Brazil shuts BYD factory site over ‘slavery’ conditions

According to Brazilian authorities, workers at the Chinese electric vehicle ( EV ) giant BYD lived in conditions comparable to” slavery” and have halted the construction of a factory there.

More than 160 workers have been rescued in Brazil’s northeastern state of Bahia, according to a statement from the Public Labour Prosecutor’s Office (MPT).

They reportedly were placed in a “degrading” culture and a building company withheld their passports and wages.

In a statement, BYD claimed to have cut ties with the company involved and continued to work toward “full compliance with Portuguese regulations.”

By March 2025, the factory was set to start operating, and it was BYD’s second Vehicle facility outside of Asia.

The employees, hired by Jinjiang Construction Brazil, lived in four infrastructure in Camaçari area.

At one like service, personnel were made to sleep on beds without cushions, according to prosecutors.

31 employees were also sharing each other’s bathrooms, making it necessary for them to rise very early to get ready for work.

According to the MPT,” the problems found in the lodgings painted an alarming picture of precarity and degradation.”

” Slavery-like conditions”, as defined by Brazilian law, include debt bondage and work that violates human dignity.

The MPT added that the circumstance also qualifies as “forced labor,” as some workers were forced to pay their wages and endured increased costs for contract termination.

According to BYD, the injured personnel had been relocated to hotels.

It added that it had conducted a “detailed overview” of the working and living situations for subcontracted staff, and asked on” some occasions” for the construction company to create improvements.

BYD, little for Build Your Goals, is one of the nation’s largest Vehicle makers.

It sold more electric vehicles than Elon Musk’s Tesla in the last three months of 2023, as the two battled for top spot in the sector.

The business has also been expanding its footprint in Brazil, which is by far its largest international business.

It built a factory in So Paulo in 2015, where it produced framework for energy trucks.

Last year, it announced that it would invest 3 billion reais ($ 484.2m ) in Brazil to build an EV manufacturing plant.

Federal grants have helped to boost electric vehicle sales in China. which encourage drivers to swap out their gasoline-powered vehicles for Batteries or hybrid.

However, what some people perceive as cruel support for domestic car manufacturers by the Chinese government is receiving a growing backlash worldwide.

Batteries from China are subject to additional levies from major areas like the US and the EU, which are anticipated to increase as the US president-elect Donald Trump enters office.

Continue Reading

South Korean opposition to impeach acting president Han

SEOUL: South Korea’s main opposition party will submit a Bill to impeach acting president Han Duck-soo on Tuesday ( Dec 24 ), a party spokesperson said, increasing the risk of further political uncertainty in Asia’s fourth-largest economy. The decision comes as the nation is still reeling from Yoon Suk Yeol’sContinue Reading

More Malaysians believe country’s going in ‘right direction’, approve of Anwar at 2-year mark as PM: Survey

Between Nov. 27 and Dec. 10, the Merdeka Center polled 1, 207 registered citizens across the nation. The participant combine was 52 per share Malay, 29 per cent Chinese, 7 per cent Indian, 6 per cent Muslim bumiputera and 6 per cent non-Muslim bumiputera.

More responders, according to the most recent research, think that Anwar has boosted Malaysia’s reputation, attracted foreign traders, and taught efficiency and dignity in the civil service.

When asked if Anwar was “working hard to strengthen the people’s business,” the responses were practically middle-class.

On the other hand, 39 per cent of them said they were dissatisfied with Anwar’s achievement as of end-November 2024, along from 43 per cent a year ago.

Co-founder and program director of the Merdeka Center Ibrahim Suffian described concerns over economic forces as a “persistent” problem, in part because many Malay continue to struggle with rising living costs.

” Although earnings have slowly improved since the COVID-19 time, costs have gone away and many also feel that need to expand their ringgit”, he told CNA.

” Also, these things take time to be realized and trickle down to the average person, while people are optimistic about the investment commitments generated during the PM’s outings abroad.”

ECONOMY, INFLATION TOP VOTERS ‘ Problems

On Dec 22, Anwar summed up his government’s financial efforts in a Facebook article titled” 2024 Features: Soaring Economy, Abundant Prosperity”.

The premier touted the RM254.7 billion ( US$ 56.7 billion ) in approved digital investments from January to September 2024, saying this was expected to create 159, 000 new jobs.

His administration’s New Industrial Master Plan 2030 has even led to a 4.7 per cent increase in the manufacturing industry’s added value to the country’s private total solution, amounting to RM4.2 billion.

He wrote,” The Madani government has implemented various plans to continue improving the economy throughout this year for the prosperity of the people and the country.”

Despite this, a large majority of respondents to the Merdeka Center survey said they were concerned about the economy and believed that Malaysia was heading in the wrong direction.

Most of them cited “unfavourable economic condition in general” as the reason, followed by high costs of living, minimum income and weakening of the ringgit.

Anwar may have managed the economy fairly well, but local residents still experience the pinch from rising costs, according to Azmi Hassan, a senior fellow at the Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research.

” The problem is, people are thinking- right now- the prices of goods are very high, their income seems to be static, and business is not growing”.

Of those who said Malaysia was going in the wrong direction, other reasons given were weak administration, politics, leadership and racial issues, the study found.

” Issues driving voter motivations remain unchanged: The economy and inflation”, the study said.

While concerns over political instability have evaporated, there is a slight rise in concerns over identity politics, specifically the protection of Malay rights, the study noted.

ANWAR’S APPROVAL RATING REBOUNDS

Since he took office in November 2022, Anwar has generally maintained a favorable approval rating.

He started out with a 68 % approval rating, but this dropped to 50 % at the end of his first year, largely as a result of concerns about the economy and how it affected livelihoods, according to Merdeka Center at the time.

Anwar’s rating dropped to its lowest point of 43 % in June 2024, the only month it fell below 50 %, before regaining its 54 % as of the end of November.

Because the survey was conducted ahead of timed delivery as part of government efforts to reduce diesel subsidies, Ibrahim claimed, the rating dropped to a low in June.

” There was anxiety over the effect that might have had on consumer goods and services, alas that didn’t materialise or have a deep impact”, he said.

According to Azmi, the decline may be a result of spattering perceptions since early 2024 about Anwar’s alleged failure to carry out his promised institutional reforms.

Continue Reading

2-year-old boy among 7 killed in Melaka multi-vehicle crash on North-South Expressway

ALOR GAJAH: Seven people including five members of a family were killed in a multi-vehicle collision in Melaka on Malaysia’s North-South Expressway on Monday ( Dec 23 ) night. &nbsp,

The accident, which injured 33 another, took position around 8.30pm near the Ayer Keroh Rest and Service Area. &nbsp,

According to Alor Gajah authorities chief Ashari Abu Samah, it involved a vehicle, a tour bus traveling west with 27 people, three northern vehicles, including a Toyota Estima multi-purpose car ( MPV), a Nissan video, and a Perodua Bezza coupe.

The top right rubber of the vehicle, driven by a 31-year-old person, had dislodged and landed in the middle alley, he said.

According to him, the tour bus then struck the distant tire, causing the vehicle to gain control and veer into the opposing lane.

The vehicle then collided with a Perodua Bezza, a 27-year-old man’s Nissan trailer, and a Toyota Estima MPV that was carrying a home of eight, according to the New Straits Times.

Six people who died have been identified and are Malay, while the sixth, a vehicle rider, has yet to be identified.

Five of those who died were in the Toyota Estima: The 32-year-old vehicle Khairul Ikhwan Mazupi, his 32-year-old family Fadzlenna Ramli, their two-year-old child Muhmmad Umar, and Fadzlenna’s families. Her mother was not named in press reports, while her dad is Ramli Ab Wahab, 66.

The community of eight was on their way up from Malacca, Sinar Harian reported. Khairul’s two additional kids, aged four and seven, survived and are now receiving treatment in Melaka Hospital. The remaining rider of the MPV is believed to be Khairul’s brother. He is apparently hurt, and his identity has not been revealed. &nbsp,

The trip bus drivers, 56-year-old Noorisnien Khamid from Johor, died.

Police key Ashari said the dying persons were all taken to the Melaka Hospital’s Forensic Department for post-mortem, the New Straits Times reported. &nbsp,

The 33 wounded people were transported to Hospital Pantai Ayer Keroh, Alor Gajah Hospital, and Melaka Hospital. &nbsp,

All cars involved in the accident have been detained, and they will be examined at Puspakom’s computerized auto inspection center.

” The case is being investigated under Section 41 ( 1 ) of the Road Transport Act 1987″, Ashari said.

On Monday evening, the incident apparently caused significant traffic disturbance on the North-South Expressway. Northbound overcrowding extended for up to 10km and slow-moving westbound traffic stretched for 6km, according to Plus Malaysia, Malaysia’s road controller.

Continue Reading

US falling behind China in race to nuclear fusion – Asia Times

China is moving at incredible frequency to become the world’s first to use nuclear integration as a source of income. With the scheduled completion of the Comprehensive Research Facility for Fusion Technology ( CRAFT ) in Hefei Province in 2025, China will possess a unique scientific and engineering infrastructure for its fusion effort.

A crucial middle stage, the Burning Plasma Test Reactor, will be operational in 2027, while a prototype integration energy plant, the China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor, is currently being developed. China’s South fusion reactor holds the record for blood confinement, and other essential integration tests are in progress in various locations of the state.

One may avoid asking: Where is the US in light of the steady stream of good integration reports coming from China. Due mainly to the terrible lack of commitment from the Federal government, the US is in danger of losing the earth leadership position in integration which it had occupied for almost three-quarters of a decade.

Given all the talk about maintaining the US’ technological advantage in relation to China, this is nothing less than a controversy. Fortunately for the US, personal market investments in integration have grown considerably, and US private companies are moving forward with a variety of optimistic and encouraging projects aimed at achieving corporate power generation by fusion in the not-too-distant future.

We emailed the Fusion Industry Association ( FIA ) CEO Andrew Holland for his opinion on the state of fusion in the US and China. The FIA has established itself as the words of the secret fusion market worldwide.

The most recent meeting was a follow-up to the one that Asia Times released in three episodes in January 2021. Asia Times Senior Science editor Jonathan Tennenbaum conducted the interview.

Contact: In your White Paper,” Bringing Fusion to the US Grid,” you argued that the US government should make a significant change in integration R&amp, D prioritization. And you compare the lack of sufficient aid by the US government to fusion with China’s optimistic fusion program, which is moving away quickly. How would you contrast the US’s merging efforts with what are happening in China?

AH: The US has been a world leader in integration since the very beginning of integration research by institutions back in the ‘ 50s. The United States has always been the leader in pushing forward studies, starting with blood physics, and therefore looking at how to build a fusion power break-even power plant, first working with the UK and then working with Japan and Europe.

China has not been a participant in that until the next 20 years or so. When China joined the ITER ( International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor ) program more than 20 years ago, China began investing to advance China to world leadership status. Investments in research, into facilities and even into individuals – blood physicists and the institutions that are important to educate them and to build and run experiments.

This occurred at a time when the global system was viewed as being largely transparent. A lot of the leading Chinese scientists have done work in US and European labs and Japanese labs. Collaboration has existed for a long time, both in ITER and elsewhere.

The US program on fusion has always been ambitious, but perhaps lacking in funding to allow follow through, is what I would say. A few things, in my opinion, need to be said.

For seven straight years now, Congress has appropriated more money every year into the Department of Energy’s Fusion Energy Science Program. So there has been a rise in funding for fusion, sometimes in significant jumps, sometimes in relatively small jumps.

Along with that has come new legal authorizations, directing the Department of Energy to create not only a fusion science program but a program that has the mission of delivering fusion energy-delivering a pilot plant. There has been a slow inclination toward commercialization.

Unfortunately, the US program is pretty heavy on legacy-funded programs. There is a saying in [ Washington ] DC that the DOE spends a lot of money on on certain mortgages each year, which account for a sizable portion of that funding.

These programs are focused largely on legacy R&amp, D programs, rather than forward-thinking commercially relevant programs. Given that the majority of the program and budget goes toward paying for these mortgages, it’s very difficult to say that we’re transitioning a DOE program.

Spending on these programs may be important for many reasons, like basic science and understanding of plasma physics, but really aren’t that important for the actual commercialization of fusion energy.

The Department of Energy has also authorized and begun a number of new programs. Notable among them are public-private partnerships, like the INFUSE ( Innovation Network for Fusion Energy ) program and the milestone-based public-private partnership.

Additionally, there is a brand-new initiative called Fusion Innovative Research Engine ( FIRE ) Collaboratives, which are research centers that are focused on pressing commercialization issues like the fuel cycle and materials. But the actual funding for these programs is still a smaller percentage than the legacy programs. So far, this transition has not been seen.

Now, China isn’t bound by these legacy programs nearly as much, and has been able to make investments focused towards building a commercialization program.

In essence, if you look at the US in the late 20s and early 20s, there was a request from the then Undersecretary for Science, Paul Dabbar, to the fusion community, asking them to “give me a community plan for what the fusion program should do.” Everybody should come together, and give us the consensus”. They succeeded, too.

The result was a long-range plan, delivered very early in 2021, that laid out the steps and programs and investments that needed to be made, to start to deliver a fusion pilot plant. The US National Academy of Sciences released their own report shortly after, stating that this is what you need to do to deliver a pilot plant.

Ironically, in fact, that’s about the same time that the Fusion Industry Association ( FIA ) was officially formed. In May 2021, we established ourselves as an independent organization. Then, in March of 2022, the White House hosted a fusion summit and declared what they call a Bold Decadal Vision for commercial fusion.

Therefore, the US government and the US fusion community have a plan for what they need to do to launch a pilot fusion power plant and commercialize fusion energy. The challenge is, that the actual budget of the Fusion Energy Science Program has basically not changed at all.

The truth is that we already have all the plans in place, and we only need to put them into practice. We need Congress to fund the money. The President needs to request the necessary funds to accomplish the task. And then you turn around and look across the Pacific to China.

A new facility, which they are calling CRAFT, is about to be finished. This is basically a place where they put all the fusion test stands together. All the projects listed in the long-range plan for the US are being constructed right now or have already been finished, but in China! &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

Nothing new has been released from the US program in the interim. It is difficult to see how this is moving forward. However, the reality is that the US government is not at the center of the ambition. The ambition in the United States is with the private companies. Private companies are still making progress. Funding is flowing into these companies.

Although the US government doesn’t have much funding, significant funding is being poured into these businesses from investors, venture capitalists, and strategic investors. The growing, American-led industry is basically a testament to the power of the American capitalist system that I think we could be on the verge of getting there. This has been observed before.

JT: In China, the government is evidently committed to a real battle plan for fusion. As you pointed out, this is not only happening on paper, but the Chinese are also creating new structures. That was the way the US used to do things in the’ 50s and ‘ 60s in practically every field of science and technology. The idea was to simply go ahead and build a lot of things and see what works. What has happened to that spirit?

AH: I don’t believe it’s gone. I think it’s just lost from the United States government. Take a look at Commonwealth Fusion Systems for an example if you are talking about building things.

They are building a demonstration-class tokamak in Devens, Massachusetts, right now. Look at Helion, which is building their demonstration machine called Polaris in Everett, Washington, just north of Seattle. Zap Energy, in the same area, is testing their FuZE-Q machine right now. I could list a number of more businesses that are currently developing.

So there’s no shortage of building in fusion happening now in the private sector. In fact, we even see the charitable sector getting involved. MIT has found a number of philanthropic investors who want to invest in building a cyclotron that can function as a user facility for the fusion industry to test materials on. This is occurring largely without the US government’s assistance.

JT: Apart from the need to increase its scandalously low fusion budget, what things should the US government be doing now? What connection does this have to the work of the private sector?

AH: If the US wants to secure its leadership, certain things need to happen. The necessary infrastructure must be created for a commercialization program. What that means is that you need to build materials test stands, you need to build fuel cycle test centers, and so on.

Both the government and private industry must have access to the government’s built-in user facilities. A good example is in the aerospace industry: the government builds the wind tunnels and then industry comes in, and pays for access to those facilities. According to classical economics, the government’s failure to intervene would result in underinvestment of these public goods.

The second thing the government should be doing, but hasn’t been nearly enough, is to be investing in the companies directly, to help them move towards the goal of fusion pilot plants. This actually acts as a catalyst. Public-private partnerships enable companies to secure investment, to secure more private dollars.

Government funding has the same effect in a field as fusion that is ambitious. Investors still think that, ah, this is a wildly uncertain area. However, if the government says that we’re investing directly in this company, that seal of approval indicates that it is worthwhile to do so.

This is a real way to accelerate investment into fusion pilot plants. Governments around the world have realized that other nations will invest if they don’t support investment in new technologies.

The CHIPS Act, providing$ 54 billion dollars of funding to build new semiconductor manufacturing facilities in the United States, was adopted because other countries had subsidized this industry so much that it would have taken this strategic industry away from the United States.

There is nothing, in my opinion, more strategic than fusion. This is zero-carbon energy without a scarce fuel source, something that can deal with energy security and deal with our problems of scientific leadership right away. Any government should want to lead and not only have this strategic industry in their nation.

The United States has put really good plans in place. That’s something I want to be clear about. The milestone-based public-private partnership is a really good program. Really good is the INFUSE program. But the amount of money is so small that it really is not impactful to any decision-making by companies at this point.

JT: Why isn’t fusion given more of a priority? Is the problem on the level of bureaucratic thinking?

AH: Unless there is a push from the top, the status quo predominates over any change in politics and government.

JT: Well, that brings me to a central question. Everyone is now referring to China as the United States’ number one strategic rival or even adversary, and people are becoming more aware that China is on the verge of outperforming the United States in many respects.

The Chinese government has clearly identified fusion as a key strategic area, and China clearly aims to get there first, in terms of realizing a fusion pilot plant and developing a commercial fusion industry. I believe that should prompt the US to declare that we had better get moving because the Chinese will defeat us. But apparently, that message has not yet gotten through.

AH: Well, it’s all about timing in Washington, even if it has passed. You shouldn’t expect major new programs at the end of a president’s four-year term. When there is a divided government versus when there is a unified government, it’s all about.

I expect that in 2025, there will be new pushes for legislation from Congress to bolster America’s competitive position vis-à-vis China and the rest of the world. The Trump Administration wants to shake up and reshape the world and perpetuate it.

The United States is not a place where things happen linearly. Things move only occasionally. At the beginning of the Biden administration, there was the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, followed by the CHIPS and Science Act, followed by the Inflation Reduction Act, all of which amounted to an extraordinary amount of funding going into high-tech and energy fields. However, what actually went into fusion was merely a cash donation to support the construction of ITER in the South of France. &nbsp,

New competitiveness funding is what we’re pushing for and anticipate seeing in the new Congress in 2025. And we hope that fusion will be part of that.

We have a strategy. We’ve put forward a$ 3 billion supplemental funding request, and we think there is a case that it should be expanded up to a$ 5 or$ 10 billion supplemental funding request. This money is not intended to be used to build fusion infrastructure and support public-private partnerships in fusion, which are the primary sources of funding for annual appropriations.

JT: Let me bring up the China issue once more, in terms of manpower. According to what I saw, China has ten times as many PhDs in fusion science and engineering as the US. Shouldn’t that be a signaI for rethinking in the US?

China once relied on West Indian students to provide the majority of its top-level skills and knowledge. Those times are gone. China now produces its own elite fusion scientists and engineers at a much higher rate than the US. Shouldn’t the US be concerned about that, if the US wants to retain its leading position?

AH: I actually don’t worry about that issue. The workforce issue is a market issue. And if there is a market pull, we’ll find the workers for it. That’s the great benefit of the American system, the combination of government, philanthropic universities and private sector working together.

I believe there is a reason why the US holds the top spot in higher education, with the country having the most than one in the top 100 universities. US universities are market-oriented, so they listen to what the students want, and make the investments.

At the top level, I worry more. The top level of government funding is just not there. And so we could convince these universities to fund PhD plasma physicists ‘ employment in the UK or Germany. That’s more what I worry about.

JT: What has happened to the US national laboratories, which were formerly conducting fusion research? It seems that hardly any new experiments are being built there.

The national labs are the pinnacle of American science, according to AH. They are the ones that get the funding from DOE. The General Atomics DIII-D facility, which is essentially a national lab-class facility, receives the majority of the$ 800 million fusion budget.

I want to be clear that the national labs are doing really important science. However, we must witness the transition from science to science for the sake of commercialization.

If you look at a pie chart of where the$ 800 million DOE funding for Fusion Energy Sciences goes, the largest chunk,$ 240 million goes to ITER. The 30-year-old Tokamak run by General Atomics is DIII-D, which is the next-largest. It does really important science. Although it is not a brand-new machine, it does have excellent diagnostics. It’s not breaking new ground.

The National Spherical Torus Experiment-Upgrade ( NSTX-U) experiment from Princeton Plasma Physics Lab is the next-largest experiment.

JT: The NSTX is quite an old facility.

AH: They intend to reopen an upgraded facility for experiments next year, but we haven’t been able to do so for nearly a decade.

So if you look at those three facilities I just mentioned, that’s the bulk of the DOE fusion budget. However, commercialization-focused programs must include the construction of the fusion infrastructure I mentioned earlier. We need to make investments in both.

Now, I’d like it if there was” a rising tide that lifts all boats.” If we had a billion-dollar program or more in the Fusion Energy Sciences, then we could do all of these things.

We anticipate seeing really good science emerge from NSTX-U, and there is still good science emerging from DIII-D. But it’s not clear to us that this is better than the science that will come out of the private sector, where companies are building the next generation of these machines. &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

JT: Are you thinking of an analogous process to the commercialization of space flight, with the transfer from NASA to SpaceX and other private companies?

AH: This is exactly what.

In 2006 NASA was looking to replace the space shuttle for access to the International Space Station. They had a plan, known as the Constellation and Orion programs, to build rockets to transport astronauts from Earth to Mars and back to Earth. A small group within NASA said, well, there are private space companies coming up, SpaceX and others.

No one initially believed they could ever accomplish this, but NASA responded,” OK, here’s$ 500 million, let’s do a public-private partnership with them.” They called the project COTS, Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, which aimed to develop private spacecraft to take deliveries, and ultimately astronauts, to the International Space Station. &nbsp,

The NASA COTS program invested directly into SpaceX in a milestone-based format. That leaves SpaceX with no money after hitting milestones. The ultimate milestone, of course, was delivering an astronaut to the International Space Station. However, they also reached a number of agreements and negotiated.

Finally, of course, SpaceX did succeed, and now they’re able to do it for 10 times less than what NASA had originally planned to spend. So we’re currently at the same point in fusion, with a milestone-based public-private partnership program that is the equivalent of the NASA COTS program.

They put it in place, but the government hasn’t given it even half of what it needs. To date, only$ 46 million has been allocated to companies. And when they finish it the following year, we anticipate another$ 40 million to be added to the budget for this year. But to be impactful, you need to add a zero to those numbers. You require a larger order of magnitude.

We think that the milestone-based program is the way that the United States is going to get to its fusion pilot plants. It’s done in the traditional American way. It’s your private sector and your public sector working together in partnership. The risk is taken by the private sector. The public sector supplies the infrastructure know-how. It’s a really creative way to go about it.

JT: Coming back to China, how would you characterize their effort and what do you think are the most important projects they have coming online?

You said it appears like there is a government plan. China is not the Soviet Union. There appears to be some internal competition going on, and it has evolved into something different from the traditional command-top-down economy. There are private companies involved. ENN, Startorus Fusion, and Energy Singularity are three private fusion companies in China that we are aware of.

There’s probably more, but those are the ones that have been significantly funded and are doing important work as of now. Energy Singularity is the one who is currently creating a tokamak using high-temperature superconductor magnets, essentially following a similar blueprint to what Commonwealth Fusion Systems in the US is building. The other two companies are looking towards other varieties of tokamaks.

Therefore, there is a more financially successful private sector approach. And then there is a government program. However, state-owned enterprises are also supported by the central government in China, Beijing, and other central government entities. They have created a new China Fusion Corporation that looks to be a delivery vehicle for what they are calling BEST– the Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak.

This is a classic low-temperature superconductor device rather than a high-temperature superconducting tokamak, but it will also be an ITER-class machine that will achieve fusion break-even. They are building it right now in Hefei, in Anhui province, not far from the CRAFT platform, the Comprehensive Research Facility for Fusion Technology.

What’s interesting is that, if you look at the company registrations and funding, a sizable portion of the funding for this government program has actually come from private investors. Leading among these is the electric vehicle company NIO.

We’ve looked into Chinese public company records, and it appears that the NIO is at least partially funding the building of BEST, but it’s not clear who is funding China Fusion Corporation. To be clear, I haven’t actually talked to them and I don’t know and of that for sure.

Because China is a different system than it was ten years ago, it is difficult to say for sure about any of this. It’s not as open. Having said that, Chinese scientists, working for both public and private companies, are actively involved in international fusion conferences around the world. They’re there to learn and they are there to share their details.

Some details are still ambiguous, though. There was an announcement late last year of the formation of a China Fusion Corporation, a press release&nbsp, was put out by the China National Nuclear Corporation. However, that press release was removed from the Internet within a day or two. I have an English language translation, but you can’t get the source anymore.

JT: Do you see a national security perspective in the race to build a pilot fusion power plant in light of all the talk about China as a strategic rival of the US?

AH: Any concentrated source of electric power that doesn’t rely on energy resources from an unstable world is national security related.

JT: What if China were to win the race for fusion energy commercialization?

AH: If the Chinese get to fusion first, we shouldn’t expect that this would just be a pure market-based approach. We should anticipate that China will use its newly established position of authority in global geopolitics. We should expect that they will use it throughout their Belt and Road partner nations, further tying them into a centralized, Beijing-led whole order.

Fusion is therefore more than just something the United States should do because it benefits both the environment and the economy. Examples from other industries show that China will take this and make it central to their global effort to put China at the center of the global geopolitical order.

JT: Would you draw a comparison to the attempt to reach the Moon?

AH: It’s similar in that we’re seeing a global race and multiple players work towards something very technologically challenging. However, I must say that although going to the Moon was and is an extraordinary achievement, it has a much greater impact on the day-to-day lives of the people living in your country if you can produce power without emissions and without relying on potentially hostile external sources.

Continue Reading

Global conflicts lead to drop in demand for handmade festive items from Kashmir

” For a long time, paper mache has been affiliated with the global business”, said Mohammad Mehdi, user of crafts store Sunlight in Srinagar.

” During Christmas, items like balloons and rings were exported in millions. Also, during Easter, a large number of egg were sent internationally”.

Consumers DO NOT NEED TO BUY IN BULK.

Major exporters attribute the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which broke out nearly three years ago, to the Middle East conflict that was brought on by the Israel-Hamas conflict in October of last year, as well as to the conflict that has broken out in the region.

These manufacturers claimed that because they are unsure about whether customers will buy these items in challenging circumstances, their clients are now reluctant to order them in large quantities.

Our clients in Europe, the Middle East, and America fear importing our goods, according to Ubaid Ali, a producer and supplier.

Citizens today prefer to save money over spending it, according to those who tell us they don’t know what will happen in the future.

After new setbacks that had impacted the flow of visitors to the area, the art form was already in difficulty.

These include the disastrous 2014 Kashmir storms, the American government’s 2019 choice to withdraw the limited freedom of Jammu and Kashmir, and the world COVID-19 crisis in 2020.

In response, companies like Ubaid have been creating new products in an effort to capture the attention of consumers.

However, the staff who make Christmas decorations haven’t had the same access to pivotal tools.

However, artisans like Shah expressed hope for peace and that putting an end to these hostilities may enable people to observe customs and holidays as they should.

Continue Reading

No assurances for Taiwan under Trump 2.0 – Asia Times

The nomination of China hawks like Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, and Elbridge Colby for top leadership positions by the incoming Trump 2.0 administration seems to have good things for Taiwan. &nbsp, &nbsp,

Sydney Morning Herald&nbsp, journalist Lisa Visentin is among those who&nbsp, conclude&nbsp, that” Trump has sent an early information to Beijing that Washington is doubtful to leave Taiwan”. A recent&nbsp, Taipei Times&nbsp, editorial&nbsp, exulted&nbsp, that the content of Trump’s proposed management team “indicates that the US would maintain its strong support for Taiwan”.

Alas, the reality is more complicated. Washington is currently anticipating wet climate on two sides in Taiwan.

The first is a requirement that Taiwan raise its defence spending from its current 2.5 % of GDP. Trump&nbsp, said&nbsp, the number may be 10 %. Lest we dismiss that as everyday Trumpian rhetoric, Colby, the recently appointed secretary of defense for plan, has &nbsp, said&nbsp, the same thing.

A resumptuous US-China trade war, which would directly harm Taiwan among different US friends by stifling China’s earnings from the US market and therefore stifling China’s ability to buy the goods from other Asia-Pacific nations, is the next anticipated tsunami.

But there’s more. Trump 2.0 is more likely than any US state since the Korean War to end US support for an automatic Taiwan despite the presence of China hawks in the Oval Office.

The US’s present support for Taiwan times up to 1950. In 1949, the Chiang Kai-shek state and the Republic of China under Mao Zedong’s control had taken control of mainland China, forcing the Republic of China state and its remaining troops to relocastate Taiwan. &nbsp,

Beijing planned to end the Chinese Civil War by attempting to win Taiwan in the fall of 1950 after Washington’s assurance had declined. However, the Korean War’s onset in June of that year persuaded US President Harry Truman to place the US Navy to stop PRC troops from crossing the Taiwan Strait. Thereafter, Taiwan became a US territory.

Fast forward to the current, and for a while, there are several reasons why once-reliable US assistance immediately seems unsure.

Second, Trump rejects the bipartisan isolationist perspective that has dominated US foreign policy since the end of World War II. The US’s great strategy has long allowed Taiwan to choose its own global social destiny.

Taiwan turned into a successful Chinese progressive democracy, exemplifying the kind of change that Washington promotes globally as its original Leninist government effectively implemented land reform and later replaced it with political liberalization. This project is based on America’s self-image, but it also reflects a well-known theory that democracy promotes harmony because democratic governments have a tendency to avoid conflict. &nbsp,

An independent Taiwan also aids in establishing the democratic social order that is supported by the US in Asia. &nbsp, As for, acquiescing to a hostile PRC invasion of Taiwan may diminish, perhaps fatally, America’s placement of corporate leadership in the Asia-Pacific area. &nbsp, &nbsp,

Trump’s thinking about Taiwan, but, is not relatively based on intellectual or strategic views that make Taiwan’s independence beneficial to the United States.

Trump rather emphasizes&nbsp his hatred toward Taiwan for allegedly stealing semiconductor production from the US and for failing to pay for US military protection, despite the US-Taiwan Relations Act’s prohibition against military defending Taiwan and Taiwan’s responsibility to pay for the weaponry the US provides. &nbsp,

On four times, Biden&nbsp, said&nbsp, officially he would give US forces to protect Taiwan in the event of a PRC harm. Trump, in contrast, frequently expresses reluctance to defend Taiwan because it is too little, too near to China, and unimportant in comparison to that country. On the other hand, Trump touts his regard for and connection with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and has &nbsp, also admitted&nbsp, to taking guidance from Xi.

Another reason to doubt whether the US will continue to support an intelligent Taiwan is that Trump’s China bird advisors does not really dictate US plan. True, Trump allowed his team to impose a tougher US position on China during his first word.

They altered the language of important US policy statements to present China as an antagonistic state determined to stifle America’s rise to worldwide influence. According to a technique report released by the incoming Trump presidency in January 2021, the US has a strong curiosity in preventing the PRC from seizing Taiwan. The Uyghur Muslim minority’s harassment was also referred to as “genocide” in the previous Trump White House.

Trump, but, also showed that he was willing to compromise corporate objectives in the search for a bilateral trade agreement with Beijing. Trump&nbsp, decided&nbsp, to cut US sanctions against Chinese communications large ZTE as a favour to Xi in 2018. He also&nbsp, reportedly&nbsp, told Xi he endorsed China’s severe cure of Uyghurs.

However, the anti-China, pro-Taiwan eagles in the Trump 2.0 management may not last long. The turnover rate among senior officers was incredibly high during Trump’s first name. &nbsp,

Third, the effect of other top advisors in the incoming Trump presidency less friendly toward Taiwan, quite as mega-billionaire Elon Musk and near-billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, may outweigh the influence of the pro-Taiwan advisors. &nbsp,

Ramaswamy has &nbsp, said&nbsp, Taiwan matters to the United States only because it makes advanced semiconductors and that after ramping up its own chip production, America should stop protecting Taiwan. Meanwhile, Musk is thoroughly compromised by his business interests in China, where his most profitable Tesla factory is located. &nbsp,

Musk has &nbsp, called&nbsp, himself “kind of pro-China” .&nbsp, He takes the PRC government’s position that Taiwan is part of China, equating Taiwan’s relationship to the PRC with the US federal government’s relationship to the US state of Hawaii.

Musk wants Taipei to comply with Beijing’s demands to prevent a cross-strait conflict that would disrupt the supply chains Musk’s businesses rely on. Ramaswamy and Musk can be expected to place a higher value on avoiding a US war with China in their advice to Trump as opposed to preserving Taiwan’s democracy.

Or, there’s a chance that the China hawks will vehemently despise Taiwan because of how much they control US policy in Asia. Beijing is deeply concerned that US efforts to prevent Taiwan from being forcibly annexed by the PRC serve as a cover for an alleged American plot to slash the country into pieces to secure Taiwan’s independence. &nbsp,

Some China hawks are known to engage in elaborate symbolic gestures intended to disparage or humiliate China, as if this was based on the idea that the Chinese government would consent if the US showed signs of strength and commitment. Then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022 was one such example.

China responded by stepping up rather than by ceasing to expand and enhance the size and standard of its military exercises close to Taiwan. US Indo-Pacific commander Admiral Samuel Paparo&nbsp, observed&nbsp, that in 2024 he” saw the most rehearsal and the most joint exercises from the People’s Republic of China that I’d ever seen” .&nbsp,

US supporters of Taiwan should aim for policies that, ideally without stoking hysteria in Beijing, actually improve Taiwan’s security and defensibility. If completely empowered, the China hawks might not have the restraint to stay on this prudent middle path, which is best for Taiwan’s well-being.

There is also a non-trivial possibility that Trump and Xi could reach a mega-deal to reset US-China relations. By purchasing tens of billions of dollars worth of additional US products, Beijing would promise to redress China’s enormous trade surplus with the US, which Trump has discussed most. This would be a rehash of the” Phase One” trade agreement that was broken just before the Covid pandemic began. &nbsp,

In addition, China would reassure Trump that trade between China and the US would continue to be free in an East Asian nation. In return, Trump would abandon US strategic leadership in Asia. He already has a strong belief that the costs of US leadership abroad outweigh the advantages that regular Americans can expect. &nbsp,

Washington would cease selling arms to Taiwan as part of this restrenchment and give up its alliances and military installations on the western rim of the Pacific. Of course, many members of the US Congress would object. However, as the Trump phenomenon has demonstrated, we shouldn’t underestimate how much Republican Party politicians will give up their core beliefs and principles in order to maintain Trump’s favor. &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

Although America has never been tougher on China, this occurs amidst an anti-internationalism that is part of Trump’s” Make America Great Again” package. Therefore, Taiwan’s enduring fear of being snuffed out by America is more relevant than ever. Koreans have a tradition of describing their nation as a” shrimp among whales.”

Increasingly, that metaphor applies at least as well to Taiwan, with a potentially fickle US as one of the whales.

Denny Roy is Senior Fellow at the East-West Center, Honolulu

Continue Reading

Biden fires grand finale chip war salvo at China – Asia Times

The Biden administration announced a deal exploration into Chinese tradition semiconductors, which generally refer to 28 millimeter or higher chips, to defend America’s chip-making business. &nbsp,

According to a fact sheet released by the White House on Monday ( December 23 ), the Office of the US Trade Representative will launch a Section 301 investigation to examine the People’s Republic of China ( PRC )’s ( PRC ) plan to target foundational semiconductors or mature node chips for dominance and the impact on the US economy. &nbsp,

The USTR probe will protect Chinese semiconductors integrated as components into upstream products for vital industries like defense, mechanical, medical devices, aerospace, telecommunications, and power generation and the electric grid. &nbsp,

It will also examine whether the impact of China’s actions, policies, and methods on the production of silicone carbide materials ( or other chips used as inputs to semiconductor fabrication ) contributes to any unjustifiableness, discrimination, or burden or restraint on US commerce.

US Trade Representative Katherine Tai, the Biden-Harris Administration’s official, praised the investigation as” a powerful tool for standing up for American workers and firms, strengthening the resilience of important supply stores, and supporting unmatched investment in this sector.”

The Biden presidency was reportedly preparing to investigate China’s identity cards, according to a December 16 article in The New York Times. According to the report, the investigation does take at least six months to complete, so the incoming Trump leadership will be in charge of making that decision.

The USTR’s upcoming tradition chip sensor was criticized by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MC) on Monday.

Through the Device and Science Act, a MoC director claimed that the US part has given its chip business “heavy incentives.” The US accuses China of having so-called non-market techniques and exaggerates the risk of the Chinese chip industry, noting that its businesses account for nearly half of the global chip industry.

Washington should take into account the fact that American chips are imported from China much more than American chips are.

” The Biden administration wants to create a fine net to contain China’s chip sector”, Lai Jiaqi, a columnist at Guancha.cn, said in a recent article. &nbsp,

” In the past, the US government’s curbs against China’s chip industry were focusing on the ban of the shipment of advanced US chips”, Lai said. China is gradually increasing its investments in the production of its own mature chips as the US tightens its regulations.

According to the author, it’s unlikely that there will be an oversupply of Chinese mature chips in the next two to three years, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies ( CSIS), a think tank based in Washington.

Overcapacity concerns

The three reasons why overcapacity concerns are either exaggerated or misunderstood as coming from China are described in the CSIS report:

  1. The purpose of Chinese companies expanding their capacity is to primarily supply domestic demand. China still imports the majority of its domestic semiconductor consumption requirements.
  2. Domestic demand in China is still high and will increase significantly through 2030. Domestic chip capacity will be able to meet about 90 % of domestic demand by 2030, compared to 37 % in 2020, assuming all of the previously announced factories in China are finished and operational by 2030.
  3. For some consumer electronics applications, Chinese foundries ‘ products are becoming more expensive, but they are still far less reliable for end-use applications like cars. Foreign companies will continue to dominate the Chinese market.

The White House announced on Monday that it would strengthen federal supply chain security in addition to looking into Chinese legacy chips by forbidding executive federal agencies from purchasing or obtaining products or services that include chips from specific Chinese factories and other relevant entities. &nbsp,

Additionally, it added that it will work with its international partners to improve cooperation in semiconductor supply chains and address shared concerns about China’s alleged unfair practices.

CHIPS for America

The Biden administration has introduced a number of new measures to combat China’s chip sector ahead of Republican President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20.

Following two previous rounds in October 2021 and 2022, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security ( BIS ) released a third package of chip export regulations against China on December 2. &nbsp,

Additionally, the BIS added 140 Chinese chip manufacturers and suppliers to its” Entity List,” as well as new export controls for 24 different types of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, three different software tools for creating or producing semiconductors, and high-bandwidth memory ( HBM ) chips. &nbsp,

To determine the best ways to encourage government contractors, especially those with commercial IT products and services, to increase their use of domestically produced chips, the US Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) released a Request for Information ( RFI ) on December 10.

The White House released its first-ever Quadrennial Supply Chain Review on December 19 to provide an in-depth analysis of the nation’s crucial supply chains, recommendations for improvement over the past four years, and recommendations for further improvements to US resilience in the future. &nbsp,

Additionally, US President Biden has accelerated the pace of funding qualified chipmakers for the construction of foundries. &nbsp,

According to the government, the CHIPS for America initiative has so far provided over US$ 26 billion in incentives to boost domestic production of semiconductors and their supply chains. It said this made America home to all five of the world’s leading-edge logic and memory providers, while no other economy has more than two. &nbsp,

‘ A fool’s errand’

Four Chinese industry organizations demanded their members not to purchase American legacy semiconductors due to” safety” concerns after the US announced new export controls to prohibit the shipping of high-end US chips to China on December 2. &nbsp,

The Internet Society of China, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, the China Association of Communications Enterprises, and the China Association of Semiconductor Industry Association are just a few of the industry groups. &nbsp,

Concluding the Biden administration’s four-year efforts to boost the US chip sector, US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told the Wall Street Journal on December 21 that” trying to hold China back is a fool’s errand”.

She claimed that China’s export controls were only” speed bumps” and could not slow China’s development of its own semiconductor capabilities. She claimed that the only way for the US to win the chip war is to out-innovate China and stay ahead of it. &nbsp,

Liu Lanxun, a military columnist from Hubei, claimed that Raimondo finally admitted at the conclusion of her term that the US chip ban against China is a waste of time. However, he claimed that because China is also investing heavily in its chip industry, the US might not always succeed in the end.

Yong Jian contributes to Asia Times. He is a Chinese journalist who specializes in Chinese technology, economy and politics.

Read more about the anti-US chips campaign by China-based business groups.

Continue Reading

‘Trumpflation’ already wreaking havoc on Bank of Japan – Asia Times

Before it even arrives, the Bank of Japan has a very common feud with Donald Trump’s 2.0 White House.

Tokyo is now putting the brakes on the following Trump presidency, which will take place in four weeks. Governor Kazuo Ueda is leading Asia’s second-largest business toward the total unfamiliar at BOJ office in Tokyo, where it is more evident.

Certainly, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba may dispute this classification. However, Ueda is securely in the driver’s seat with approval levels in the 20s and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party rarely hanging on to power.

The issue is figuring out when Trump will visit the White House on January 20. Door No. 1 is contextual Trump, ready to negotiate a “grand deal” business cope with China and perhaps others. Door No. Second: a” Tax Man” period that sparks trade wars that no one has seen before.

This doubt explains why Ueda’s plan board kept rates unchanged next year. And why it’s probably not even a question to consider a price trek for January. The BOJ stated in a speech last week that “uncertainty persists regarding the country’s economy and rates.”

Local problems are bad much. Team Ishiba is scrambling to implement innovative fiscal stimulus to boost domestic demand as Chinese growth declines. Not exactly a good place for the BOJ to raise prices.

China’s economic downturn is its own conundrum. Tokyo is deeply alarmed by the recession that Asia’s biggest sector exports. For years, Japan was accused of generating more challenges than development. Then it’s China, by much Japan’s leading export market.

India fears about the mix of Trump’s affected trade conflict and domestic plans to arrest millions of illegal immigrant workers. The great possibilities this will make what industry observers have coined” Trumpflation” has Ueda’s BOJ in a spin.

That includes legislators from European Central Bank Governor Christine Lagarde to Bank of Korea Governor Rhee Chang-yong.

” In Japan, industrial production likely fell 3 % in November from October”, says Stefan Angrick, an economist at Moody’s Analytics. ” Business forecasts for November have looked bad, with companies pointing to falling production across machinery, autos and technology”.

The bigger issue is income. The enthusiasm over the previous year’s wage negotiations for the spring has long since waned. The union workers ‘ biggest increases in 33 years didn’t stop the virtuous cycle of inflated salaries and increased use that many had hoped for. As 2024 begins, inflation-adjusted give is smooth.

Chinese CEOs could be prevented from raising pay in the coming year by competing concerns about China’s decline and Trump’s bombardment of tariffs. This danger is making the BOJ’s price increase timeline more challenging.

Previously, economists thought a December price climb was a done deal. Finally, a group of BOJ officials stepped up to the microphone to announce that there would be no tightening. Though” Trump business” challenges weren’t highlighted particularly, they were written between the lines in bold font.

With the Trump threat to impose$ 60 transfer taxes on Chinese goods, Japan would be at the middle of the collateral damage area. Any significant decline in the biggest customer for Japan had destroy it in 2025.

Japan Inc concerns, also, that Trump may teach his tariffs its approach. Trump has refused Ishiba’s noted many demands for a pre-inauguration meet. Due to this, Japan is concerned that Trump doesn’t view Ishiba as a crucial mate in the same way that he did Shinzo Abe, the prime minister for 2020.

And that the 100 % taxes Trump plans for Mexico-made trucks might remain aimed next at Toyota, Honda and Nissan. That may hinder the former two businesses ‘ efforts to combine to raise global market share.

For Ueda’s BOJ, dread must be the experience of the time. Ueda dragged his legs on raising prices to 0.2 %, where it is now, in the 15 weeks after taking the helm in April 2023. Despite robust economic growth and the favorable environment for higher Asian rates, this is true.

Having squandered that window of opportunity, Ueda today finds himself on the defense. With Ishiba’s gathering on the run, social pressure against price hikes is definitely mounting. The LDP’s current reliance on criticism party help to hold onto power is not all that helpful.

On the other side, there’s a real danger of” Trumpflation” that lingers back Japan’s manner. As Trump introduces laws that appear to be sure to increase global sales pressures, the threat has been brought up by economists, including Nobel prize Paul Krugman.

Trump’s taxes “would lead to a significant increase in consumer prices in the US.” We estimate that the proposed tariff increases would increase core PCE prices by 0.9 % if implemented using our rule of thumb, which states that every 1[percentage point ] increase in the effective tariff rate would raise core PCE prices by 0.1 %.

Or even more if Trump makes good on capturing millions of undocumented workers, thereby tightening US workers markets even more.

The author of” The Contest for Japan’s Economic Future,” Richard Katz, claims that domestic price trends, along with Trumpflation and a weaker yen, are putting the BOJ at a disadvantage. The BOJ is therefore holding off until more proof is available.

Ueda’s plan board “faces a dilemma”, Katz says. Objectives of higher prices in Japan typically lead to the BOJ raising interest rates. That would not only filter the level gap, but also help to counteract the yen’s yen’s upward pressure, and also help to combat inflation.

Katz continues, adding that” for the most part, the weaker yen and other components have been reducing true wages and, consequently, customer paying for the past five years. That prevents economic development, and the BOJ must maintain low interest rates to maintain afloat the business.

Katz adds that it’s even more concerning how and when Trump may put the laws he campaigned and won on into practice.

It’s unclear whether the benefits in minimum wage increases that employers granted this year will be repeated following year on the local Japan entrance. Because of the magnitude of imported inflation, it’s unclear whether minimum increases will result in higher real wages.

All of this is putting pressure on the renminbi. Last year, Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato said he was “deeply” concerned about the dollar’s new fall.

Katz argues that the BOJ’s entire prices plan depends on maintaining minimum wage increases at 3 % annually in the hopes that this will result in increases in real income. It will take many months to see the 2025 fiscal pay picture. Therefore, at least for this month, the BOJ is adopting a wait-and-see attitude”.

Daisuke Karakama, general business analyst at Mizuho Bank, says” I’m not certain if yen failure may be contained until March”. He adds that there’s” no assurance” the yen didn’t break through 160 to the money by January.

Trump Japan may encounter this in January, but there is no guarantee. And the degree of the” Trumpflation” that might follow.

Following William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading