iPhone in India: Foxconn to manufacture smartphones in Karnataka by April 2024
Getty ImagesApple’s biggest supplier Foxconn will start manufacturing iPhones in the southern Indian state of Karnataka by April next year, the state government has said.
The project will create around 50,000 jobs, it said.
Taiwan-based Foxconn manufactures the majority of Apple’s phones.
The firm has been making older versions of iPhones at a facility in the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu since 2017.
Last month, the company announced it had bought 1.2m sqm (13m sqft) of land near Bengaluru city in Karnataka.
Bloomberg reported Foxconn planned to invest $700m (£566m) on a new factory in the state. On Thursday, the Karnataka government said the project was valued at $1.59bn.
Land for the factory would be handed over to company by 1 July, it said in its statement.
According to Reuters, Foxconn has set a target of manufacturing 20 million iPhones a year at the plant in Karnataka.
Apple’s decision to manufacture their flagship model in India and diversify its supply chains away from China comes as trade tensions rise between Washington and Beijing.
Apple makes most of its phones in China. In India, iPhones are assembled by several Apple suppliers, including Foxconn. It currently accounts for 5% of total iPhone production.
The company struggled to compete in the Indian market which is dominated by the much cheaper South Korean and Chinese smartphones.
Apple CEO Tim Cook was in India in April to launch the country’s first two Apple stores.
BBC News India is now on YouTube. Click here to subscribe and watch our documentaries, explainers and features.
Read more India stories from the BBC:
In turbulent Indo-Pacific, Quad must hold firm â and act fast
At a recent meeting of the four members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue in Hiroshima, namely the United States, Japan, India, and Australia, leaders outlined a series of critical issue areas that continue to impact stability in the Indo-Pacific region.
These included the vulnerability of undersea Internet cables, the protection of vital sea lines of communication (SLOCs), and the broader preservation of a rules-based international order.
As the Group of Seven has provided the world’s richest countries the opportunity to talk tough on “economic coercion” on the part of China, so too should the Quad send an equally strong message about China’s territorial and maritime ambitions. To do that, it must get its house in order.
First, criticisms linger about the utility of the Quad’s informal arrangement and lack of strategic direction. It has no budget, nor do any formal codes of conduct or treaties guide its conduct.
Institutionalization of the Quad seems unlikely. Many suggest it is so informal that it appears to be just talk, rather than a credible, assertive security organization. Some have even suggested that the Quad’s informal ambitions would never be fully realized.
Most of these critiques are old and fail to chart the progress it has made in becoming a firm security anchor in the region, evidenced by China’s increased wariness and alarm about its long-term presence that ultimately threatens Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions.
The Quad must work to change perceptions among countries in the Indo-Pacific region about its intentions, without raising alarms. For example, while many Southeast Asian countries have viewed the Quad with considerable suspicion and worry, that is no longer the case.
A recent survey by the ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute found that 50% of Southeast Asian experts believed an enhanced Quad presence would be “constructive for the region,” while only 12% disagreed. Vietnam’s elevation to ”Quad Plus” status is indicative of a more receptive and agreeable Southeast Asia.
However, this must mean that the grouping cannot just be seen as an informal security organization, but a robust regional framework for cooperation within the wider Indo-Pacific region that includes not only new focus areas such as health and pandemic response, but the expansion of bread-and-butter areas such climate-change adaptation and mitigation, capacity-building, and security infrastructure development, particularly in the area of cybersecurity.
That does not mean security should be on the back burner. The challenge for the Quad is to find the right balance, where there is an awareness of Chinese aggression, but intelligent enough not to be provoked into missteps.
Comparable to what the Joint Statement of the Security Consultative Committee (“2+2”) between Japan and the US suggested, the Quad should work “to advance bilateral modernization initiatives to build a more capable, integrated, and agile alliance that bolsters deterrence and addresses evolving regional and global security challenges.”
ASEAN role crucial
Still, other challenges remain. The preservation of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) centrality is crucial to many of its member states, and is at the heart of the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP).
There are lingering concerns about the polarizing effects that US-China regional competition would bring and that consequently, they would be drawn deeper into great-power politics. Yet that does not preclude ASEAN states from developing significant partnerships with regional middle powers, such as Japan, India, Australia, or even Canada.
Quad countries should take advantage of some of this hegemonic rivalry to work with regional middle-income or small states to develop stronger bilateral relations. This is evident in Thailand’s nascent security partnership with Japan or its rapidly developing security and counterterrorism partnership with India.
There is some evidence that positive impressions among Indo-Pacific countries and Quad intentions toward regional partners are growing.
The Quad has been able to highlight its focus beyond rigid power politics to providing regional public goods, but it has also endeavored to incorporate crucial issue areas that resonate quite profoundly among ASEAN countries – and what was previously deemed a weakness, its informality, has contributed to its success.
The flexible design of the Quad reflects its members’ proactive understanding of the Indo-Pacific, a dynamic region that comprises countries of varied interests that share a common concern for formal military alliances.
To overcome the regional anxieties that have come with China’s ascent and geo-strategic posturing, the Quad must evolve. For some countries in the Indo-Pacific region, increased security posture by Quad countries is a liability, while for others it is a welcome relief.
Beijing’s attempts to dominate or accelerate its sphere of influence from the Indian Ocean to the waters of the Pacific have been met with mixed results, but where resistance has developed, it has come from both security and economic alternatives. For the Quad to be both of those things, it must act fast.
‘Relentless’ heatwaves scorch southern China, test power grids
Demand for electricity in southern manufacturing hubs, including Guangdong, has surged in recent days, with China Southern Power Grid, one of the country’s two grid operators, seeing peak power load exceeding 200 million kilowatts – weeks earlier than normal and close to historical highs. In recent days, the power loadContinue Reading
CelcomDigi launches 5G Booster with introductory offer
Prepaid users do not have a monthly payment option
Free for postpaid subscribers to plans above US$19.60
CelcomDigi Bhd yesterday announced its pricing for 5G access under the brand “5G Booster” for its prepaid and postpaid users.
Postpaid users have two options: get 5G with existing quota or 5G with additional quota.
Those subscribed to…Continue Reading
Donât underestimate Chinaâs ability to catch up with the West
Investment strategy: Not a time to play the hero
David Woo voices skepticism about the smooth passage of the debt ceiling deal and ponders the motivations behind Kevin McCarthy’s actions. He discusses the performance of GPM’s portfolio trades and a bullish outlook on gold due to the debt ceiling situation.
Ukraine: What next and to what effect?
Uwe Parpart questions the likelihood of a successful major offensive by Ukraine without air superiority and highlights the perspective of General Mark Milley, head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, who states that the war cannot be won militarily by Russia and predicts continued fighting until a settlement is negotiated.
The China bailout that wasn’t
David Goldman writes that while China’s post-Covid recovery has been below expectations, with weak consumption and property investment and an underperforming equity market, China’s exports to developing markets, especially in the auto sector, are showing strength, with China becoming the world’s largest auto exporter in April.
Russian air offensive intensifies as Ukraine grapples with stalemate
James Davis assesses that the war in Ukraine remains in a state of attrition, with Russian forces focusing on gradually weakening Ukrainian manpower and infrastructure. Both sides lack the readiness for large-scale offensives, leading to a probable continuation of the current stalemate with increased air and missile attacks.
China’s C919 passenger jet’s maiden voyage could invite US sanctions
Scott Foster writes that China’s COMAC could surpass Boeing to become China’s second-largest commercial aircraft supplier after its C919 passenger jet successfully completed its first commercial flight. There are concerns, however, that Washington may impose export restrictions on COMAC’s US suppliers.
Japan likely to benefit from ‘de-risking’ China, at least in the short run
Scott Foster believes US-imposed chip export restrictions are expected to have a limited impact on Japanese equipment makers in the short term, investments by TSMC, Micron and Rapidus in Japan’s semiconductor industry are anticipated to significantly enhance production capacity and technological sophistication.
Franco Mulakkal: Pope accepts resignation of bishop accused of rape
The Vatican has announced that it has accepted the resignation of an Indian bishop accused of raping a nun between 2014 and 2016.
Franco Mulakkal, 54, was the bishop of Jalandhar in the state of Punjab.
Mulakkal, who had denied the allegations, was found not guilty last year by a trial court in Kerala state.
The Vatican’s diplomatic representative in India said that an appeal against Mulakkal’s acquittal had been admitted in the high court in Kerala.
On Thursday, Mulakkal confirmed his resignation and thanked his supporters for standing by him in difficult times.
Given the “still divisive situation”, Mulakkal’s resignation was requested “for the good of the Jalandhar diocese” and to make way for a new bishop, the Vatican’s diplomatic representative said in a statement, The Times of India reported.
It was not a disciplinary action against Mulakkal, he said.
The Joint Christian Council, a federation of Christian organisations, said it welcomed the decision.
The nun who accused Mulakkal of rape belonged to the Missionaries of Jesus, a congregation in Kerala that is part of the Jalandhar diocese.
She had alleged that the bishop raped her 13 times and the assaults happened when he visited the convent where she lived in the city of Kottayam, in Kerala.
She petitioned the Vatican and wrote an open letter to the Pope’s representative in the Indian capital of Delhi in 2018 – which she claimed was her fourth letter to them.
This led to unprecedented protests by nuns and activists who came out in support of the woman.
Several other nuns who protested against the bishop had accused the church in Kerala as well as Vatican officials of turning a blind eye towards the rape allegations.
Mulakkal was arrested in Kerala in 2018. The Vatican had temporarily relieved the bishop of his duties.
In 2022, after he was acquitted by the trial court, the nun’s lawyers had said they would challenge the verdict in the high court.
BBC News India is now on YouTube. Click here to subscribe and watch our documentaries, explainers and features.
Read more India stories from the BBC:
India upgrading BrahMos to close missile gap with China
India plans to develop a new class of air-launched cruise missiles, ostensibly building the air-based leg of a nascent nuclear triad.
This month, Indian Air Chief Marshal Vivek Ram Chaudhari said that the air-launched, upgraded version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile and the upcoming BrahMos New Generation (BNG) are set to become the primary deterrent weapons of the Indian Air Force (IAF).
Chaudhari, the IAF’s chief of air staff, noted that combining the BrahMos with the Russian-made Su-30 fighter jet has enhanced India’s firepower and deterrent capabilities, claiming the combination has given India better strike capability and enhanced its firepower.
Chaudhari said that current conflicts had emphasized the importance of long-range precision firepower, making it imperative for India to develop a cheaper, smaller version of the air-launched BrahMos but with the same range and lethality.
China’s rapid military modernization may already have opened a missile gap with India. In particular, India is likely not capable of launching long-range offensive precision strikes on Chinese military bases, command centers and airfields as China has the capability to do to India.
Kartik Bommakanti notes in a 2020 Observer Research Foundation (ORF) paper that air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) have enormous advantages in the initial stages of a conflict, as they can eliminate air defenses and airfields. Moreover, Bommakanti mentions that ALCMs can be delivered at substantial standoff ranges, away from air defenses and fighter aircraft ranges.
He notes that China’s subsonic, turbofan-powered CJ-20 ALCM has a 1,500-kilometer range that can be extended to 4,000 kilometers when launched from an H-6K strategic bomber.
With that formidable range, Bommakanti says that the CJ-20 can be launched beyond India’s aerial interception and engagement capabilities. India has no fighters or air defense systems to engage targets at such extreme ranges, he notes.
China’s capabilities present a serious threat to India’s troop concentrations, equipment command and control facilities, airbases, and advanced landing grounds in Ladakh, northern India and across northeastern India.
Adding to India’s comparative disadvantage, China has already developed air-launched hypersonics. Last November, Asia Times reported on China’s new CM-401 air-launched hypersonic missile, which can reportedly travel at speeds of Mach 6 at up to 290 kilometers, launch into a near-space trajectory and maneuver at hypersonic speeds.
An air launch from an H-6K bomber would drastically improve the CM-401’s performance, increasing its range to 3,500 kilometers or more with aerial refueling. India currently has no match for the CJ-20 or CM-401, with its rival Nirbhay cruise missile known to face range and reliability problems.
Missile Threat notes that India’s Nirbhay has a range of 800 to 1,500 kilometers with a 450-kilogram payload and is primarily launched from land-based launchers, though some reports suggest that it can also be deployed on submarines.
Missile Threat notes that the Nirbhay suffered multiple launch failures in 2015, 2016 and 2020. These failures suggest the missile may need a protracted development period before being fielded in substantial numbers.
Although India has taken the initial steps to build a rocket force to deter China, there, too, it faces operational and strategic limitations that constrain its usefulness compared to ALCMs.
Last December, Asia Times reported on the establishment of the Indian Rocket Force (IRF) built around Pralay and Prithvi short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM), Shaurya and Prahaar road-mobile SRBMs and BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles.
However, the Pralay and Prithvi have ranges of just 150 to 500 kilometers and 150 to 350 kilometers, respectively. Moreover, India only has limited numbers of Shaurya and Prahaar road-mobile SRBMs, respectively with ranges of 750 kilometers and 150 kilometers. The high cost of the BrahMos at US$3.2-3.5 million per missile means India can only field them in small numbers.
While India has ballistic missiles such as the Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a 5,000-kilometer range that can hit targets in northern China, using ballistic missiles to attack targets deep in China may result in unintended and unpredictably dangerous escalation.
That is because it is difficult to distinguish between a conventional and nuclear ballistic missile attack. Moreover, most of India’s ballistic missiles are designed to deliver nuclear warheads, increasing the risk of nuclear escalation.
With Chaudhari saying that the BrahMos family of air-launched supersonic cruise missiles will become the IAF’s primary deterrent, India may be developing the air-based leg of a nascent nuclear triad.
India already operates the INS Arihant nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). In addition, it has a substantial land-based nuclear arsenal, with the introduction of a nuclear-tipped air-launched BrahMos completing India’s nuclear triad.
However, Joy Mitra notes in a September 2020 South Asian Voices article that while the BrahMos is designed to defeat China’s missile defenses, with a range of 800-1,000 kilometers that can be extended by 3,600 kilometers by the Su-30, India faces hurdles in making a nuclear-tipped version.
Mitra says that since BrahMos is a joint India-Russia project, Moscow’s consent is necessary to make a nuclear-armed BrahMos, especially since Russia makes the BrahMos’ seeker and propulsion systems.
Mitra also notes that nuclear-tipped BrahMos missiles present an ambiguity problem because they make it difficult for an adversary to tell whether a BrahMos-armed Su-30 carries a nuclear or conventional missile, which can lead to unintended nuclear escalation.
Developers generated US$1.1 tril through App Store ecosystem in 2022
90% of the billings and sales are without commission to Apple
Entertainment category saw highest growth in goods and services
An independent study by economists from Analysis Group found that the App Store ecosystem facilitated US$1.1 trillion (RM5.072 trillion) in developer billings and sales in 2022.
The economists from Analysis Group estimate that App…Continue Reading
US-China closer and closer to a no-talk sea clash
This week, the United States, Japan and the Philippines kicked off their first-ever joint coast guard drills in Manila Bay amid rising tensions in the South China Sea.
The exercises, featuring four Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) vessels along with a US Coast Guard cutter and a Japanese Coast Guard cruiser, are aimed at enhancing interoperability, search and rescue, and law enforcement capacity of the three allied nations, especially as the PCG confronts rising Chinese maritime intrusions.
The unprecedented coast drills are part of broader efforts by the US and its regional allies to check China’s rising maritime ambitions. Earlier this year, the Philippines, US, Australia and Japan conducted massive wargames in the Philippines. Following on, later this year naval forces from the Philippines, US and Australia are expected to conduct joint patrols in the contested South China Sea aimed at China.
The coast guard drills came just a day after the US Indo-Pacific command released footage that showed an “unnecessarily aggressive maneuver” by a Chinese J-16 fighter against US RC-135 Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft on May 26.
The Pentagon maintained that it was simply conducting “safe and routine operations” over the South China Sea but Beijing countered by accusing the US aircraft of posing a “serious danger” by “deliberately intrud[ing]” into China’s training exercises in the contested area.
Rising tensions in the maritime region have shadowed this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, where senior American and Chinese officials are expected to present their respective regional security architecture visions before the international community.
In a telltale sign of intensifying rivalry, Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu, who has been sanctioned by the US for alleged involvement in high-tech defense deals with Moscow, has reportedly turned down a proposed meeting with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on the sidelines of the high-profile defense confab.
Notwithstanding China’s deployment of a new envoy to Washington, Xie Feng, there is little indication of any diplomatic breakthrough. An emerging New Cold War could quickly turn into a hot water one absent a concerted effort by both superpowers to keep their rivalry on an even keel.
Fears of actual skirmishes were brought into sharp focus following yet another close encounter between the US and Chinese armed forces in the South China Sea.
Back in 2018, a Chinese warship maneuvered as close as 45 yards from the US Navy destroyer USS Decatur, risking direct confrontation. This time, a Chinese fighter partially intercepted a US reconnaissance aircraft by cutting directly cutting in front of the latter’s nose.
The aggressive maneuver created sufficient turbulence to rock the RC-135, underscoring how close the two superpowers have again come to blows over the disputed waters.
“The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate – safely and responsibly – wherever international law allows, and the US Indo-Pacific Joint Force will continue to fly in international airspace with due regard for the safety of all vessels and aircraft under international law,” the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) said in a statement, insisting on the legality of its operation in the area.
During a briefing in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning countered the US claims by instead accusing the Pentagon of inviting crisis through the regular deployment of spy planes into China’s claimed territories.
“The US’s provocative and dangerous moves are the root cause of maritime security issues. China urges the US to stop such dangerous provocations,” the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said.
The incident echoed the 2001 full collision between an American reconnaissance plane and Chinese fighter jet over the Hainan Island in the South China Sea, which led to one casualty and a full-blown diplomatic crisis.
In contrast to bilateral relations two decades earlier, when then-Chinese president Hu Jintao welcomed institutionalized bilateral dialogue with Washington, the two superpowers are currently locked in a brewing New Cold War with trade and tech war components.
A whole host of bilateral strategic dialogues were suspended following diplomatic tensions in the wake of former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to the self-governing island of Taiwan last August. A highly-promising summit between US President Joe Biden and Chinese paramount leader Xi Jinping last November raised hopes of a thaw between the two sides.
But the Biden administration’s decision to shoot down a Chinese spy balloon flying over sensitive facilities in mainland America deflated earlier hopes of restoring frayed communication channels.
This week, China reportedly rebuffed efforts to arrange a meeting between Defense Secretary Austin to meet with his Chinese counterpart Li at the Shangri-La Dialogue Security Forum in Singapore this week.
“Frankly, it’s just the latest in a litany of excuses. Since 2021, the PRC has declined or failed to respond to over a dozen requests from the Department of Defense for key leader engagements, multiple requests for standing dialogues and nearly ten working-level engagements,” a Pentagon official told the press on the condition of anonymity.
But China’s Defense Ministry has insisted that Beijing “attaches importance” to maintaining stable ties with Washington and that there had been “no interruption” in communication channels while blaming Washington for the dearth of institutionalized dialogue.
“Responsibility for the current difficulties faced by the two militaries in their exchanges lies entirely with the US side,” maintained China’s defense spokesperson Tan Kefei.
“The US claims that it wants to strengthen communication, but in reality it disregards China’s concerns and creates artificial obstacles, seriously undermining mutual trust between the two militaries,” he added, referring to a host of new US sanctions imposed on Chinese tech companies and senior officials, including defense minister Li.
Beijing has reportedly demanded the lifting of “illegal unilateral sanctions” , including on its top officials, as a precondition for the resumption of high-level dialogue. But the Biden administration has insisted on unconditional dialogue in the interest of both superpowers and international security.
The interregnum in high-level military dialogue between the world’s reigning superpowers is ringing high-pitched alarm bells, since even at the height of the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union maintained robust communication channels.
Alarmed by the rising tensions, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was on a trip to new North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member Sweden this week, warned that the latest incident in the South China Sea underscores the need for “regular, open lines of communication” especially “between our defense ministers.”
“The most dangerous thing is not to communicate and as a result, to have a misunderstanding, a miscommunication,” Blinken added.
Follow Richard Javad Heydarian on Twitter at Richeydarian
Brics ministers call for rebalancing of global order away from West
EPAA meeting of foreign ministers of the Brics group of nations in South Africa has called for a rebalancing of the global order away from Western nations.
South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor said the group’s vision was to provide global leadership in a world fractured by geopolitical tension, inequality and global insecurity.
Brics is an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
Allegations of Russian war crimes in Ukraine have clouded the talks.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over the allegations and, as a member of the court, South Africa would be obliged to arrest him if he attends a Brics summit scheduled for Johannesburg in August.
The Brics is seen by some as an alternative to the G7 group of developed nations, which held its annual summit in the Japanese city of Hiroshima last month, and was also attended by the leaders of Brazil and India. G7 members have been highly critical of Russia and China.
On the first of two days of talks in Cape Town, Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said the gathering must “send out a strong message that the world is multipolar, that it is rebalancing and that old ways cannot address new situations”.
“At the heart of the problems we face is economic concentration that leaves too many nations at the mercy of too few,” he said.
Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira described the Brics as an “indispensable mechanism for building a multipolar world order that reflects the devices and needs of developing countries”.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu said the Brics group could be expanded to provide assistance to developing countries and emerging market economies.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said “more than a dozen” countries including Saudi Arabia had expressed interest in joining the group.
His presence at the event was met with protests, with demonstrators holding a picture of Mr Lavrov with the words “child murderer”.
One protester told AFP news agency it was difficult to see South African officials “shaking the hand of a person who is part of these systemic war crimes against Ukrainian children”, a reference to the ICC case against Mr Putin.
South Africa’s governing African National Congress (ANC) has long-standing ties with Russia that go back to the years of white-minority rule before 1994, and the country has refused to criticise Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
Earlier this week, a deputy minister told the BBC the country planned to change its laws so that it had the power to decide whether or not to arrest a leader wanted by the ICC.
At a news conference, Dr Pandor was asked by BBC correspondent Andrew Harding whether Mr Putin would be arrested if he came to the summit in August.
“The president [Cyril Ramaphosa] will indicate what the final position in South Africa is,” she replied.
A senior official privately described the situation as a diplomatic nightmare from which the South African government was desperate to escape, and one option said to be under consideration is moving the summit to another country.
