. From 2012 to 2015, the number of Fujian’s DWF arteries and get rose by 78 per cent and 50 per cent, substantially exceeding national goals of 15.5 per share and 18 per cent.

Reining in growth

Since 2016, amid heightened international scrutiny, Beijing started to recentralize and tighten control over China’s DWF fleet. However, this work was slow to come down to the local level. The province’s DWF growth was aided by the Fujian incentive measures, which remained in place until 2018.

Beijing began putting forth concrete centralized policies to halt DWF growth toward the end of the decade. These included a blacklist for vessels and captains involved in illegal, unreported and unregulated ( IUU) fishing, a compliance ranking for DWF companies and revisions to China’s DWF regulations.

Fujian appeared to follow Beijing’s plan to slow down fleet growth, but it made a different move to make it easier to establish a national DWF base on its coast. This type of terraqueous infrastructure seeks to reorganize spaces that connect land and sea. The objective is to shorten the time it takes to sell DWF catch as commodities and increase its commercial value.

Information-gathering challenges

Beijing’s delegation of some administrative and fiscal authority to local governments is crucial to boosting the provinces ‘ economic performance. However, local governments may be motivated by economic interests to pursue policies that lead to exaggerated growth and have unintended foreign policy effects on China.

Fujian’s incentive policies suggest a firm commitment to a DWF growth model focused on enhancing capacities, maximizing outputs and boosting production. These policies don’t take into account potential environmental repercussions beyond its borders.

A performance evaluation report on Fujian’s special subsidy fund for marine economic development praises the shift in Fujianese fishermen from offshore fishing close to its coast to distant-water fishing.

It says there are” social” and “environmental” benefits that include supplying more DWF professionals and easing offshore over-fishing. The report doesn’t mention potential concerns about overcapacity or the ensuing environmental and foreign policy issues.

Measures taken by Beijing during the 13th Five-Year Planning Period in 2017 marked a first step toward recentralizing control and oversight over such provincial activism. Beijing faces a challenging task when monitoring DWF because its environmental effects are not directly borne by Chinese citizens and occur outside of China.

Looking ahead

China’s 2023 White Paper on DWF reaffirms efforts to improve information-gathering and monitoring on DWF fleet capacities and operations. These include expanding the national fisheries observer program and creating an inclusive DWF data collection framework.

Beijing says the West is” strongly suppressing and restricting” China’s DWF, but the white paper supports dialogue with international non-governmental organizations regarding sustainable fisheries management and measures against IUU fishing. In other words, it acknowledges the importance of global bottom-up monitoring in resolving Beijing’s perennial issue with obtaining information on DWF.

Since China replaced the DWF fuel subsidy with the international compliance capacity enhancement subsidy in 2021, improving information-gathering and verification regarding any violations of both domestic and international regulations by Chinese DWF vessels has become important.

This new subsidy is in part related to DWF enterprise compliance scores. Each year, these scores are released by the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture. Any of the 14 DWF-regulated violations leads to lower scores, which in turn reduces the subsidy amount for offending enterprises.

Therefore, prompt and trustworthy information on IUU breaches is necessary to achieve the desired deterrent effect. Beijing should encourage and support its efforts to monitor and maintain the transparency and monitoring efforts of fisheries NGOs, as well as to maintain their ongoing collaboration with regional and international fisheries organizations.

Hang Zhou is a graduate student at Université Laval and an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science.

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

If reshoring’s happening, where does the US get the capital goods? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

In a remark that was republished by Asia Times on January 27, Noah Smith asserts that “reshoring US economy is achievable and happening.” His argument is based on flagrant misrepresentation of the facts.

Some of his mistakes depend on cherry-picking the day range – for example, a table that shows cell production up 20 % since 2018. But US battery production is down 20 % from 2014, if one looks at a long-term chart ( below ). That’s certainly a success story. Nevermind that the Federal Reserve index’s peak for manufacturing output in 2007 was 106, which is now only 99.

When the Biden Administration made the announcement about its CHIPS Act subsidies, which Smith describes as a significant advance for British manufacturing, there were shortages of labor and materials when building device processing plants began. An unheard-against production increase resulted in a 37 % increase in the Producer Price Index for new plant construction in a single year. At the same time, the number of vacant construction positions nearly doubled.

Smith is relieved that the US’s solar panels manufacturing capacity reached 27, 000 megawatts in 2024, which indicates that the US is” just way behind China.” How far behind? Smith doesn’t state. I may: China may make 890, 000 megawatts of solar panels – 33 times the US number.

The mistake in Smith’s panegyric to US business is how heavily America depends on imported capital goods, which are used to make other goods.

At only$ 400 billion annually, US imports of capital goods exceed private orders by almost three days. Both figures are deflated to January 2000 using the government’s price index for cover commodities exports and private investment products, both. Both set exclude trucks. Whatever the US is producing, it produces it generally with imported investment products.

Of course, the US imports a lot of electronics, whose prices have fallen by half since 2000, and it exports machinery, whose price has doubled ( the US exports about half as much capital goods as it imports ). It’s hard to get an apples-to-apples evaluation of local cover products purchases and cover products imports. But the developments however are striking: US cover goods exports jumped after Covid, rising by 60 % from 2020 through 2024.

Yes, Taiwan’s TSMC, which built a grow in Arizona, which is staffed primarily by workers and technicians from Taiwan, was able to create more computer chips inland because TSMC couldn’t get enough qualified workers in the country. That’s the kind of achievement that makes failure seemed interesting by comparison.

The reality is that America’s dependency on foreign countries is rapidly increasing. In the last ten years, the entire business output has remained essentially unchanged, while capital goods imports have almost doubled. It will require more to re-shore American industries than to publish economy blogs with hot weather.

Continue Reading

​US ending MAD doctrine to build an Iron Dome air defense system – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

President Donald Trump will matter a number of senior orders for US security, including the development of an Iron Dome system “like the one used by Israel to divert approaching missiles,” according to recently approved Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

The old Mutually Assured Destroy ( MAD ) doctrine will no longer be effective in preventing a first strike, and the US could be the target of a devastating and fatal nuclear ballistic missile attack as hypersonic threats start to grow.

The US does not have an all-encompassing air defense system for the continental United States. Additionally, it lacks a system in place to stop the development of hypersonic nuclear missiles and delivery systems, including hypersonic glide cars.

On the East Coast, nowhere near the US border, nowhere near the US’s facility, or anywhere along the Caribbean Sea, the country has almost no full-time heat protection.

The Israeli Missile Defense Organization organizes an atmosphere exercise in cooperation with CENTCOM, US troops, and the Israeli Defense Forces. Photo: Israel Ministry of Defense

What Trump calls Iron Dome and what Israel calls it is important to identify.

Iron Dome ( Kippat Barzel ) refers to the air defense system created to withstand short-range missiles launched into Israeli territory from Gaza.

Iron Dome, in Trump’s use, refers to an integrated air defense system that may defend the United States from missile attacks.

Now Israel has an incorporated air defense system that includes Iron Dome, &nbsp, Iron Beam, &nbsp, David’s Rope, &nbsp, Arrow 2&nbsp, and&nbsp, Arrow 3&nbsp, plus&nbsp, much collection scanners. Israel’s program includes a ability to capture projectile missiles in the exoatmosphere and, perhaps, beyond. In collaboration with the US, Israel is likewise developing a new Bow technique, called Arrow 4. ( Israel air defenses have also been&nbsp, integrated with US radars. )

Tamir/Sky Hunter Interceptor. Photo: Rafael

Major US defense companies Raytheon ( now RTX Corporation ), Boeing, and Lockheed all contribute to Israel’s air defense programs under US funding.

RTX even markets&nbsp, Sky Hunter, a variation of the&nbsp, Tamir interceptor&nbsp, used in Iron Dome.

RTX is building a new facility in Camden, Arkansas to&nbsp, produce Sky Hunter&nbsp, for the US Marines. The Marine Corps requested$ 11 million for the system to help with the transition from quick prototyping to swift fielding, according to the FY-25 finances request. Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, an Jewish company that makes Iron Dome, owns a portion of the new service.

The partnership between the US Missile Defense Agency ( MDA ) and the Israel Missile Defense Organization ( IMDO ) is at the top level of US-Israel air defense cooperation. The IMDO is part of the Israeli Directorate of Defense Research and Development ( DDR&amp, D), at Israel’s Ministry of Defense. The MDA is a research, creation, and consolidation organization that works on ballistic missile security devices for the United States and its allies.

Headquarters of the Missile Defense Agency

The US is one of the least prepared allies to combat army ballistic missiles and other challenges, including robots. The lack of protection was intended, as those opposed to President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative ( SDI) claimed that creating a missile shield was neither technically feasible nor politically acceptable.

Beautiful Pebbles: a stone emerges from its ‘ life jacket ‘ just prior to release. Photo: Wikipedia

The difficulty of putting fighter systems in space was the subject of the specialized debates in the mid-1980s.

( One of the Reagan proposals was called&nbsp, Brilliant Pebbles, an idea pioneered by Lowell Wood and Edward Teller at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. )

The plan discussion claimed that SDI would stifle the Wild philosophy. The term” Middle East Assured Destruction” is derived from the idea that neither the US nor its allies would use nuclear weapons because the results of their use would be the party’s own destruction.

Arms control agreements were created with the goal of preventing any breakthrough that would allow the US or the USSR ( or its successor, Russia ) a way to establish a credible first-strike capability assuring that the nuclear assets of the other side would be destroyed before they could be used for retaliation.

While some claimed Wild to be a good way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, people, including Reagan, saw MAD as a common murder agreement. A key issue was that one country, China, did not participate in hands control partnerships and continued to grow its nuclear attack skills. Another was the increase of more nuclear actors, most notably North Korea and Iran, who were both interested in joining them.

A ground-based interceptor ( GBI ) is transported to its silo during an emplacement on the Missile Defense Complex ( MDC ) at Fort Greely, Alaska. ( Photo: Sergeant Jack Carlson III )

The US put in place a ground-based fighter air defense system based in Greely, Alaska, and the Vandenberg Space Force center in California. The US Earth Based Midcourse Defense System includes GBI. A renewed work is now underway to update the fighter remove vehicles and install a$ 17 billion “next-generation fighter” for GBI. That multibillion dollars system has been plagued by various issues. An “interim option” of 20 submarines is planned for 2026.

It is claimed that GBI was primarily focused on a rogue state risk ( North Korea ) and no China, despite the existence of only a select few ships, 44, associated with it.

GBI employs a hit-to-kill capture system, which means that a non-explosive eliminate vehicle’s dynamic force causes an approaching ballistic missile warhead to be destroyed by the dynamic force of a non-explosive kill vehicle. It has been a source of issues and has been confined to dealing with maneuvering nuclear warheads. It is known as an EKV for exoatmospheric kill vehicle. A plan to redesign the kill vehicle, called RKV, &nbsp, was dropped&nbsp, after the plan was judged unworkable. Beyond the kill vehicle, a huge issue, radars associated with GBI also have had problems, particularly a radar known as&nbsp, Sea Based X Band. X-band radars operate in the 8 to 12 GHz microwave band.

Sea-based X-band radar.

The Defense Department appears to have plans to install a GBI system on the East Coast. At least four locations are under consideration, but the most likely is&nbsp, Fort Drum in New York&nbsp, near Lake Ontario. Congress has mandated an East Coast system to be in place by 2030 – although, without a workable system and funding, the 2030 date is optimistic.

The US also has forward-deployed THAAD (terminal high-altitude air defense ) systems, in Korea, UAE, Israel, Romania and Guam. THAAD is mainly an area defense system, and it has been used once, successfully, intercepting a Houthi-launched ballistic missile. That THAAD unit was running out of Israel. THAAD has a range of 150 to 200 kilometers ( 93 to 124 miles ).

THAAD arrives in Israel.

In addition, the US has AEGIS air defense systems on board US Arleigh Burke-class destroyers ( DDG-51 ) and Ticonderoga cruisers ( CG-47 ). AEGIS is thought to be successful in preventing ballistic missiles. There are around 56 AEGIS-equipped ships, although the US Navy is&nbsp, retiring some Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

The US also has three AEGIS-Ashore ( land based ) systems, one each in Guam, Poland and Romania. AEGIS-Ashore was also planned for Japan, but the Japanese government&nbsp, canceled the program, allegedly because of local opposition to interceptor sites near them. Japanese&nbsp, Kong ō class&nbsp, ships do have the AEGIS system, but there are only four ships. Two new Kongo-class ships&nbsp, are planned&nbsp, over the next few years. Additionally, Japan and the US are developing an interceptor designed to deflect threats from hypersonic aircraft.

Kong ō class&nbsp, of guided-missile destroyer.

AEGIS has been used to thwart Houthi missiles in the Red Sea. A key problem has been intercepting Houthi-fired anti-ship ballistic missiles. AEGIS has assisted in helping track threats and destroy Houthi missiles, and AEGIS has been hurriedly upgraded to account for the anti-ship missile threat. As of January, US ships have fired 120&nbsp, SM-2 missiles, 80&nbsp, SM-6 missiles, 160 rounds from destroyers and cruisers ‘&nbsp, five-inch main guns as well as a combined 20&nbsp, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles&nbsp, ( ESSM) and&nbsp, SM-3 missiles. SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 are AEGIS missiles. In one instance, the USS Gravely had to rely on its Phalanx CIWS rapid fire short range gun to detonate a Houthi missile that the AEGIS system’s radar had detected.

AEGIS is crucial for US missile defense in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf as well as in the Pacific and Atlantic.

New types of threats

The current jumble of US ballistic missile defenses is not necessarily a suitable model to fulfill President Trump’s desire to build an Iron Dome for the country.

An American Iron Dome requires some crucial elements from the US. Among these components are highly advanced radars, hit-to-kill technology, sophisticated secure communications, space based sensors, and experience it can draw on from its deployments in the Middle East and Israeli know-how and experience dealing with enemy swarm tactics.

Russian and Chinese pursuing hypersonic platforms, including those of Russians like Avangard and Chinese threats, are likely to follow. China already has” the world’s leading hypersonic arsenal” according to the&nbsp, US Defense Intelligence Agency. The use of the Oreshnik intermediate range ballistic missile by Russia in Ukraine, which is a hybrid hypersonic glide vehicle with multiple kinetic warheads, demonstrates that conventionally armed missile defenses will also be challenged by nuclear weapons.

An Iron Dome for the United States, therefore, needs to account for both conventional and nuclear threats, for hypersonic weapons, and for serious problems of detecting and destroying the threats efficiently and effectively.

This implies that the US should look once more at Brilliant Pebbles and other space-based intercept capabilities for long range ballistic missile threats. A space-based approach is more likely to derail hypersonic glidecraft before they are launched by ballistic missiles.

The US needs to strengthen its ability to neutralize incoming threats at the theater level, whether on land or sea, for intermediate and short range threats. For this reason, it might be possible to use AEGIS and other systems to connect improved space-based sensors to improved land-based radars and create hypersonic interceptors.

Additionally, the US needs to increase its efforts on air defense integration and the use of artificial intelligence to combat increasingly sophisticated tactics, including various decoy types and maneuvering warheads. If properly developed, AI might be able to distinguish between a conventional threat and a nuclear threat.

A US Iron Dome is a daunting task, but it is necessary before a rivalry realizes it is simple to accomplish. That’s the chance of staying with MAD, which is why Hegseth and Trump are moving quickly to construct a US Iron Dome.

Stephen Bryen is a former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy and a special correspondent for Asia Times. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

DeepSeek shows Trump tariffs doomed to fail – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Foreign artificial intelligence business DeepSeek has shook world markets and challenged long-held beliefs about the usefulness of tariffs as a means of economic dominance. &nbsp,

A cost-effective AI model that runs on less-advanced chips, highlighted by its breakthrough, which poses a significant challenge for the United States: tariffs and other financial restrictions may no longer suffice to encircle and outpace China’s scientific rivals.

Revelations about DeepSeek’s low-cost success in the high-cost AI space&nbsp, rocked&nbsp, global technology stocks on Monday, with Nvidia’s shares down 9 % in premarket trading and Dutch high-end chip equipment maker&nbsp, ASML down&nbsp, as much as 11 %, according to breaking news reports.

Bloomberg reported the hitherto largely unheard-of startup ‘s&nbsp, AI assistant has &nbsp, rocketed&nbsp, to the top of the app download charts since it was released last week with capabilities widely&nbsp, seen as competitive with the likes of&nbsp, OpenAI, Google and&nbsp, Meta’s AI offerings. That, in turn, has called into question America’s supposed big lead over China in the AI culture.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s current threat to impose taxes as high as 60 % on imports underscores Washington’s rely on financial restrictions to sustain its global technical standing. Tariffs have been a key component of US efforts for years to stop China’s increase and maintain its position of dominance in important technology and other sectors. &nbsp,

However, DeepSeek’s success shows how rivals can develop around these measures, probably rendering them outdated. This success is a sign of a wider pattern. While the US has previously led in cutting-edge systems, China’s rapid development in AI and electronics is altering the balance of power. &nbsp,

By restricting China’s access to advanced cards, Washington probably aimed to slow its modern development. Alternatively, it has spurred Beijing to triple down on self-reliance, accelerating inventions that could release America’s hold on global supply chains.

DeepSeek’s milestone AI design is more than just a modern leap, it’s a tactical victory for China. It demonstrates how development can circumvent restrictions imposed by taxes and other financial tools.

Diminishing performance of taxes?

This change raises important questions about the US economic strategy’s coming. Tariffs could turn into relics of a bygone time if rivals could circumvent restrictions with more powerful alternatives.

Traditional uses for tariffs include imposing costs on rival companies, ensuring trade priorities, and safeguarding home industries. But, DeepSeek’s success casts question on whether these measures can also achieve their planned outcomes in an age of swift innovation. &nbsp,

China’s advancement was slowed by the US’s policy of restricting access to crucial tools like advanced semiconductors. Alternatively, it has good accelerated Beijing’s modern push, demonstrating the unintended consequences of an depending on disciplinary measures.

If more companies adopt DeepSeek’s strategy, the need for high-end US cards was drop, more eroding America’s liquidity in international markets. These outcomes now have a ripple effect.

The Nasdaq 100 has experienced strong falls, Western tech stocks are slipping, and market sentiment is a sign of growing unease over Silicon Valley’s ability to maintain its position as the leader in the Artificial supply chain.

Trump’s proposed 60 % tax danger highlights Washington’s battle to adapt its guidelines to a world that is increasingly defined by technical aplomb.

Although these steps may have the potential to strengthen the US, they also run the risk of isolating it from a rapidly expanding global business. Competitors like China are proving adept at finding ways to overpower financial and other considerations, leaving Washington’s techniques looking obsolete and responsive.

Day for a serious rethink

DeepSeek’s fall is a wake-up contact for US politicians. Tariffs may have once been a useful tool for shaping international business dynamics, but they are extremely unfit for the challenges of a world driven by development. If the US wants to maintain leadership in important industries, it must reevaluate its financial strategies.

More convincing approaches are encouraging domestic innovation, funding research and development, and encouraging international collaboration than doubling down on disciplinary measures.

The emphasis should move from imposing restrictions on rivals to fostering domestic growth and development. Without these modifications, the US runs the risk of losing ground in the world’s battle for modern supremacy.

DeepSeek’s victory is not just a step for China—it’s a reminder for America. If Washington continues to move on tariffs as its main tool of financial control, it will consider itself extremely sidelined in a world where development, not restriction, drives power, wealth and growth.

Continue Reading

The open secret behind DeepSeek’s success – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

It has become popular among Western analysts to speculate about the economic “miracle “‘s demise.

Slowing development, a worried real estate sector, and demographic shifts are frequently used as indicators of the situation. This tale has been further fueled by conflicts with the US, particularly during the previous two services.

Yet the photo is far more complex. Washington has so far avoided the broadest taxes and actions that his campaign speech suggested were a done deal under the administration of President Donald Trump.

However, three times before his commencement, Trump remarked:” I anticipate that we will solve many issues along, starting straight away. We talked about business balance, Fentanyl, TikTok, and several different topics. President Xi and I will do everything in our power to improve peace and security around the world.

These remarks suggest an implicit acknowledgement that China’s market is evolving, no collapsing – and that the United States, despite its speech, understands Beijing’s structural swings.

State-led rise to private-sector vitality

China’s first success was really driven by export-led production and state-owned weighty industry. Now, more than 65 of the 69 Taiwanese companies on the Fortune Global 500 are state-owned.

In recent years, Beijing has pushed for SOE mergers to boost “national warriors”, particularly in strategic areas. At a glance, such deeds might strengthen the tale of status dominance.

Yet the earth is evidently shifting. In the late 1990s, state-owned enterprises ( SOEs ) accounted for more than half of China’s industrial output. Nowadays, they produce almost 30 %. Private companies have become the website of productivity gains and job creation in the economy.

More than 60 % of GDP and more than 50 % of tax revenue are now made up by private companies. Consumption, long overshadowed by investment and exports, has risen in importance – from 35 % of GDP a decade ago to nearly 55 % by 2023.

By enabling greater access to medical facilities and improved funding options, innovative policies support private players. The goal is simple: maintain proper state control while utilizing the private sector’s vitality.

DeepSeek: technology with Chinese features

An example of this private-sector vitality is DeepSeek, founded by hedge fund manager Liang Wenfeng. A groundbreaking AI system developed on a relatively small budget, the company recently unveiled its R1 large language model ( LLM).

DeepSeek’s path challenges the notion that Chinese businesses rely only on state-driven technology. Instead, its story highlights the ability of the private sector to overcome local obstacles and physical limitations.

DeepSeek made novel teaching methods and “pure reasoning capabilities” without any controlled data, while rejecting the usual model of enormous resource investment seen in America. This is a step taken in the direction of an impressive path that deviates quickly from European norms.

DeepSeek developed unique marketing techniques to completely apply less strong GPUs, a miracle that has surprised US researchers because of hardware restrictions imposed by sanctions.

Using only 2, 048 Nvidia H800 GPUs and US$ 5.6 million, it trained a unit with 671 billion guidelines – close to efforts by British giants like as OpenAI and Google, which usually spend multiples of that number.

For Beijing, modern self-reliance has long been an economic feature of strategic goal. At a recent conference of companies with Premier Li Qiang, China’s second-most powerful chief, the communication was blunt:” Focus efforts to break through key main systems”.

DeepSeek’s victory coincides with this perspective. The company’s “local-first” method, which places its employees with PhDs from Foreign universities, best exemplifies Beijing’s wider plan to cut down on foreign tech while cultivating local talent. It is a part of a larger effort to create a self-sustaining development ecosystem that can withstand forces from both the world and the world.

From council lines to systems

Yet now, China’s economic development is usually misconstrued as a shift away from production. In fact, it is a move up the value chain.

The region continues to utilize its great developing skills, built over years, to occupy high-tech sectors such as renewable energy, electric cars and AI. DeepSeek’s increase mirrors the broader path of corporations like Huawei and ByteDance, which have transformed from followers into global entrepreneurs.

At the same time, China leads the world in AI-related patents and boasts one of the largest pools of graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. More than 40 % of GDP is made up of the country’s digital economy, led by e-commerce giants Alibaba and JD.com.

Newcomers like DeepSeek are pushing the limits by demonstrating that even global-scale AI can be produced on smaller budgets when combined with the right combination of technical expertise and business acumen.

One of the most critical, yet sometimes overlooked, aspects of China’s continued economic strength is its unrivaled industrial and production base. This ecosystem, painstakingly built over decades of export-led growth, is not simply about low-cost assembly.

It is a vast, integrated network of suppliers, logistics hubs, specialized clusters and infrastructure that supports a range of high-value industries.

  1. Scale and Integration
    China’s network of factories is unmatched in terms of breadth and depth. From basic components to sophisticated semiconductor machinery, the country’s supply chain spans virtually every sector. Clusters of specialized suppliers allow companies to iterate quickly, reduce costs, and rapidly scale up production. This structural advantage has proven invaluable in high-growth areas like electric vehicles, batteries, and consumer electronics.
  2. Robust Infrastructure
    A highly effective transportation network that streamlines the flow of goods has been the result of massive public investments in roads, rails, and ports. China has a lot to do with maintaining its reputation as the “world’s factory” because of its ability to move large amounts of materials across long distances at affordable prices. In turn, this infrastructure underpins the development of cutting-edge sectors—from biotech to AI hardware.
  3. Economies of Scale and Rapid Prototyping
    Nowhere else can businesses move as quickly and affordably from concept to mass production as they can in China. Thanks to a dense network of component suppliers, R&amp, D centers, and testing facilities, Chinese firms can compress development cycles, a vital advantage in fast-moving fields such as renewables and advanced electronics. This synergy fuels innovation by allowing ideas to be tested, refined, and brought to market quickly.
  4. Policy Support for Upgrading
    Beijing actively promotes the modernization of traditional manufacturing. Initiatives like” Made in China 2025″ channel resources into high-tech industries, including robotics, aerospace, and new energy vehicles. These regulations also promote collaboration between SOEs and private companies, fostering innovation while protecting crucial sectors. The end result is a manufacturing ecosystem that is constantly moving up the value chain, as demonstrated by the success of businesses like DeepSeek, which profit from local suppliers of AI hardware and services.

This industrial backbone is more than just a piece of China’s past; it serves as a fundamental framework for the onset of its economic transformation. Companies developing large language models, EV batteries, or green technologies can tap into a powerful base of suppliers, technicians, and engineers, enabling them to iterate faster and scale more efficiently than competitors elsewhere.

China’s ability to move toward cutting-edge industries without giving up its manufacturing roots is supported by this synergy.

Against this backdrop, predictions of China’s imminent downfall appear short-sighted. The country’s current challenges, such as high youth unemployment and the real estate sector’s recalibration, are significant but not unique. When at comparable stages of development, major economies have experienced similar transitions.

When America’s GDP was roughly China’s current size, it grew at an average of 2.4 % annually. By contrast, China posted growth rates of 5.4 % in 2023, 5 % in 2024 and is projected to maintain 4%-5 % growth through 2025.

These figures, while lower than the double-digit expansions of the past, remain impressive for an economy of China’s scale. And with a GDP per capita of$ 12, 970 – significantly below the U. S. level of$ 83, 000 – China still has ample room for” catch-up” growth, especially as it invests more in education, innovation and domestic consumption.

Moreover, even incremental growth in a$ 17 trillion economy adds substantially to global GDP. Beijing appears committed to laying the groundwork for a more stable economic model, one that is more in tune with the burgeoning middle class of some 400 million people, by embracing structural reforms, encouraging private sector innovation, and unlocking household wealth.

Made in the USA, remade in China

Dismissing China’s economy as having “peaked” overlooks its ongoing metamorphosis. The growth of businesses like DeepSeek highlights the entrepreneurial spirit of China’s private sector in fostering innovation and overcoming constraints from outside.

The accomplishments of DeepSeek serve as a framework for a wider narrative of resilience, where challenges are neither insurmountable nor a sign of unavoidable decline.

A more nuanced perspective reveals China’s transition from an export-driven, investment-heavy model to one centered on domestic consumption and technological innovation. Its extensive manufacturing base is being upgraded and redeployed to support a high-tech future, far from being abandoned.

This evolution is a sign of China’s resilience, ingenuity, and capacity for reinvention, traits that continue to shape the opportunities for others in the global economy.

Marcus Loh is a director at Temus, a Singapore-based company that offers digital transformation services. He is responsible for Step IT Up’s business affairs, marketing, and strategic communications.

He was formerly the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore’s President, and he is currently a member of the SG Tech, the largest trade association for Singapore’s technology sector ,’s digital transformation chapter.

Continue Reading

Making sense of Musk in the White House – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

In the new Trump presidency, Elon Musk has gained a reputation as one of the most powerful and contentious powerbrokers. He campaigned alongside Donald Trump throughout the nation and contributed at least US$ 277 million of his own funds to his success.

What does the world’s richest people hope to receive in return from this substantial investment of time and money? Criticism has raised the question of whether Musk’s support for Trump is merely a simple business transaction, with Musk anticipating receiving political favors.

Or does it represent Musk’s personal fairly held social views, and probably personal political ambition?

From left to alt-right

It’s challenging to understand and track how Musk’s social beliefs have changed over time. He’s difficult to pin down, mostly by style.

Musk’s present X supply, for instance, is a bewildering mixture of far-right conspiracy theories about emigration, clips of liberal economist Milton Friedman notice about the dangers of prices, and advertisements for Tesla.

Previously, Musk claims to have been a left-libertarian. He says he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.

Musk claims that as the Democratic party has shifted more to the left over time, giving him a more skewed political outlook than the Democratic party.

Essential to Musk’s political change, at least by his own accounts, is his alienation from his trans child, Vivian Jenna Wilson. After Vivian’s change, Musk claimed she was “dead, killed by the woke thinking virus”. She is very much intact.

He’s since frequently signaled his opposition to trans rights and gender-affirming attention, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies more widely.

However, if the mere presence of a transgender man in his home was enough to elicit a political hegemony, Musk was already on a far-right path.

It makes more sense to understand Musk’s changing politics as part of a much more recent phenomenon known as” the libertarian to alt-right pipeline” than to react to a change in the Democratic Party.

The political technology, explained

Left-wing and right-wing ideologies have previously been the norm.

Left libertarian help monetary policies of limited state, such as cutting taxes and social spending, and restructuring more widely. This is combined with liberal social procedures, such as wedding justice and drug legalization.

By comparison, right-libertarians support the same set of financial plans but hold liberal social landscapes, such as opposing abortion right and celebrating loyalty. The Libertarian Party in America has previously adopted a tense middle ground between the two wires.

The previous century, although, has seen the Libertarian Party, and libertarian more frequently, walk firmly to the right. In particular, some libertarians have played leading jobs in the alt-right activity.

The alt-right or “alternative correct” refers to the new resurgence of far-right social activities opposing diversity, gender equality and diversity, and supporting white patriotism.

The alt-right is a very website movement with its top activists renowned for “edgelording” and “internet trolling,” which is the posting of content that is questionable and provocative to purposefully stoke debate and garner attention.

Though some libertarians have resisted the move of the alt-right, many have been swept along the network, including notable leaders in the action.

Musk Nazi parades

Despite the chaotic posts and Nazi parades, this theoretical discussion can be useful in understanding what Musk’s principles are.

In financial terms, Musk remains a limited-government republican. He advocates lowering fees, lowering government spending, and repealing restrictions, particularly those that restrict his company’s ability to operate.

These objectives are the focus of his formal role as head of the” Department of Government Efficiency” ( also known as DOGE ) in the Trump administration. Musk has suggested that in cutting government spending, he will particularly target diversity, equity and inclusion ( DEI ) initiatives. This is the alt-right impact on screen.

Alt-right tastes are most noticeable, yet, in Musk’s net image. Musk has purposefully stoked discussion on X by promoting and engaging with light nationalists and racist conspiracy theories.

For instance, he has strongly spoken to far-right figures who support the racist” Great Replacement theory.” According to this theory, Jews are urging mass movement to the world’s north as part of a deliberate effort to eradicate the white race.

More late, Musk has endorsed the far-right in Germany. Additionally, he’s shared clips from well-known white supremacists that detail the prejudiced” Muslim grooming groups” crime theory in the United Kingdom.

Whether Musk really believes these absurd prejudiced conspiracy theories is, in many ways, useless.

Instead, Musk’s public comments are better understood as reflecting scientist Harry Frankfurt’s popular concept of “bullshit“. For Frankfurt, “bullshit” refers to statements made to impress or enrage, in which the speaker is merely uninterested in whether or not the statement is accurate.

Much of Musk’s online persona is part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy, upset” the left”, and then claim to be a persecuted victim when criticised.

Theory vs practice

Though Musk’s public statements might fit nicely into contemporary libertarianism, there are always contradictions when putting ideology into practice.

For example, despite Musk’s oft-stated preference for limited government, it’s well documented that his companies have received extensive subsidies and support from various governments.

Under a president who is primarily transactional, like Trump, Musk anticipates that this special treatment will continue.

The vexed issue of immigration also presents some contradictions.

Both Trump and Musk repeatedly criticized immigration to the US throughout the campaign. According to Musk, the far-right Great Replacement theory’s themes were reversed when Musk claimed that Democrats had purposefully “replace” the country’s existing electorate with” compliant illegals.”

Musk has argued that Trump should continue to have types of skilled immigration, such as H1-B visas, after the election. This angered more explicit white supremacists, such as Trump advisor Laura Loomer.

Musk’s motives in arguing for the visas are not humanitarian. Temporary workers can enter the country for up to six years with H1-B visas, which leave them entirely dependent on the sponsoring organization. It’s a situation some have called “indentured servitude“.

These visas have been extensively used in the technology sector, including in businesses controlled by both Trump and Musk.

An unsteady alliance

What else can we anticipate from Musk now that he has both political standing and influence?

Musk claimed that Musk’s plan to use DOGE to reduce the US budget by$ 2 trillion would represent a revolutionary change in government. It also seems highly unlikely.

Expect Musk to concentrate instead on provoking debate by reversing DEI initiatives and other politically sensitive initiatives, like those that promote women’s reproductive rights.

Musk will undoubtedly make use of his political influence to protect the interests of his businesses. Following Trump’s re-election, Tesla’s shares reached record highs, suggesting that Musk will be a significant financial beneficiary of the second Trump administration.

In the end, Musk will undoubtedly make the most of his new position to keep himself visible in the general public. This crucial point could cause Musk to conflict with Trump, who is an expert in shaping the media cycle.

Apparently, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have already got into a fight, and they will no longer co-lead DOGE together.

It’s still to be seen how stable the partnership between Trump and Musk is, and whether the two billionaires ‘ egos and goals can still coexist.

If the alliance persists, it will play a significant role in shaping what many people refer to as the “new gilded age” of political corruption and rising inequality.

Henry Maher is lecturer in politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

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

Continue Reading

China’s EVs driving world into the post-carbon energy era – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Electric cars made up more than 50 % of all vehicles sold in China last year, making it China’s largest EV market by much.

The EV and NEV market expansion is having a good effect on the air quality in major Chinese cities. Significant improvements have been made to the Air Quality Index ( AQI ) in Shanghai, Guangzhou, and other major Chinese cities.

Chinese EV producers are quickly expanding abroad. 80 % of all Vehicles produced in China were sold globally next year. Some EVs from illustrious manufacturers like Ford, Nissan, and Kia are produced in China or depend on Chinese manufacturers for essential components like batteries. China accounts for 75 % of the country’s power battery manufacturing capability.

In the past ten years, the Taiwanese government has provided more than US$ 200 billion to support its EV sector. The purchase was a part of China’s plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.

The government also uses incentives to boost the development of chargers, wind turbine, solar panels and other natural software. More renewable energy sources are developed than combined by the rest of the world.

The Taiwanese and international auto industries are being transformed by the EV sales explosion. Sales of most legacy ( internal combustion engines ) car makers are cratering, in some cases by over 10 % a year.

Manufacturing facilities and showrooms for a number of Chinese manufacturers of internal combustion engines ( ICE ) vehicles are closing. Yet renowned brands are struggling. Porche is closing 35 of its 138 showrooms in China.

Share of New Energy Vehicles ( NEVs ). Some researchers predict that in 2030, ICE’s share of the market will become smaller. Image Copyright © Berylls.

China’s EV sector was created wholly using Chinese manufacturing technology. The sector is diagonally integrated, and freelancing is minimized. Horizontal inclusion leads to considerable advantages in excellent power, speed, and price. Foreign EVs are, on average, half the price of EVs produced in international markets.

China’s top-selling model Ford has taken vertical connectivity to a new stage. From the transportation of vehicles across the world to the mine of raw materials, the auto giant has control. The business owns sodium mines, manufactures battery packs, and runs an EV insurance provider that covers every aspect of the supply chain for electric vehicles.

Earlier this month the firm launched the BYD Shenzhen, its fifth auto ship. The vehicle has a power of 9, 200 electrical cars.

BYD vehicle ship with a power of 9, 200 vehicles. Photo © BYD

International disruption

The electricity of freedom, the biggest disruption in the background of the car industry, is shaking up the global auto market. While Foreign EVs are rapidly expanding worldwide, opening factories abroad, or transferring existing businesses from tradition makers, almost all other car manufacturers are experiencing difficulties. &nbsp,

BYD, which recently acquired a Ford shop in Brazil, is building new crops in Hungary and Turkey. Chery Auto, a joint venture between China and EV Motors, started producing Vehicles in Barcelona. Prior to that, Great Wall Motors purchased General Motors vegetation in India and Thailand.

Japanese manufacturers are also in surrender. Due to the rapid shift toward electric vehicles and increased competition from nearby automakers, a number of Chinese automakers have stepped down or shut down operations in China. Nissan halted production at its Foreign flower, and Mitsubishi withdrew from the Chinese market. In addition to reducing its production power, Honda is facing declining sales in China.

According to unverified press accounts, Chinese EV designers also have their eye on Germany, the center of German car manufacturing. In 2027, Volkswagen intends to stop producing goods at its Dresden and Osnabruck plants. Chinese automakers BYD, Leapmotor, and Chery Auto are said to be looking into possible acquisitions for the European species.

Foreign car manufacturers would have better access to EU production facilities to avoid International tariffs on imported electric vehicles from China and increase their presence there. The EU Commission announced tariffs of up to 37 % on Chinese cars last October in addition to the already 10 %.

Given German concerns about the culture, it is ironic to raise the cost of Chinese electric vehicles in the EU, but it is also a repeat of the earlier car conflicts with Japan. In the 1980s, some European countries and the US resorted to” Voluntary Export Restraints” to offer Western carmakers time to catch up with Japan’s” Just-In-Time” manufacturing systems.

In October next month, Brussels raised the stakes with Beijing. It made new regulations that may involve the transfer of technology between Chinese EV manufacturers based in EU countries. A significant role reversal occurs when international companies investing in production systems are required to reveal their systems with their Chinese partners in the 1980s.

Decline our business reveal of European carmakers. Japanese manufacturers show a similar drop. Illustration Copyright © Bloomberg

With what appears to be an unsurmountable result, transferring or sharing technology would not be a problem for Chinese EV manufacturers.

Vehicle industry experts believe that Chinese EV manufacturers are 10 to 15 times ahead of the rest of the world, according to John Bozella, leader of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Sam Evans of the Electric Viking website. It may create Vehicles in the Union with five-year-old technology.

The February elections in Germany may have a lot of impact. It would be difficult to stop Foreign output in Germany. European automakers have been operating plants in China for a long time. Ford, much the top-selling company in China, earns 50 % of its revenue in China. German’s premium models Mercedes Benz and BMW have also benefited from the Chinese business.

Energy move

Foreign companies addressed one of the last issues with EV batteries: the battery life and collection. CATL, the world’s largest battery maker, announced the production of an EV device that will last 15 years or one million yards.

CATL warrants that the device may have 85 % potential loyalty after the warranty expires and offers a 10-year or 600, 000-mile insurance. The batteries can be used again to store power in a home. &nbsp,

The need for petroleum products has decreased as a result of the explosion of the EV business. China’s refined oil consumption peaked in 2023, according to China National Petroleum Corporation ( CNPC ), and it is now anticipated to decline. The number of gas stations is declining, as is the need for fuel.

Shell, the world’s largest oil company, intends to shut down 1.000 of its petrol stations in China. The business installed 70, 000 people charging facilities in the nation by 2025 and built an EV charging station with 258 batteries in Shenzhen.

More than 20 000 charging facilities will be constructed in 420 Chinese cities in collaboration with Automotive manufacturer Xpeng. The latest (600-watt ) systems can charge car batteries in under 8 minutes.

Chinese EV makers export mostly mid-sized sedans but produce a wide range of EV vehicles, from micro cars with a price tag of under$ 10, 000 to high-performance” supercars” priced at over$ 200, 000 as well as electric bikes.

In Shanghai, the number of electric light riders reached over 10 million in 2022, which means that one in every 2.5 persons owns an e-bike.

EV microcar retailing for under$ 10.000 and an EV” supercar” with a price tag of over$ 200, 000.

To be sure, EVs are no cure for all of the nation’s economic issues. However, the world is quickly approaching the post-carbon power age, combined with the exponential rise in clean power generation.

China is the core of this natural change. China produces half of the world’s clean energy, in addition to leading the charge in thrilling mobility and producing green technologies like solar panels.

Western media has a habit of blatantly mentioning China as a source of global pollution while omitting the fact that Western businesses have been outsourcing their “dirty” production there for decades ( or that China’s population is twice that of the US and Europe combined ).

Green agreement

The EU Commission tussled with China over clean technology, including Vehicles, for almost a year before coming to the conclusion that China has “overcapacity” in green technology and that grants give it an “unfair benefits.”

The Commission could have just examined China’s federal environmental policies, which gave green technology equal priority over agriculture, as the EU did. &nbsp,

Despite its problems for the environment, the EU continues to support its agricultural industry. Agriculture is the main source of waste in Europe, according to the European Environment Agency, primarily due to its acid emissions, which are generally brought on by the use of livestock manure and fertilizer. &nbsp,

Between 2023 and 2027, the Union subsidized its agricultural sector with 264 billion dollars. The Union exports about 230 billion dollars in agricultural goods annually, more than its exports of 180 billion dollars. About 6 % of European agricultural “overproduction”, for about$ 16 billion annually, is exported to China.

Both parties can benefit from China upgrading European automobile manufacturing. China may expand its international footprints, and Europe may speed up its green revolution. Likewise, Europe gets access to manufacturing systems that will identify 21st-century flexibility. After years of outsourcing, car manufacturing is the last remnant of Europe’s mass production of consumer products.

Continue Reading

Putin’s obsession with total victory crimps Trump’s peace promise – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Donald Trump has already refuted his claim that he will resolve the Ukraine issue within the first 24 hours of business.

Trump’s counselors have then acknowledged that the conflict in Ukraine can’t be easily negotiated, just as he once said he would fix the US medical problems quickly and then backtracked to saying “nobody knew that heath care was thus complicated.” Trump’s” skill of the offer” does not really work in the real world of conflict solution.

Trump’s original intention was to provide further military support to Ukraine to deter further Russian aggression. This may encourage it to bring up the topic of the board.

Stopping aid to Ukraine might be a different tactic to help it deal. Trump would demand that Ukraine surrender its territory and establish an 800-mile demilitarized buffer zone ( to be guarded by NATO or European troops ) once “peace talks” started.

Trump is friendly to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that joining NATO poses a menace to Russian protection. Therefore, Ukraine would have to give up on aspired to actually join the local security bloc.

Russia, in turn, may get big restrictions pleasure, while a portion of the proceeds from&nbsp, tariffs&nbsp, on Russian energy imports would become allocated to&nbsp, Ukraine.

Trump’s peace plan was engineered by Russia-Ukraine special envoy Keith Kellogg ( a highly decorated three-star general ), who recently canceled an upcoming trip to Kyiv. Trump has already indicated that he wants to speak with Putin in order to “get the war over with.”

The biggest challenge is that Putin does not really want to make a deal, despite the plan’s numerous obstacles. Yes, in October, Russia was losing 1, 500 troops a day and the country was, and still is, struggling to recruit men.

With the onslaught of severe sanctions and being forced to spend tens of billions of dollars on defense rather than other government services, the Russian economy has had to deal with a lot.

All of this is irrelevant because Putin is so obsessed with Ukraine and her eventual victory. Russia might even be in a recession, as has been predicted in 2025, but that would still not be enough to force it to accept any compromise.

Putin categorically opposes Ukraine becoming a sovereign state. He either wants to control or destroy it. A weaker or nonexistent Ukraine would be a major blow to the United States ‘ position as a strongman in Russia, as well as a positive one for Putin’s legacy.

Unsurprisingly, Russia has already rejected the US’s unofficial suggestions, despite the fact that it has not yet seen an official statement on the subject. Putin favors serving as president during the war, and many Russians are willing to accept this new normal when they are under attack by oppression and inspired by patriotism.

Russia’s lack of compromise

Russia doesn’t think it needs to compromise. Putin is aware that he is much more determined than the West to defend Ukraine.

There are undoubtedly indications of fatigue in Europe for continuing to support Ukraine. In a YouGov poll of seven European countries ( France, Italy, Spain, Germany, the UK, Sweden and Denmark ), continuing support for Ukraine until Russia withdrew was found to be as low as 31 % on average, compared with around 40 % for encouraging a negotiated end to fighting, even if Ukraine lost territory.

In addition, lawmakers and the general public are exhausted in the US. Therefore, Congress, which is currently largely governed by the Republican party, may object to the provision of additional weapons to Ukraine.

In 2023, Republican opposition to Ukraine’s support already caused enormous delays. And while Republicans in Congress have been waning in favor of keeping the aid levels in Ukraine despite the Biden administration’s recent announcement of a new tranche of US$ 500 million, which is a portion of a total of$ 175 billion since the 2022 invasion.

This largely reflects the sentiments of the American public. In a Gallup poll conducted in December 2024, 48 % of people support US aiding Ukraine in regaining control of the land lost to Russia, marking the first time this percentage has fallen below the majority.

Support for Ukraine is also incredibly polar, with 74 % of Republicans and 30 % of Democrats wanting to end the conflict right away. Additionally, 67 % of Republicans think the US is doing too much.

Ultimately, it is likely there will be no peace deal any time soon because Trump does not really care about Ukraine, and doesn’t understand foreign policy. Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican congressman, recently claimed that Trump pursued foreign policy in the manner of a” three-year-old.”

Trump cares more about impressing Putin ( or being seen as a deal-maker ) than supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty. His vice-president, J. D. Vance, has been more direct about it, stating in 2022:” I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another”. This view could have a devastating effect on willingness, and commitment, to negotiate.

According to analysis by US historian Robert Kagan, without US aid, Ukraine will lose the war within the next 12-to-18 months. Yet, for every square mile Russia gains, it loses 40 men – a heavy price to pay ( Ukraine’s total area is 233, 100 square miles ).

The initial proclamations that Trump would resolve the Ukraine crisis in 24 hours were campaign bluster that showed little awareness of the conflict’s intrusibility and the difficulties of establishing a new administration.

A few weeks ago, Trump stated that part of his plan “is a surprise“. The surprise factor extends beyond the general public. Perhaps Trump has no idea what his next steps will be when it comes to putting an end to this conflict. And that could play perfectly into Putin’s hands.

Natasha Lindstaedt is professor in the department of government, University of Essex

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

Continue Reading

Yes, reshoring US industry is possible and happening – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Reshoring the British business has become a nonpartisan policy goal because Biden had a lot of interest in it. The concept has always been met with skepticism from a variety of angles.

Anything that involves tariffs and/or professional policies is viewed with suspicion by some economists and completely traders. And politics being what it is in America, both Republicans and Democrats have undoubtedly doubted the capacity of the other party to fulfill their promises. But in addition, I typically encounter a healthy skepticism about America’s skill to perform manufacturing&nbsp, at all.

Americans may be forgiven for having this idea. Most of our lived knowledge has either been the Rust Belt time of the 1980s, or&nbsp, the charged offshoring&nbsp, of the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. America has not had a factory-building increase in a very long time.

On top of that, most people who take economics in America know only one theory of global business, which is the principle of&nbsp, analytical advantage&nbsp, — generally, the idea that countries specialize in whatever they are best at. Because of the decades-long trend, it’s reasonable to assume that America focuses on technology and service rather than producing real goods.

If you think that, you likely think that reshoring production will always be a difficult, if not impossible, task. Sure, with sufficient taxes and grants we could&nbsp, force&nbsp, Americans to get more expensive products made in America, but this will render us all poorer. Why not concentrate on what we appear to be good at and left manufacturing to the East Asians and perhaps the Germans?

And still the right way to think about business isn’t always the best one. There ‘s&nbsp, another theory&nbsp, that says that since America has tons of money and technology, we can accomplish a lot of automatic production. And there ‘s&nbsp, but another theory&nbsp, that says that because the universe loves multitude, the US can produce near variations of the stuff the Asians and Europeans make.

Since the turn of the century, the US has experienced underdevelopment, which may have been due to an overvalued exchange rate, intentional Chinese rivals, and US business laws that favored the financial industry over the manufacturing industry.

The common belief that Americans just aren’t good at making stuff seems contradicted by areas in which we are &nbsp, startlingly good at making stuff&nbsp, — for example, SpaceX, which is pumping out the world’s best rockets from US factories in stunningly high volumes. The American South has also become a hub of high-quality auto manufacturing, with the help of Japanese and South Korean investment.

If that’s true, then reshoring has a chance. Although the uncompetitive dollar will continue to be a major issue, tariffs and other trade barriers can prevent Chinese competition, and US industrial policies can switch from pro-finance to pro-manufacturing ones. In fact, this approach is already bearing fruit in a number of strategic industries.

Take&nbsp, solar power, for instance. The collapse of US manufacturing and China’s overwhelming dominance for years served as the industry’s main story. In&nbsp, an article in Bloomberg&nbsp, last September, David Fickling lamented:

The US and Europe’s disregard for their own clean-tech industries is the result of myopic corporate leadership, timid financing, oligopolistic complacency, and policy chaos. That left a gap that Chinese start-ups filled, sprouting like saplings in a forest clearing.

But even before that story hit the presses, things had already begun to change. In December, the Solar Energy Industry Association &nbsp, reported&nbsp, that US solar manufacturing capabilities are on the rise:

In 2017, the US ranked 14th in the world for solar panel manufacturing capacity. With a focus in the South, additional factories started popping up all over the nation with an emphasis on expanding existing facilities starting in 2018 and then accelerating in 2022. Today, the US has leapfrogged competitors and ranks 3rd in manufacture of solar panels, passing large solar manufacturing countries like Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Turkey…A new report by SEIA and Wood Mackenzie found that the industry had reached a critical threshold:

US solar manufacturing has reached a critical point following a record-setting Q3. American solar module factories can now produce enough to meet nearly all the demand for solar in the US when they are at full capacity.

As more solar deployment happens, more manufacturing will come online…Companies are investing billions of dollars to produce American-made solar panels in states like Georgia, Ohio, Texas, Washington, South Carolina, and Alabama…]T] here are more factories on the way, either announced or under construction.

Although it is obvious that the US is still far behind China, this growing trend of production and self-sufficiency is very different from the typical narrative you hear. As the article notes, the reshoring of solar began in the late 2010s, under Trump, and may have had something to do with Trump’s tariffs on solar panels. A second round of tariffs, courtesy of Biden, went into effect near the end of 2024, and definitely seemed to have an effect on solar imports:

Source: &nbsp, Joey Politano

However, Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act was the real catalyst for solar reshoring:

Source: SEIA

For another example, look at&nbsp, semiconductors. I ‘ve&nbsp, written a lot&nbsp, about how the CHIPS Act has galvanized U. S. production in this most strategic of all industries, including major investments from Taiwan and elsewhere. This is from&nbsp, a recent report&nbsp, by the CHIPS Program Office:

Over the past four years, there has been more investment in electronics manufacturing in the United States than in the last three decades combined. Plans for investments totaling nearly$ 450 billion are now available, making this the largest wave of semiconductor manufacturing growth in US history. This includes the two largest domestic investments in semiconductor manufacturing by US companies in history ( Intel and Micron ), as well as the two largest foreign direct investments in new projects by any company in history ( TSMC and Samsung ) …Perhaps most significantly, for the first time, all five of the world’s leading-edge logic and dynamic random-access memory ( DRAM ) manufacturers ( Intel, Micron, Samsung, SK hynix, and TSMC) are building and expanding in the United States. In contrast, no other country’s economy has more than two of these factories working there…

The United States is projected to produce at least 20 % of the world’s leading-edge logic chips by 2030 (up from zero percent in 2022 ) and ~10 % of its leading-edge DRAM chips by 2035 ( also up from zero percent ) —both technologies that are essential to the future of artificial intelligence ( AI), high-performance compute, and advanced military systems. For the first time in nearly a decade, a new factory in Arizona has begun producing these technologies domestically. This is the first time in almost a decade that a new factory has done so.

And The Economist, certainly no friend of industrial policy in general, has &nbsp, grudgingly admitted&nbsp, that US reshoring of the semiconductor industry is succeeding:

Early returns are impressive: the]CHIPS Act ] programme has catalysed about$ 450bn of private investments. And this money is spread across much of the industry, from high-tech packaging to memory chips. The most advanced chips, which are less than 10 nanometers in size, are a key indicator of success. In 2022 America made few such chips. By 2032 it is on track to have a share of 28 % of global capacity.

Foreign direct investment, especially from Taiwan’s TSMC, has been significant in the case of US auto manufacturing a generation earlier.

In early 2024, some poorly informed pundits were writing stories declaring that” DE I killed the CHIPS Act”, while&nbsp, others were wondering&nbsp, whether Americans had a culture capable of making chips. Those articles were spectacularly ill-timed — obstacles were quickly overcome, and the factory is now&nbsp, pumping out 4nm chips. Those are, by at least some measures, the most advanced semidconductors ever made on American soil.

And what’s more, those chips are being made with yields ( i. e., quality ) that are &nbsp, comparable to, or even higher than, what Taiwanese factories get. The notion that American workers couldn’t produce high-quality goods proved to be incorrect.

The cost of the chips made in the US is a little higher ( about 30 % more right now ), but that price difference will likely decrease as the demand increases and the chipmaking experience spreads throughout the nation.

In fact, the reshoring effort is going so well that TSMC is&nbsp, now planning&nbsp, to build even more cutting-edge chips at its US plants:

The effort to reshore semiconductors has so far been a huge success.

Batteries&nbsp, look like a third reshoring success. Currently, most batteries are produced in China, but the Inflation Reduction Act may be&nbsp, starting to turn things around:

Source: &nbsp, Canary Media

It’s not just factories being announced, either, production in the US is way up:

Source: &nbsp, Joey Politano

The reshoring of the solar, chip, and battery industries is direct criticism of the critics and evidence of American manufacturing’s viability.

Although these are only three different types of industries, they will undoubtedly facilitate the reshoring of those that are either producing these manufacturers or using their own resources. American reindustrialization isn’t just about a few key tentpole industries — it’s about a whole web of suppliers, customers, related industries, and talent.

Fortunately, we can already see this web starting to form in the US SEIA&nbsp, reports&nbsp, that America’s solar manufacturing boom isn’t just limited to the panels themselves, but related industries like solar tracker, solar inverters, and upstream materials production like wafers and ingots.

Meanwhile, the CHIPS Program Office&nbsp, reports&nbsp, that the semiconductor boom also includes downstream activities like packaging and testing. The Economist&nbsp, points out&nbsp, that this ecosystem, as well as the talent that gets developed for the CHIPS Act’s projects, will reduce costs and help sustain future expansion of chip manufacturing in America:

The subsidies have reduced the cost of building and running fabs in America by about 30 % compared to those in Asian nations. Because Asian governments give companies more money, their costs are lower in part.

However, Asian producers have also benefited from dense manufacturing clusters, which have well-trained workers and a large supply chain nearby. The goal is that CHIPS in America has initiated this process. ” It’s enough to get the flywheel going”, says ]outgoing Commerce Secretary Gina ] Raimondo.

Currently, it is largely a matter of political will and decency whether reshoring continues. If Donald Trump continues to criticize the solar industry or follows through on his previous threats to revoke the CHIPS Act, production could significantly shift back to China.

It would be ironic if a president who came to power and promised to revive American industry ended up being the one who put an end to our industrial revival.

This article was first published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion&nbsp, Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion&nbsp, subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading