After being critical that no alarm was sent following last month’s deadly earthquake in Myanmar, Bangkok will test a cellphone disaster alert system on Wednesday ( Apr 23 ), senior officials in Bangkok announced that Thailand will conduct the tests. The Cell Broadcast System ( CBS ), according to DirectorContinue Reading
Great power competition has spread beyond the realm of microchips, artificial intelligence ( AI), and quantum computing. It is no longer only conducted on battlefields.
The US and China are engaged in a fierce conflict to determine the structural framework of the 21st century in this emerging “technopolar” order, where command over advanced systems may determine the trajectory of global power.
The rules of the upcoming world order will be dictated by those who control the data, computing power, and associated supply stores. And in this rapidly changing new world order, smaller countries will increasingly be subject to pressure to choose their technological stances.  ,
AI, semiconductors, and quantum computing are not just resources for financial advancement; instead, they are power bonuses that are shaping everything from global governance frameworks to military supremacy.
One of the most important areas in which international techno-politics is being played out is AI. There are American, Chinese, British, and European models, each with their own unique interpretations of the strategic principles surrounding AI.
Crucially, a country with AI supremacy will outshine rivals in intelligent defense systems, security, and decision-making.
The modern electronic economy’s essence is also made up of electronics. It would be inappropriate to refer to it as the “new crude” of the world economy, where cards are used to power everything from smartphones to fighter jet.
The major inquiry is: If the world is in the process of a new techno-global order, where industrial “haves” and “have-nots” may be categorized according to which bloc a state is aligned, where does this leave developing states that lack the home business base and know-how to protect against modern dependencies?
The US-China tech war is more than just a fight for economic dominance; it is also history’s most defining moment. The winner of this contest will influence the international system’s ideological trajectory, the structure of global security, and the rules of the digital era.
This is no longer a time when relying solely on market forces is sufficient. Due to concern about China’s rapidly developing and leapfrogging industries, technology alliances are already being discussed in Western capitals.
Today’s semiconductor supply chains are highly fragmented across multiple countries, in contrast to the Cold War, where US technological dominance was clear and largely self-sufficient.
The main suppliers of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, for instance, are Japan and the Netherlands. Advanced chip production is dominated by Taiwan and South Korea ( TSMC). India is emerging as a major player in the manufacturing of crucial technologies and AI development.
Washington is attempting to forge a web of strategic partnerships, creating a new tech alliance to stop Beijing’s rise, for its strategic imperatives.
This “alliance” is characterized by, but not limited to, the Dutch-Japanese agreement to halt exports of high-end semiconductor equipment to China, the Quad’s focus on cutting-edge and emerging technologies, and US-Taiwan and US-South Korea agreements to protect semiconductor supply chains.
However, it’s not that simple to contain China. The US attempted the same with Japan in the 1990s, but there are still differences today. Through trade diplomacy, market competition, and selective interventions, the US managed to halt Japan‘s technological development.
China does not adhere to the same rules as Japan, and it does not. China’s industrial policy is profoundly intertwined with the state-security apparatus, in contrast to Japan’s operation within the framework of the global Bretton Woods system.
In this way, China actively stocks AI hardware and semiconductor tools, strengthening its self-sufficiency strategy. Tech companies like SMIC and Huawei can compete for global markets and create cutting-edge technologies thanks to China’s state-driven business model, which has fueled rapid industrial growth.
China has a dominant position in key industries like solar energy and lithium-ion batteries because the US and its allies have failed to coordinate industrial policies. China is also well on its way to rule the world’s EV markets.
Without tech blocs, it’s simply impossible to vitiate China’s advancing technology. There will soon be the conundrum of a binary choice for small nations like Pakistan. Technology will no longer be the “global common” it was after the globalization boom in the 1990s.
Countries will increasingly be forced to align themselves with a particular technological order as a result of the intersection of technology and global politics. For this, they will have to put their own technology behind it in their respective economies and societies.
Many countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, which are all treading a tightrope between the US and China, are already in a Catch-22 situation due to a zero-sum approach.
Other players, like the EU, France, and Britain, are present, but it’s likely that they will follow the US-led tech order rather than the Chinese one.
Pakistan’s technological outlook includes everything from defense equipment, space satellites, EVs, 4G and 5G networks, to daily-use electronics, which is increasingly reliant on advanced Chinese technology.
However, too firmly rooted in the Chinese tech camp could stifle or restrict access to new, emerging Western technology. Pakistan will need to contribute in terms of manpower, knowledge-innovation, or open markets, even if it chooses a side.  ,
One thing is done to balance security ties between powerful countries, but another is done to balance technological reliance. It’s a brand-new geopolitical reality that will make fateful geopolitical decisions for Pakistan and others like it.
The Strategic Vision Institute in Islamabad employs research associate Hammad Waleed. He received a distinguished degree from Islamabad’s National Defense University, and he writes about international relations, conflict, emerging technologies, and public policy. He can be reached at [email protected].
” We saw almost 900, 000 visitor arrivals from China as of April, this year alone. According to him, the full last year was four million, according to NST.
According to him, this is seen as a good sign that the government should continue taking these activities for the benefit of both nations.  ,
” China continues to be the main draw for foreign visitors to Malaysia, followed by India. Singapore leads the ASEAN regions, followed by Thailand, he continued, referring to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.  ,
Given its immediate effect compared to other forms of investment, hospitality continues to be a significant contribution to the federal market, Saifuddin said.  ,
Prior to the announcement, Malay may travel to China without a visa until Dec 31 this time, while Chinese citizens may continue to do so until Dec 31 of the following year, according to The Star.
Nigel Wong, president of the Malaysian Association of Tour and Travel Agents, stated that the card modification will help the hospitality sector further expand the Taiwanese email business.  ,
According to The Star, he was quoted as saying,” There is security for the business to plan ahead and increase efforts to get more Chinese visitors,” underscoring the growing demand for Chinese tourists looking for experienced tourism products.
” It’s no longer just about the typical tours,” he said. Foreign tourists are more likely to visit inventive and creative experiences like culinary hospitality, history and tradition, as well as ecotourism products, Nigel continued.  ,
He anticipates that the Visit Malaysia 2026 campaign’s rewards will extend beyond that.
Tourism is known to increase after the Visit Malaysia strategy, and this development may weave in very well, he said.  ,
With a number of daring goals, including 35.6 million international visitors and RM147.1 billion ( US$ 33 billion ) in tourism documents, the Visit Malaysia plan is a nationwide effort to boost coming hospitality.  ,
The visa-free improvement, according to Mint Leong, the president of the Malaysian Inbound Tourism Association, does provide industry players with a clear path for marketing to Chinese tourists.
Due to this, Malaysia will also have the chance to get more business activities and firm travelers, Leong was quoted as saying by The Star.
Koong Lin Loong, treasurer-general of the Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, added that the “hospitality business is also going to benefit” as a result.
Foreign visitors will feel less troubled because of the visa-free problems, and they will undoubtedly be spending both on goods and beverages, he said.  ,
The Bangkok Post reported a drop in visitor arrivals to Thailand, hitting a small for 2025 with just 5, 833 recorded on April 16, below the normal daily average of 15, 000 to 20, 000.
The tourism power of Thailand’s chairman, Natthriya Thaweevong, claimed that the average number of tourists from Asia has decreased, good as a result of” health concerns” and the “economic effect of the US price trek.”
The security issues most likely relate to Wang Xing’s well-known abduction in Thailand.
According to the Ministry of Tourism and Sports, there were 1.5 million Chinese immigrants as of April 20, followed by Internationals at 1.4 million and Russians at 835 and 385.  ,
Srettha Thavisin, the then-prime secretary of Thailand, announced last year that starting on March 1, 2024, Chinese citizens may be granted visa-free entry permanently.  ,
Nearly two months after the request was first made public, Singapore and China furthermore agreed to a 30-day visa-free passage for their residents.
Virtually redrawn, South Asia’s digital geopolitical map is basically being redrawn, not with bold declarations, but with deliberate, quiet strokes.
The coexisting background and hard-won emancipation have been a testament to the centuries-old friendship between India and Bangladesh. But that unshakeable cooperation is starting to wane as a result.
Nobel prize Muhammad Yunus, who is currently in charge of Bangladesh’s interim government, is at the center of this change. Dhaka is looking past the common accept of New Delhi under his watch and waving a careful hand toward Islamabad, an implausible partner.
This is not just a political gesture, though. It was the first public melt in a long-frozen marriage when Yunus met Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif last year on the fringes of the D-8 Summit in Egypt.
Since that moment, which was rarely visible outside the press rooms for the foreign ministry, has gained momentum. The subsequent outreach to Beijing, which was highlighted by Yunus’s well-known visit and rumors that China’s infrastructure is extremely southeastern of India, has only heightened New Delhi’s unease.
The picture of a national head shaking hands with a Muslim rival is jarring for many Bangladeshis who grew up in the darkness of 1971. The Liberation War, which was the result of murder and trauma, is more than just a historical incident; it is also a deeply embedded national storage.
Releasing with Pakistan was a dark line under the previous Bangladeshi president, Sheikh Hasina.
Bangladesh, nevertheless, is indicating that it no longer views its international coverage from a single perspective. Dhaka is playing a more unexpected game in a place where relationships are shifting and power is at stake.
The message is clear for India, who has grown accustomed to treating its neighbor as a political frequent: nothing in South Asia can be changed, not even the past.
Certainly their material, but rather their showmanship, is what has been most revealing about the recent burst of Bangladesh-Pakistan political and cleverness exchanges.
These are not hidden from view or quiet summits like backchannel efforts. They’re calculated people displays that combine photo ops with press releases and talk levels.
This is a lifeline for Islamabad, which has long been marginalized in South Asian politics. It offers a chance to reshape a location where it has gradually lost influence and a new partner in Dhaka.
Financial incentives, assistance in defense, and even shared interests in international forums are all currently on the table. Additionally, Pakistan is not wasted time.
But, Bangladesh’s justification is more about widening the playing area than it is about rekindling old relations. Dhaka is hedging as India’s local dominance is being progressively seen through the lens of disparity and aggressiveness.
Detached from political dynasties ‘ personal weight, the time government is adopting a more transactional, cold diplomacy.
However, this new rationality comes with dangers. The national brain still carries a lot of the trauma of 1971, including the murder, the mass displacement, and the war crimes. Healing is both a matter of policy and principle for the thousands of Bangladeshis.
Any action that yet suggests absolution or amnesia is susceptible to stoke public outcry, especially among a younger generation who is both politically engaged and previously aware.
It’s unknown whether this diplomatic thaw will produce anything sustained or simply fizzles as a result of the pain experienced in the past. However, one thing is certain: the geographical balance is changing.
Bangladesh is no longer content to play the improbable darkness of India’s future. The nation is pushing the boundaries of its independence in this emerging post-Hasina surroundings, carved out space for its own-defined alliances.
The latest foreign secretary-level discussions between Bangladesh and Pakistan, the first in more than 15 years, brought the past to life.
The consultations, which were held in Dhaka, were nothing short of habit. UNpaid war dues and hurricane relief, US$ 4.52 billion in reparations, and an unwavering, unequivocal explanation for the holocaust of 1971 were proudly direct.
One of the most persistent injuries in South Asian politics is that Islamabad has consistently dodged responsibility by offering only warm emotions of “regret” while dodging accountability.
And while the time management may look more eager to veer off, these demands are consistent with those made by every previous Awami League-led authorities. The message is clear: remembering is not the only thing that can be improved.
Dhaka is diversifying its security and geopolitics, despite the fact that traditional wounds are still untreated. Bangladesh’s involvement in Pakistan’s AMAN-25 naval exercises and its alleged involvement in Pakistan’s JF-17 warrior jets represent a subtle but significant change from its traditional martial sources.
The calculus is unmistakable for some hawks of foreign policy: While China may continue to be the dominant supplier, strategic diversification is then a top priority in Dhaka.
This rebalancing even extends beyond the China-Pakistan shaft. The introduction of Russian ships in Chittagong along with the recent visit of Bangladeshi Army chief common Waker-Uz-Zaman to Moscow underscores Bangladesh’s desire to strengthen its security alliances.
And Khalilur Rahman’s appointment as national security adviser, who was the administration’s minister for the Rohingya crisis, demonstrates a more forceful, regionally focused strategic outlook.
The pressure from the United States has only increased the bets. Washington’s demands for more coherence with Myanmar coverage add another layer of complexity to Dhaka’s now delicate balancing act.
The difficulty lies in managing expectations while maintaining autonomy while no simply choosing allies. However, it would be mistaken to associate Bangladesh’s altering unusual plan with its abandonment of its founding principles.
The refusal of the Awami League’s authoritarian ideology does not mean that the principles established in 1971—freedom, justice, and sovereignty—were not respected. These are the aspirations of a new era demanding respect at home and trustworthiness worldwide, not just slogans for the record books.
New Delhi ought to notice. A social change in Dhaka does not automatically mean respect. If India doesn’t expect to be loyal without getting involved, it is misinterpreting the situation.
Bangladesh’s position with its foreign policy is no longer a foregone conclusion. And the path ahead calls for more than just passing press releases or sporadic delegations: it calls for fair examination of history, of each other, and of the local realities of a fast-changing world order.
Abu Jakir is a columnist based in Dhaka.
The US Treasury market has a sell-off as a result of President Donald Trump’s numerous tax presentations, not the least of which was his decision to impose” Liberation Day” mutual tariffs on April 2.
The sell-off, which started on April 5, was largely caused by concerns about tariff-related prices and overly leveraged hedge funds facing percentage names. But most importantly, it demonstrated a rapid market acceptance that Trump is serious about implementing profoundly problematic economic laws.
Investors today think that anything is achievable under Trump, following the courage of the Liberation Day tariffs. The proposed” Mar-a-Lago Accord,” suggested by Stephen Miran, who is currently the head of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, stands out as probably the most destructive statement, even though it is currently unlikely to get implemented.
The valuation of the US dollar, which Miran believes is the biggest issue facing the country’s economy, may lead to an effort to address a Mar-a-Lago Accord, which had aim to increase the US trade deficit and increase production.
His approach would be to convert short-term US Treasuries held by foreign investors to long-term, non-tradable zero-coupon obligations at much lower inherent offer, which would be the equivalent of restructuring US sovereign debt. The outcome would be to lower the cost of funding for the US government as well as to decrease the money.
The proposal’s apparent simplicity contrasts with its possible disastrous effects, which would be a specialized default on US Treasury bonds. Bonds are currently regarded as the country’s safe asset and are currently denominated in the dollar, the reserve currency of the world.
The disruption a move like this could cause would be so wonderful that Miran’s plan has frequently been derided or dismissed, but Trump’s outrageously high mutual taxes, which are officially suspended for 90 time except for China, were not expected sometimes.
So, some buyers are concerned about a potential US king debt restructuring. In a possible Mar-a-Lago Accord model, it should be noted that US Treasury transfers are not the only way to weaken the dollar while lowering the US Treasury’s financing costs.
Miran even suggested that in collaboration with the Treasury, the Federal Reserve may help to lower the cost of loan servicing. Although story provides some examples, Iran did not fully understand how such coordination may lead to lower US Treasury yields.
In order to support US war efforts, the Federal Reserve specifically implemented obvious offer controls in 1942 and 1951. However, the global financial system of the day resembled nothing less than it does today, not just because of its interdependence, where foreign investors own close to 30 % of US royal debts, but also because there were therefore foreign exchange controls and funds account restrictions.
The senator and his economic team should have received a distinct wake-up call from the severity of the Liberation Day sell-off and Trump’s timely decision to halt most of the mutual tariffs to prevent the US economy’s collapse, including the abandoning of US Treasuries.
In theory, this should make Miran’s anticipated Mar-a-Lago Accord even less likely to ever become a reality. No one can deny Trump’s unpredictability, which makes him unaffordable.
Due to the exorbitant privilege of the US as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, US Treasuries can no longer be regarded as the safest assets in the world. The US’s virtuous circle, which it uses foreign capital to finance its bloated fiscal deficit and trade imbalance, is now in danger. The dollar’s future as the world’s all-powerful reserve currency is also uncertain.  ,
As the Treasuries sell-off demonstrated, firting with the dollar’s reserve currency role is even more dangerous than imposing sky-high tariffs on trading partners. In fact, assuming that market forces will still be allowed to operate freely in the future, market forces appear to be the best defense the US economy has against poorly thought-out and bad policies.
Bruegel’s senior research fellow, Alicia Garcia Herrero, is the country’s chief economist for Asia-Pacific, and a professor in the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s adjunct program.
He was a tower, a pillar, and a beacon for the typical people, the underprivileged, the have-nots, and those who faced discrimination in any way who wanted to live in harmony, love, and unity with other people and the natural world. Regardless of their faith, Francisco ( Jorge Bergoglio ) was not just the head of the Catholic Church. He was also a voice for the eight billion people who lived on Earth.
Every bishop has attempted to live up to this part, but probably never has a pope put so much effort into it and succeeded in it since early Christianity. So, the first question for his successor is clear: May he chose to change his course or continue on this path? Many in the Church thing, arguing that too much effort to engage non-Christians affects the Church’s integrity.
Francis’s mentoring to Muslims, Hindus, and agnostics did not increase the number of people attending Mass. Temples remained empty, especially in the traditional Catholic regions of Latin America and Europe. His opponents contend that attracting people outside the Church will be futile if they don’t care for the people who currently exist, leaving the organization as a barrel.
The second pope may try to strike a balance between these two trends, but it’s not clear how that will be achieved. The task facing the future pope could be enormous because of such an overall and enormous reach to every person on the planet. The difficulties are possibly more sobering than previously.
Conservatives and Disciples are expanding their influence wherever Catholics again had hold in history, not just in Latin America but also in developing nations like Africa, India, and China. For example, there may be ten million Christians in China, but there could be hundreds of millions of pseudo-Christians or self-proclaimed Christians.
The Church hasn’t been unified on how to process this phenomenon so much. Some claim that it presents a problem and that the faithful may be resurrected with the true faith. Some claim that it is useless; instead, people are more in tune with pastors and communities who have much needs. As more people convert to Christianity and distance themselves from their initial non-Christian beliefs, this conflict grows.
Additionally, there is the complicated problem of mega-states, which hold 40 % of the country’s population, namely, China and India. Francis requested an invitation from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but Francis was not invited, citing concerns raised by the nearby Catholic Church.
In this context, it is obvious that India is more successful in fostering ties with the upcoming bishop. If Modi and the nearby Catholics come to terms, India might be able to ally itself more with the Church, which could have significant political benefits. Modi aims to build a new American identification that is rooted in Hindu nationalism, which frequently contrasts with Christian and Islamic beliefs.
Catholicism has been a part of the subcontinent’s personality since the first century AD, with legends claiming that Jesus traveled to India to study with regional specialists before coming back to Israel at the age of 30.
Christianity is woven into the fabric of American personality, and it might encourage Modi and his friends to accept this reality. India might gain a competitive advantage over China if it practices Catholicism.
Regarding China, the Church might put relations with Beijing on the back burner unless some strong initiatives from China are taken, though such a growth seems implausible. This circumstance may have an effect on China’s standing globally.
As the UN waned and major power engaged in arm-wrestling over several problems, the Church became a centre for speech and covert intervention under Francis. Beijing might find it uncomfortable to be kept out of Vatican conversations.
The cardinal may then choose the next pope to manage these decisions. They are incredibly diverse, with Iran, Pakistan, and Mongolia among the more diverse nations there are than previously. Franciss hoped for a more diverse audience worldwide.
Many of these cardinal have not met and scarcely understand one another, making it challenging to come to a compromise. With 19 chiefs out of 138, with two of them stationed overseas in Jerusalem and Ulaanbaatar, the largest one union is made up of the Italians. They may assist in organizing the conference, but it’s still not clear whether they will fit their preferred prospect in the white robe.
Americans, who have ten chiefs, make up the second-largest party. They were key in choosing Francis, but they are now divided into liberal and conservative parties, making it unclear whether they can exert the same influence.
18 American chiefs are present. The Church’s immediate future is shaped by a number of conversions, pressing issues, and competing political interests between emerging powers like China and historic colonial powers, as well as by migration and other pressing issues.
But, it’s not certain whether a powerful, global-minded number will join this group because the Pope needs to serve as a pastor to the entire world. Secondly, it’s not clear whether the next pope will use traditional criteria when choosing him.
A bishop was traditionally expected to have significant experience in a big Catholic bishop, which would reduce individuals like Cardinal Parolin, the Secretary of State, who has never served as a catholic priest, or Cardinal Bo from Myanmar, whose Christian population is in the minority. Both are viewed as personable and socially knowledgeable, which makes them attractive candidates.
These classic standards may no longer apply because there are more cardinal from nations where Catholics frequently make up small groups and in a world where the majority is in the minority.
Finally, the new pope will have to understand the delicate relationship with the Vatican, which is the world’s greatest superpower, the bulwark of the West, and the one-time biggest donor.
The second bishop must not blindly follow American principles, which may alienate the rest of the world. In contrast, being aggressive might turn off thousands of honest.
The terrible conflict within the American Catholic Church, which traditionalists oppose Francis and liberals back him, all contributes to the state itself, which is racked up by President Donald Trump.
The second bishop may also have to perform a difficult task of bringing America together again.
This content was originally published on Appia Institute, and it has since been republished with authority. Read the original right below.
Suharto, who passed away in 2008 at the age of 86, does not, according to some researchers, meet the proper requirements to be given the title of national hero.  ,
Agus Suwignyo, a writer at the University of Gadjah Mada, claimed that the previous leader had a significant impact on Indonesia’s struggle for independence. He was most notable for leading the 1949 General Offensive that oversaw the 1962 attempt to retake control of West Papua.  ,
According to Agus,” Suharto meets the official criteria, but the complete historical context must be taken into account,” according to Agus, quoted by the Jakarta Globe.  ,
governed by the Ministerial Regulation No. A person who is nominated for the subject may satisfy some general and specific criteria in accordance with Article 15 of 2012 regarding the Proposal for the Confermentation of the Title of National Hero. Making a true commitment as a leader or warrior and not betraying the country are some requirements that must be met, Tempo reported.
But, Agus, a historian, cautioned against viewing record in black and white.
He said,” You can’t ignore his role in freedom, but you can’t ignore the controversy surrounding his rise to power that was sparked by the fatal anti-communist purges.”  ,
Prasetyo Hadi, the spokesperson for the president and the minister of state secretary, has also voiced his opinion in the midst of the discussion.
” We must simply show value to our former leaders,” the statement read. This acknowledge their accomplishments, he told reporters at the National Palace on Monday, as quoted by Tempo.  ,
Prasetyo criticized Suharto’s problem, noting that no ideal leader exists.
Suharto has never previously been referred to as a national hero in Indonesia. His name has been frequently mentioned on the list of Central Java’s nominations for regional heroes since 2010, according to the Jakarta Post.  ,
Siti Hediati Hariyadi, also known as Titiek Soeharto, Suharto’s second child, has welcomed the proposal this year to give the title to her late parents.
Titiek, who was the former wife of existing President Prabowo Subianto, claimed that the family has always actively supported the name despite the subject’s frequent appearance in public space on November 10 during National Heroes Day.
” It occurs every month. He will always be a warrior to us, regardless of whether it occurs, she said, as quoted by the Jakarta Globe.  ,
She expressed wish that it would eventually materialize under Prabowo’s leadership.  ,
Abdurrahman Wahid, also known as Gus Dur, is the latest nominee to be nominated for the Social Affairs Ministry.  ,
Indonesia’s first leader Sukarno and his vice-president Mohammed Hatta are among the recipients of the subject.
The terms of reference for the upcoming free trade agreement negotiations were finalized this month between India and the US. A comprehensive strategy is anticipated to guide the strategy, which will improve industry access, tariff reductions and non-tariff barriers, and establish a strong, integrated supply chain.  ,
Donald Trump’s” Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2 cannot be more confining for most nations, including India. The impact of Trump’s 26 % tax on India will not only negatively impact Indian exports, but it will also cast doubt on its ability to adapt rapidly to the fundamental realignment of global supply chains, which Trump’s punitive tariffs aim to necessarily change.  ,
The volume of taxes and counter-tariffs has been reduced to mere amounts as the situation evolves. Hope for a quick, US-China deal to end business disputes have almost vanished.
The 90-day delay on reciprocal taxes is a break for most countries, except for China, which is subject to a staggering 145 % income. In this ambiguous environment, no government would dare to make long-term plans. International trade is being rewritten in some ways in real-time.
Two recent events have suggested that Trump’s position has slightly cooled. He put a 90-day delay to the higher mutual tariffs on the targeted nations so they could deal with the US on April 11 and then put it on hold until China. He made the announcement on April 13 that tariff deductions for items like phones, computers, and other electronics are available in the US.
Additionally, tariffs on pharmaceuticals are a looming risk, which, if implemented, do have a near-doom effect on India’s economy. According to some estimates, India could be liable to lose about 30 % of its exports to the US alone.
India should not rejoice at the fact that China ( 145 % ), Vietnam ( 46 % ), Thailand ( 36 % ), Cambodia ( 49 % ), Indonesia ( 32 % ) and Bangladesh ( 37 % ) have been hit with higher impositions. However, India has trade opportunities and a lot of market space in the form of semiconductors and machinery, among others.
India should see the new fact being imposed by Trump as both a challenge and an option. In some ways, India is in a similar position to 1991, when the land was practically forced to open up due to diminishing foreign exchange reserves.
The new US tax regime and its battle with China offer an opportunity to reevaluate opportunities, discover weak points, and deal with its monetary policy demons.
Many Indians are unrealistically putting their hopes on a landmark Bilateral Trade Agreement ( BTA ) with the US to rescue this mess. India’s strategy to free trade agreements, while faced with an extremely mercantilist global trading system, will still be supported by its multi-vector international policy and its unwavering support for a multi-polar world.
India may now think betrayed by the US after what transpired following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attend to the US in February of this year, despite the absence of a public demonstration of dissention.
During his check-out,” Mission 500,” which aimed to double bilateral trade to US$ 500 billion by 2030, was discussed and discussed. In that regard, a determination was made to finalize the second stage of a mutually advantageous BTA by the fall of 2025.
Trump officially criticized India for being a “tariff prince” and a “big perpetrator” of trade relations just before announcing the new mutual tax government on April 2. This is in contrast to what he has been saying for a while.
India courted the US in the wake of that visit and the” Liberation Day” price announcement, signaling its commitment to US energy imports and serious defense talks with Washington.
India hastily eliminated the 6 % online advertising income and cut taxes on solar panels, luxury cars, bourbon whiskey, and a few other items in preparation for the BTA. Elon Musk’s Starlink was also suggested by India that it might be approved in India. Despite all those early concessions, India, like most other countries, continued to be subject to the reciprocal and baseline tariffs.
A trade agreement, in Trump’s opinion, is an instrument to improve self-reliance and shift the balance of trade. The US is currently pressuring India to open its politically sensitive agricultural and dairy sectors in trade negotiations.
The US and India also have a number of ticklish issues, including stringent approval standards for genetically modified products, strict licensing, and enforcement of intellectual property rights.  ,
India’s response has been more or less predictable. It will almost certainly not produce dairy and agricultural products, giving itself a bargaining chip for future negotiations. India will likely agree to increase the imports of US-made defense equipment and energy products to combat the negative trade balance.
In industries like pharmaceuticals and autos, where it already enjoys low costs and a strong manufacturing base, it might even consider 0 % tariff. Beyond this, it’s difficult to see India giving in to any more concessions.
However, India might face difficulties from rival nations that are also dealing with higher US tariffs, such as China, Vietnam, Thailand, and others. China has reacted by imposing similarly high counter-tariffs, but Vietnam has reacted by signaling it will drop all tariffs to 0 % in order to reach a trade agreement with the US.  ,
A senior Vietnamese official, who was recently on an official trip to the US, pledged to start negotiations for a free trade agreement and the purchase of US defense supplies. Additionally, he made an announcement about Vietnam’s intention to purchase$ 300 million worth of Boeing aircraft for its VietJet commercial airline. The US tariffs are undoubtedly bargaining chips.
India’s low dependence on exports of goods may seem advantageous in its negotiations with the US, but because of Vietnam’s precedent-setting commitment to 0 % tariffs on all US imports, India should be prepared for US expectations for a similar deal.
Given the length of these negotiations so far with the UK, EU, and US in particular, India should at best be cautiously optimistic about outcomes, especially given that ongoing trade talks with the US did not protect it from Trump’s high reciprocal tariffs.
As a general rule, an emerging market like India shouldn’t be concerned about a respectable trade deficit as long as it benefits from a BTA, boosts its exports, overall trade, and introduces new technologies and investments. However, India needs to be aware that a free trade agreement on its own won’t address India’s structural issues. It is entirely up to India to address them both at once.
Thus, India should take advantage of Trump’s tariff crisis as a unique opportunity to unilaterally lower global tariffs to increase competitiveness. This in turn will encourage the flow of superior foreign technologies, which will improve productivity and quality and boost national exports, especially those from emerging industries. Only then will India be able to take advantage of the opportunities Trump’s global supply chain disruptions offer.
Will India seize the opportunity, is the debatable question? Or will it once more go missing? How successfully India maneuvers the looming, negative effects of Trump’s tariffs depend not only on how quickly it negotiates a bilateral free trade agreement with the US, but also on how other nations bargain with the US over tariffs.
The key to a successful FTA with the US is to conclude, but the bigger question for India is how quickly it can increase its manufacturing capacity, adopt smart technologies, train skilled workers, construct modern logistical infrastructure, and pass progressive regulatory changes that can adapt to newly emerging global value chain alignments.
Only when global supply chains actually feed and integrate into Indian manufacturing can India count on being well-positioned to become a major global manufacturing and export hub in the upcoming years and ultimately a net-net Trump trade war winner.
Raghu Gururaj, an Indian Foreign Service officer, is a retired ambassador. He has his own opinions expressed here.
.jpg)
Liher Urbizu has been named president and managing director for SAP Southeast Asia ( SEA ). Urbizu takes Verena Siow’s place as the Regional Business Suite Leader for SAP Asia Pacific ( APAC ), taking her new position. Both officials bring decades of experience to their positions, strengthening SAP’s continued commitment to client success and advancing its sky and AI development plan.
Urbizu will be in charge of SAP’s Southeast Asia business system, which includes Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, and emerging Indochina areas. He will concentrate on aiding local businesses in promoting the development of a modern economy that is fueled by AI, cloud, and data.
Urbizu has held a number of management positions at SAP, most just as APAC’s Chief Business Officer. He has worked for SAP for 25 years as a client, partner, and administrative. Among the significant roles are the world head of partner success service, the head of providers Asia Pacific &, Japan, the chief operating officer for Japan, and the team’s Managing Director, who led the team to several accomplishments and awards.
Urbizu stated in his remarks regarding his visit,” Southeast Asia was my career’s launchpad within the SAP ecosystem. I’m excited to return to lead this powerful market unit, which focuses on enabling our customers to use AI and SAP’s cutting-edge business software solutions to achieve tangible business results. I strongly believe that businesses of all sizes and sectors will be able to invent and prosper in the digital-first era by coordinating our technology with the region’s growth goals.
Southeast Asia is at the forefront of AI adoption, according to Simon Davies, chairman of SAP Asia Pacific. Verena Siow has made a significant contribution to SAP SEA over the past few years, and I’m confident that her remarkable leadership may help us perform our strategy and promote strong cloud momentum in the APAC region.
Urbizu’s broad leadership experience in Asia will be beneficial for the SEA team during its second phase of expansion. With a proven track record of leading high-impact clubs, Leder combines a thorough understanding of our clients ‘ evolving business needs. He will play a crucial role in accelerating our fog and AI initiatives as the new leader and managing director of Southeast Asia, making sure businesses in SEA can fully utilize SAP’s innovation to solve their most pressing company issues.
Verena Siow, who has worked for SAP for more than 13 years, leaves her position as President and Managing Director of Southeast Asia to be Regional Business Suite Leader for SAP Asia Pacific. She did lead cloud growth and corporate business development in her new position, focusing on ensuring a smooth experience for SAP’s cloud customers, from demand generation to renewals, in line with the company’s mission of delivering steady and extraordinary outcomes across all markets.
Siow remarked,” Over the past five years, the Southeast Asia team has demonstrated remarkable resilience and consistent success, anchored by our customers ‘ trust in SAP’s solutions and innovations. As SAP continues to offer the best cloud solutions of the future and expand its presence in Asia, I’m excited to bring my experience to the wider APAC region.
She continued,” I look forward to helping customers, both in Southeast Asia and across APAC, continue to accelerate innovation and add value to their transformation journeys,” she continued.
The chances of serenity for Ukraine remain thin after more than three years of conflict. Given Russia’s refusal to prolong a short, tense truce over Easter, there is no clear, believable path, perhaps to a stalemate. Despite the fact that the US, UK, and Ukraine have all expressed their help for this plan,
A more important issue do still exist even if the significant obstacles to a ceasefire deal may be overcome. No one of the important people in the fight appears to have a strategy for reaching an agreement that Kyiv and Moscow are likely to agree with.
Prior plans, such as a shared plan by China and Brazil in May of last year that was supported by a Chinese-led” Friends of Peace” group, mostly focused on a stalemate as a launching pad for negotiations about an exact peace agreement.
Although the specifics of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine were unspoken, this and other plans were roundly criticized by Ukraine and its eastern allies as favoring Russia. This was not an absurd position because a ceasefire would simply freeze the top lines and have a very good chance of making them lasting with or without a new peace deal.
But, what Ukraine chose to do was hardly more practical and was supported by its western allies, at least philosophically. At the time of the second” Summit on Peace in Ukraine” in Switzerland in June 2024, Volodymyr Zelensky’s proposed peace schedule was already in limbo.
There was no consensus on a follow-up meeting, and only 84 of the 100 representatives at the summit ( out of 160 invited ) supported a more nuanced version of Zelensky’s plan in their final communiqué. The Ukrainian harmony strategy was unmistakably dead in the water.
Therefore, Ukraine suggested an “internal endurance plan.” This is nothing more than a peace plan because it focuses on ensuring the nation you live a protracted attrition war with Russia.
However, it helps Kyiv’s wants to avoid a total retreat to Moscow. The commitment to supporting Kyiv is also great on the agenda for Ukraine’s Western allies, who are also on top of their goals.
It is crucial to keep Ukraine in the fight while assisting the emerging German coalition of the willing in developing its own defenses. They are susceptible to a new global order, which might split the world into US, Russian, and Taiwanese spheres of influence.
For a vehement effort is at the heart of US President Donald Trump’s efforts, which include a deal that would offer the US privileged access to Ukrainian resources as well as a peace between Russia and Ukraine.
This deal appears to be close to being finalized after first unravelling during an incredibly content press conference held at the White House on February 28.
According to a recent suggestion from Trump’s special minister for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, the peace agreement that Trump appears to have in mind may break Ukraine into spheres of influence. Diplomats are still eluded by even a pro-Moscow deal that would grant Putin power of 20 % of Ukraine.
Given Trump’s unwillingness to put any significant pressure on Russia, the Russian president currently has some incentives to accept less than his highest demands and end a war he believes will still be able to get on the battlefield.
At times, it seems more probable that Trump will simply give up trying to put an end to the fighting in Ukraine. This would be desirable from the Soviet point of view over a ceasefire that would stop the turmoil but don’t produce a peace agreement in line with Moscow’s demands.
Even if the US midterm elections in 2026 would likely weaken Trump’s hold on power, the Kremlin’s estimate suggests that two more years will pass before the country can win more Ukrainian territory. Moscow may demand any further conquests as payment for a lawsuit if Washington then presses for a new ceasefire.
Even if Trump decides to stay in the talks right away and even if his exclusive minister Steve Witkoff ends up putting up a package, it will still look more like a stalemate than a peace deal.
The basic reason for this is that neither Russia nor Ukraine’s positions on a satisfactory result have changed. Putin continues to support the full conquest of four of Ukraine’s regions as well as the preservation of Crimea. Zellensky has repeatedly ruled out regional concessions, and he enjoys wide support from Ukrainian in this regard.
The West’s perception that a peace deal would be nearly impossible to reach in terms that would satisfy all parties has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are only a handful of joint attempts by Ukraine, the US, and the German coalition of the willing, with all of them focused on a functional peace.
On April 17 at a gathering of foreign ministers and senior officials in Paris, the discussion centered on sustaining for a ceasefire. Although the specifics of how this can be achieved are still unsure, the fact that there are now more equitable conversations indicates development, at least in terms of the negotiation approach.
However, their substance and whether Ukraine and Russia may finally agree on terms regarding alienation of forces, monitoring, guarantees, and enforcement mechanisms will determine whether this will actually lead to a breakthrough toward a green ceasefire.
This is already a very high table, and the table for a later peace deal is even higher. A peace is undoubtedly a prerequisite for a peace agreement in the current level of Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. However, the one thing that needs to be focused on the first won’t make the former any more probable.
In addition, investing everyone in a ceasefire deal may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy for Ukraine and its followers given Russia’s history of breaking the Minsk stalemate agreements of September 2014 and February 2015.
Tetyana Malyarenko, professor of global surveillance, and Stefan Wolff, professor of global surveillance, are Jean Monnet and professor of Western security, National University Odesa Law Academy.
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Study the article’s introduction.