Indonesian state-owned enterprise Pertamina Power Indonesia, known as Pertamina New &, Renewable Energy or Pertamina NRE, is taking a 20 % stake in Citicore Renewables Energy Croporation ( CREC ) as it expands into the Philippines.
¬ Plaza Media Limited. All rights reserved.
Indonesian state-owned enterprise Pertamina Power Indonesia, known as Pertamina New &, Renewable Energy or Pertamina NRE, is taking a 20 % stake in Citicore Renewables Energy Croporation ( CREC ) as it expands into the Philippines.
¬ Plaza Media Limited. All rights reserved.
The US currency’s strong respect after President-elect Donald Trump’s election gain is hitting Eastern currencies, with the Foreign renminbi, Japanese yen, Indian rupee and Asian won then all plumbing multi-year lows.  ,
That raises important questions about imported prices and the challenges local governments and central banks will face in implementing economic and financial policymaking.
For Asian markets, where the US is a key business partner and some commodities—notably oil—are priced in dollars, a weaker regional money inflates the cost of goods. Consumer prices are affected by this imported prices, which causes an increase in living costs and a decline in purchasing power.  ,
A depreciating yuan in China makes important goods like electronics and agricultural items, which are essential to the country’s production and food supply chain, more difficult to come by.  ,
Similar to South Korea, the did n’s loss raises the cost of imported energy and raw materials, as well as threatens to weaken the success of export-oriented sectors as higher manufacturing costs offset the advantage of a weaker dollar.
A key issue for politicians is how currency-induced prices is spiral.  ,
Businesses and consumers frequently make adjustments to their behavior when they anticipate that prices will rise as well. For instance, companies may temporarily raise prices, while households may make purchases as they anticipate higher prices will rise.
This can lead to a feedback loop where inflation expectations turn out to be unrealistic, putting strain on central banks ‘ efforts to maintain value security.
In India, inflationary anticipation are particularly difficult because the rupee’s loss has already increased costs for essentials like gas and edible oils.
The Reserve Bank of India ( RBI ) has attempted to stabilize inflation expectations through interest rate management, but a persistent decline in the rupee could undermine these efforts.
So, central bankers across Asia experience a dramatic policy dilemma. To fight imported prices, raising interest rates is the text response.  , But, higher interest rates may soften economic progress by making borrowing more costly for businesses and consumers.
For economy already grappling with severe problems, such as China’s slowing economic development and Japan’s persistent negative forces, tightening monetary policy carries substantial risks.
Consider Japan, for instance. The Bank of Japan ( BOJ) has maintained an ultra-loose monetary policy for years to combat deflation. However, the currency’s sharp decline in value relative to the money has pushed import prices higher, making it necessary for the BOJ to deal with inflationary pressures without compromising a delicate financial recovery.  ,
The question is whether Japan can afford to resume its economic policy without starting a recession, a danger that even looms over various Asian nations.
The currency’s loss trend is not occurring in confinement. It reflects broader international developments, including the Federal Reserve’s financial tightening, which has made the money more attractive to buyers seeking higher yields.  ,
This cash flow from emerging businesses has increased the strain on their assets. At the same time, geopolitical conflicts and trade policy difficulties, both exacerbated by Trump’s affected tariffs and ‘ America First ‘ plan, have heightened uncertainty in money markets.
Eastern central banks must deal with both domestic inflationary pressures and external forces that are beyond their control, so.  ,
Involvement in foreign exchange markets, like as selling dollar reserves to support local currencies, has its own hazards, including reducing resources and lowering investor confidence.
Many Asian markets may benefit from combining short-term monetary policy with long-term structural changes.
Central bankers could work with governments to resolve supply-side concerns while implementing targeted interventions to maintain currencies. For example, reducing power dependence on imported energy through investments in renewable energy might lessen the impact of upcoming money swings.
In India, measures to boost domestic production of important items —a basis of the” Make in India” initiative—could minimize reliance on increasingly expensive goods.
Also, China’s efforts to boost self-sufficiency in electronics and other high-tech companies may protect it from the worst results of currency-driven prices over the long term.  ,
The problem for Asian economies is to increase endurance against unforeseen surprises in addition to the current inflationary strains. This necessitates a delicate balancing act of managing economic plan to stop inflation while preventing progress while also addressing structural issues.
.jpg "Prime minister Anwar Ibrahim officially launched the e.MAS 7 on 16th December 2024.")
The introduction of electric cars into Proton Berhad’s sales roster in December was undoubtedly the biggest change in its 41-year story.  ,  ,
According to Salawati Mohd Yusoff, COO of PRO-NET, the company is taking the challenge in stride and is devoted to satisfying its customers ‘ needs in its new energy vehicle business.
PRO-NET joins PROTON EDAR as a subsidiary of Proton, with PRO-NET focusing on the novel power automobile company while PRO-EDAR focuses on the ICE product division.
By offering both ICE and EV designs, Proton is committed to meeting the various needs of its customers, Salawati said.” We recognize that each serves different markets with unique difficulties and opportunities,” Salawati said.
To provide such a top-notch customer-centric experience, there must be mentoring of the workforce, upgrading the production lines, and establishing a fresh source chain with new partners. No little efforts.
” Our top goal is to train our workplace and production traces for EV production. We’re focused on identifying the specific skills needed for EV creation, such as working with chargers and high-voltage methods”, said Salawati.
To maintain Proton is prepared for the future of electronic vehicles, the goal is to foster a culture of continuous learning.
Continue checking at oursustainabilitymatters.com for the whole content as DNA is transitioning our conservation policy to a solo information site.
The need for planted salmon in China is growing at a rate never before seen. Imports of fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon increased by 46 % year over year in 2023, up 63 %.
The world seafood trade is being transformed by this amazing growth. Manufacturers from Scotland, Norway, Chile, Australia, Faroe Islands, Canada and Iceland are racing to offer the wants of this large and rapidly evolving industry.
China’s efforts to produce its own Atlantic salmon have also encountered major difficulties, which indicate that competitors like rainbow fish are required to meet the nation’s growing appetite for seafood specialties.
When the Taiwanese government approved labeling and selling rainbow trout as mackerel, a significant change took place in 2018. This choice made a more affordable option for customers who are concerned about costs by blurring the difference between directly farmed rainbow trout and imported Atlantic salmon.
Trout has strong, oily meat that has an orange-pink color and is comparable in look and size to salmon. Physiologically also, the varieties are alike, as are the way in which they can be cooked and prepared.
In our recent study, which included style tests, we discovered that some Chinese consumers were unable to tell the difference between private rainbow fish and imported Atlantic salmon in deaf testing. However, when asked about the origin, the testers ‘ preferences for imported Atlantic salmon significantly changed, highlighting the influence of history on customer preferences.
Although person’s willingness to pay did not initially differ in our deaf tests, it quickly changed into a crucial element once the origin of the fish was known.
However, we realized that the only thing missing was source. Our testers needed to like the look, smell, and taste of the product more in order to be willing to pay higher prices, or they had to be persuaded by its ecolabel ( indicating environmental standards ).
Transporting Atlantic salmon from Scottish glens, Norway fjords, or Chilean waters involves complicated logistics and substantial environmental costs. The carbon footprint of this industry, combined with the resource-intensive character of mackerel aquaculture, raises important concerns about conservation.
These difficulties are especially acute in China, where customers have a strong desire for beauty. Despite its negative effects on the environment, buyers are increasingly turning to online retailers to purchase their shrimp because of this.
E-commerce has transformed shrimp store in China, allowing fast delivery and products that meet consumer demands for quality and freshness. In this industry, Salmon is renowned for its perceived high price, superior quality, and affordable price. Salmon retains its appeal when frozen or cooled, unlike other costly seafood that frequently needs to be sold exist to maintain its worth.
Salmon is ideally suited for contemporary retail environments, where complex cold-chain logistics guarantee its freshness without the challenges of live transportation. But, these advances come at a cost.
Transported salmon has a significant impact on the environment due to its labor-intensive storage and quick transportation. Addressing the conservation issues relating to the Chinese seafood market will be crucial in achieving a balance between climate responsibility and consumer demand as the market grows. In China, the latest global certification programs that aim to improve the sector’s sustainability have had a minimal impact.
China has made significant efforts to establish a local Atlantic salmon business, but these attempts have mostly failed because of technical difficulties and economic boundaries. This has created a space that internally raised rainbow trout is ready to pack.
In 2022, China produced 37, 000 lots of rainbow trout. Although this is a small amount in comparison to global output levels, it is still noteworthy given that rainbow trout is a fairly new planted species in China, in contrast to other traditional species like carp.
However, rainbow trout farming in China is geographically constrained, as the species thrives in cooler freshwater temperatures found in higher-lying lakes and pools, as well as in “raceways” ( programs supplied continuously with fresh water diverted from river ).
Advances in fishing techniques offer a possible pathway to develop China’s production. The use of fish gardening reduces the carbon footprint associated with goods and provides healthier alternatives for Chinese customers. It is a more sustainable, locally manufactured alternative to Atlantic herring. Growing a strong domestic salmon industry would improve food security, lessen import dependence, and foster economic growth in rural areas.
The expanding seafood market in China offers important teachings for the worldwide market. The extremely advanced Chinese consumer may find it important to emphasize quality, beauty, and sustainability.
At the same time, expense in eco-friendly aquaculture practices, both domestically and internationally, may be necessary to stabilize the growing demand for premium shellfish with economic responsibility. These might include reducing feed waste and using recirculating aquaculture systems ( which reuse and filter water ) to reduce water usage. The key is also recycling leftover nutrition from food generation.
The connection between consumer interests, environmental issues, and economic opportunities could have an impact on the global salmon industry as rainbow trout gains popularity in China’s seafood industry.
Salmon manufacturers in Europe, Canada, and various distributing regions does face significant challenges if local fish are able to occupy a larger share of the Chinese business. In the end, this could push them to reevaluate their strategies in order to change business relationships.
Although China’s attempt to establish a local Atlantic salmon business has proved difficult, trout farming offers a sensible and sustainable solution for its premium seafood market.
Mausam Budhathoki is a doctorate researcher at the University of Copenhagen and the University of Stirling, while Dave Little is a professor of underwater solutions development at the University of Stirling.
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.
With the exception of a canceled state visit to Denmark, Donald Trump faced a lot of ridicule when he first made an offer to purchase Greenland in 2019. Fast forward six times and Trump’s renewed “bid” for the nation’s largest beach is back on the table.
And that too with renewed strength. In an interview on January 7, the approaching US leader refused to rule out the use of force to take ownership of Greenland and he dispatched his brother, Don Jr,” and several associates” there on January 8, 2025, to emphasize his sincerity. Money may not be a hindrance to any offer that Trump envisages, especially with Elon Musk taking over the plan.
Trump is not the first US politician to attempt to get Greenland. The island’s first acquisition test dates again to 1868, the first time it has been documented.
The next significant efforts since Trump was made by the 1946 administration’s president, Harry S. Truman. Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland hence continues a long line of geographical expansion efforts by the United States.
Trump’s most recent bet is less absurd today than it may have appeared again in 2019 even without this historical background. On the one hand, Greenland is extremely rich in so-called” important materials”. According to a 2024 record in the Scholar, the area has known reserves of 43 out of 50 of these nutrients. According to the US Department of Energy, these minerals are necessary for “technologies that create, transmit, store and preserve power” and have” a higher risk of supply chain disruption”.
Given that China, a major distributor of a number of crucial nutrients to international markets, has been putting more restrictions on its imports as part of an ongoing business dispute with the US, this is undoubtedly a valid concern. Washington would have more control over the supply chain and lessen any utilize that China might have to exert. Having access to Greenland’s solutions.
Greenland’s corporate location also makes it valuable to the US. Pituffik Space Base, a well-established US center, is crucial to US weapon protection and early warning and is important for space surveillance. The base’s future growth may also improve US ability to track Russian naval activities in the Arctic Ocean and the northern Atlantic.
US autonomy over Greenland, if Trump’s deal comes to pass, do likewise properly buckle any goes by rivals, especially China, to get a grip on the island. If Greenland is still a member of NATO, which has provided the island with an quarterly grant of about US$ 500 million, this may be less of a issue.
Greenland’s freedom – assistance for which has been gradually growing – may open the door to more, and less controlled, foreign purchase. In this situation, China is perceived as especially eager to step in if the chance arises.
Add to that the growing security assistance between Russia and China and the fact that Russia has typically become more physically violent, and Trump’s case appears to be even more reliable. He is not the only one to raise the alarm: Canada, Denmark, and Norway have all recently reacted to the growing Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic.
The issue with Trump’s proposal is not that it is based on a flawed assessment of the underlying issue it attempts to address. In a time when geopolitical rivalry is waning, Russia’s and China’s influence in the Arctic region is generally a security issue. In this context, Greenland unquestionably poses a particular and significant security risk to the United States.
The problem is Trump’s” America first” tunnel vision of looking for a solution. insisting that he wants Greenland and that he will receive it, even if that means imposing high tariffs on Danish exports ( think Novo Nordisk’s weight-loss drugs ) or imposing force.
Predictably, Greenland and Denmark rejected the new “offer”. And key allies, including France and Germany, rushed to their ally’s defense – figuratively for now.
Rather than strengthening US security, Trump is arguably effectively weakening it by, yet again, undermining the western alliance. The irony of doing so in the north Atlantic does not only seem to be lost on Trump, This kind of territorial expansionism, which is representative of Trump’s isolationist tendencies, also seems to be a more fundamental issue at play here.
” Incorporating” Greenland into the US would likely shield Washington from the collapse of crucial mineral supply chains and keep Russia and China at bay. Beyond the kind of bluster and bombast that are typically associated with Trump, and signaling that he will do it whatever the cost, is an indication that his approach to foreign policy will quickly wear off with any gloves.
Trump and his team may believe that the US can get away with this by strengthening security cooperation with Denmark and the rest of its NATO and European allies in the Arctic and beyond. Given that what is at stake here are relations with the United States ‘ hitherto closest allies, this is an enormous, and unwarranted, gamble.
No great power in history has ever been able to go it alone forever, and even taking control of Greenland by hook or by crook is unlikely to reverse this.
Stefan Wolff is a University of Birmingham professor of international security.
The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The US Treasury yields, which are the key drivers of international markets, lower property prices, increase the US dollar exchange rate, and pose a threat to US homebuilding and another rate-dependent economic activity. As rates rise, moreover, the US Treasury deficit – already above 6 % of GDP – will increase. The federal debt’s interest rate increased from$ 400 billion to$ 1 trillion in 2021, putting an additional$ 1.8 trillion requirement on top of the previous year’s$ 1.8 trillion.
Despite my calculations, foreign central banks have decreased their holdings of US government debt, putting pressure on yields by painfully 0.8 %, based on my analysis. Central bankers shifted out of money assets as a result of the arrest of Russian foreign exchange reserves in 2022. The US business was perhaps more harmed by the reserve arrest than Russia’s.
The Federal Reserve, to be sure, increased the rate at which banks are charged for overnight cash, which contributed to the majority of the price rise. However, a significant increase in the so-called real offer of Treasury bonds ( in this case, the interest rate on inflation-indexed Treasuries ( TIPS) is attributable to less foreign central banks purchasing of US loan. Reduced foreign central bank holdings of US government debt account for roughly 80 basis points ( 8/10ths of a percentage point ).
Foreign central banks, including those of China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, began shifting their foreign exchange reserves into gold and out of Treasuries after the US and its allies seized half of Russia’s$ 600 billion in foreign exchange reserves in early 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The influence of foreign central banks ‘ sales of US federal debt is illustrated in the table below.
The Fed’s report on the change in international central banks holdings of Treasuries for six weeks is shown in the red line. The offer of 10-year TIPS is depicted in the blue line, which is the nighttime rate that the Fed charges bankers. 10-year Ideas provides increased by 80 basis points as of January 1 ( the shift in the TIPS supply that is not explained by the federal funds rate is depicted in the blue line, once more ). At the 95 % trust level, statistical tests demonstrate that the relationship between the two elements is important.
While the US Treasury’s saving necessity has risen quickly, foreign central banks holdings of US Treasuries have declined. This contrasts starkly with the time period 2007-2012 ( including the World Financial Crisis ), when the Treasury intervened with an ( then ) unprecedented$ 800 billion bailout to support the banking system. Foreign central banks, notably including China, stepped in to support the Treasury, doubling their holdings of US government debt to$ 4 trillion from$ 2 trillion in 2007. During the Covid crisis of 2020, by contrast, foreign central banks ( notably including China ) reduced their holdings of Treasuries.
This has had a significant and palpable effect on US Treasury provides.
We are comparing leads and falls, which clearly demonstrate that adjustments in foreign central banks holdings of Treasuries are related to changes in the TIPS offer (once more, the changes are not those that the federal funds rate has predicted ). Each table in the table below displays the relationship between the two factors ‘ current and past lagged values at regular intervals. For instance, the lagged benefit of changes in international central banks holdings of Treasuries shows a -0.6 relationship with that weekend’s TIPS yield when compared to a 5-week slowdown. Changes in international central banks investments are consistent with the cross-correlogram, which is contrary to what the cross-correlogram suggests.
Additionally, it explains how the real yield on US Treasuries is decoupled from the golden value. For the 15 years 2007 to 2022, golden and TIPS provides were traded simultaneously. They provide a form of protection against unanticipated prices and dollar depreciation, and they both play a similar investment role. The difference is that Treasury assets may be seized by the US government, as in the case of Russia, while metal in a central bank’s tomb can’t.
After March 2022, metal rose sharply despite the surge in TIPS provides. The balance of the government’s debt is in question, and the value of golden as a wall against currency depreciation is rising as a result of all the major American economies’ running huge deficits.
Like additional sanctions against Russian business, Washington’s arrest of the Russian supply backfired. It destroyed confidence in the basic property of the US dollar supply system, particularly the debt of the US Treasury, and raised America’s borrowing cost just as the Treasury’s borrowing requirements exploded.
With the announcement that manufacturer prices dropped for a 27th consecutive month in December and that customer price changes are essentially zero perhaps before Donald Trump’s trade war kicks off, China’s deflation issues became more difficult to rewrite.
The 2.3 % decline in wholesale prices year over year and the small 0.1 % rise in consumer prices only add to the growing fad. That’s nothing more true than in China’s bond business. Offer relationships suggest investors have never been so skeptical on Beijing’s ability to avoid so-called” Japanification”.
The yield gap between 10-year US securities and similar 10-year royal Chinese debt increased to an unprecedented 300 basis points this week. Despite Team Xi’s storm of signal efforts, that’s despite. In the wake of the Asian financial crisis, investors are concerned that China will soon surpass its record-breaking negative work in the late 1990s.
Trump’s returning to the US presidency in 11 days is the financial undertone. The US dollar is currently in a strong upward trend due to anticipation that Trump did implement tariff and revenue cuts. Team Xi and the People’s Bank of China are now trying to stop the yuan from falling below the$ 7.2 per dollar mark as a result.
There’s some good news moving in, also. Stock exercise, for instance, seems to be holding upward, expanding for three straight weeks now. However, good socioeconomic factors remain constrained as a 2025 begins to look incredibly uncertain.
According to Zhiwei Zhang, chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management,” Recent economic data has stabilized, but the speed is not strong enough to put downward pressure on consumer prices already.”
Also before Trump’s profit, weak domestic demand has Taiwanese firms cutting output, freezing hiring and laying off employees. Nevertheless, says Macquarie Group general China analyst Larry Hu,” 2024 may be remembered as a time of muddle-through”.
Although this was much better at least than the -0.6 % and -0.3 % changes in November and October, economist Michael Pettis at the Carnegie Endowment notes that “despite this being much better at least than the -0.6 % and -0.3 % changes in December, it represents the fourth month of zero to negative price changes. CPI inflation overall for 2024 was at a very low 0.2 %, the same as it was last year, and the lowest level since 2009. For all the signal and the boom in bill during the year, in other words, China has been unable to resurrect inflation”.
Brian Tycangco, researcher at Stansberry Research, adds that” the recession threat is real and growing in China. Beijing should use this most recent information as a sign to act more quickly on stimulus.
As the new year begins, Xi’s internal group appears to be doing just that, stepping up efforts to shock need. Beijing is rolling out 15 % incentives for buying fresh smartphones, tablets, devices and other devices. In coastal towns of Shanghai, card programs are popping up to increase demand for goods like furniture, cars, and electronics, as well as interior metropolises like Hubei and Sichuan.
However, 25 years later, Japan continues to demonstrate that a comprehensive response to depreciation requires a disproportionate use of both monetary and fiscal resources, and the sooner the better. Looked at through this lens, all gaze are on how the current annual Central Economic Work Conference , held in Beijing affects Xi’s policy objectives.
That mid-December session ended with pledges for macro policies aimed at” stabilizing growth” and “reviving household consumption” and achieving a “reasonable rebound” of inflation via “more proactive” fiscal and monetary maneuvers. Yet it’s rubber-hitting-the-road time as global investors fun about depreciation getting worse in Asia’s biggest market.
Problem is that economics have more questions than answers regarding Xi’s plan proposals. What are you going to do with all this generation, asks Natixis scholar Alicia Garcia Herrero? Who will you import to? Protectionism is rising, and China isn’t changing its unit, making the issues likely become more serious. I think 2025 is time for change, and China needs to change quite quickly, or the year may end up very hard”.
The coming” Trump deal” is raising the stakes. To be sure, no everyone fears the worst. Bank of America planners warn that “geopolitical tensions and probable US guidelines… could lead to higher cost of capital and several de-rating once more in 2025. That said, we believe the worst of flow/position-selling for the China business should have been over”.
The 60 % tax threat, according to the optimistic viewpoint, is a negotiating ploy intended to bring Xi to the table of negotiations. The next four years might not be the business conflict hellscape traders fear, so if Trump give a significant business deal with China precedence over a business war.
However, the worst-case circumstance might occur sooner than China bulls now believe. The economy’s current uptrend is predicated on expectations that Trump’s 60 % taxes are just the start. Never mind that an “increase in customs duties may lead to an understanding of the money which would cancel out the gain in competitiveness,” according to economist Sylvain Bersinger of the business intelligence company Asterès.
The bigger problem is Trump’s 1980s-era view that taxes are “beautiful” and the fastest road to raising America’s financial activity. China’s economy will suffer as a result of a worsening house crisis, great youth unemployment, mounting debts among local governments, and poor consumer demand.
” Imports will naturally grow much less and purchase too”, alert economics at S&, P Global. ” The impact on investment can in part blow in even before US tax implementation, because of the increased confusion. Spill-over to job, income and trust will ponder on use”.
Ian Bremmer, chairman of Eurasia Group, notes that the “incoming US leader promises taxes that could destroy the global economy, incident relations with China, and increase the conflict in unregulated spots”. He cites the US-China conflict as “export disruption disruption to everyone else this season, shortening the global recovery and accelerating geoeconomic separation at a time when global growth is sluggish, inflation remains high, and debt levels are at traditional highs.”
What’s more, Bremmer says, Trump 2.0″ will destroy an uncontrolled decoupling in the world’s most important political marriage. That, in turn, risks a significant financial disruption and broader crisis. Trump will impose new tariffs on Chinese goods in an effort to entice Beijing to make concessions on a number of issues, and China’s leaders will do so more strongly to demonstrate to both Trump and the Chinese people that they can and will fight back.
Wildcards appear, also. Conflicts over Taiwan” may perhaps fall”, Bremmer says, even if a “full-blown problems” seems doubtful in 2025.
The renminbi is its own potential battlefield. Team Xi and currency speculators are attempting to reduce the yuan against the money as the year gets underway. At the moment, the People’s Bank of China is really publicly setting the dollar’s regular mention price stronger than 7.2 per money, signaling that Beijing isn’t favoring a weaker exchange rate.
However, the decline in Chinese bond yields and the growing spread with the US may make it even more difficult to stabilize the yuan. The trend has 10-year yields around 1.6 % – and lower at times – for the first time since the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2008 Lehman Brothers crisis
Markets aren’t always accurate, but the deflationary signals coming out of the current yield levels should stoke the alarm at Xi’s Ministry of Finance. The fallout could further lower retail spending, aggravate China’s capital outflow issue, and give the Japanification talk that irritates Xi’s reform team more.
The case study from Japan’s 1990s, according to Goldman Sachs, serves as a “valuable playbook” for economists and stock investors trying to assess the outlook for Chinese assets.
To be sure, there may be winners from falling Chinese prices, just as there was with Japan. Falling prices could act as a covert tax cut for consumers who are in a tough economy. In China, brokerage Haitong Securities believes that low prices could benefit technology companies looking to expand, high-dividend stocks, and exporters with diversified businesses.
Still, the ways in which deflation could undermine confidence in China Inc. make today’s bond markets signals a wake-up-call moment for Xi’s economy.
101 Digital, a next-generation supplier of electronic banking solutions enabling embedded financing, new modern banks, and the modern conversion of conventional banks, has announced the appointment of Sachin Rajat Sharma ( photograph ) as its chief commercial officer. In addition to bringing a wealth of knowledge, Shani has a proven track record for transforming businesses in Southeast Asia, India, and the Middle East.
Founded in 2018 by Rana Peries and Rajiv Ellepola, 101 Digital has been at the vanguard of delivering cutting-edge banking alternatives to major financial institutions across Africa, the UK, Southeast Asia, and above. Sachin’s interview comes at a crucial time for the business as it looks to grow and strengthen its presence in these sectors.
With over two decades of experience, Sachin has led revolutionary efforts in finance, obligations, and plan. He is renowned for launching innovative solutions such as discourse, a multi-award-winning banking-as-a-service system, alongside another industry-first innovations in online banking and client engagement. Prior to joining 101 Digital, Sachin previously held the position of general goods and business officer at Audax Financial Technologies, where he co-founded the business and expanded it to provide many business customers in its first year.
In his new role, Sachin does generate 101 Digital’s global development strategy, guide market expansion, and develop partnerships with important financial institutions. His administration will focus on delivering distinguished value propositions, building high-calibre teams, and fostering innovation to change the online banking landscape.
Rana Peries, co-founder and chief product officer of 101 Digital, commented:” We are delighted to welcome Sachin to the 101 Digital family. His deep understanding of digital transformation and commercial strategy will be of a crucial role as we continue to provide financial institutions with cutting-edge solutions. Sachin’s vision perfectly fits our goal to influence the direction of banking in the future.
Rajiv Ellepola, co-founder and director of delivery, added:” Sachin’s extensive work in driving new business models for banking perfectly complements 101 Digital’s vision of enabling large-scale banking transformation. As we move into our next growth stage, we anticipate having him aboard.
Sachin said:” I am thrilled to join 101 Digital at this exciting juncture. As financial institutions embrace embedded finance and digital-first strategies, 101 Digital is uniquely positioned to lead the transformation. Working with the talented team at this company will help us bring about positive change for both our clients and their customers.
As past and upcoming US President Donald Trump threatened to “take up” the Panama Canal, citing the great canal tolls as his justification, the world turned to Central America immediately before Christmas. In the days that followed, there was a lot of flurry of rumors as to what exactly happened with his comment and whether or not they reflected a wider political agenda.
He refrained from using military force to reclaim the river on Tuesday during a press event at Mar a Lago.
Is Panama at risk of losing control of the canal?
Trump does not have the methods to “take up” the river without starting an illegitimate war of aggression, according to the short answer.
The river territory was not US house, it was only leased. The river is not in danger of disappearing.
Trump’s remarks, in contrast, appear to be an early stage in his wider effort to reclaim control in Latin America.
One of society’s most extraordinary engineering deeds, The Panama Canal, has connected the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans since 1914. The idea of constructing a waterway through Panama’s canal dates back to the 16th century, when Hispanic settlers saw potential in its transformation of international trade routes. However, it wasn’t until the 19th century that real programs for the river started to emerge, fueled by technological advancements, which made such a challenging job doable.
Ferdinand de Lesseps, the architect and inventor of the Suez Canal, was the first to lead the first major effort to construct the river in 1880. First, the program was for a sea-level river, but the technical and environmental issues proved overwhelming. The project’s collapse was caused by tough climates, tropical illnesses like yellow fever and malaria, as well as the challenging task of digging through swampy and rough terrain. By 1889, more than 20, 000 workers had died, and the venture’s fiscal sponsors faced bankruptcy, almost triggering a European state economic crisis.
The US expressed interest in building the river to reduce trade and military roads in the first 1900s. First discussions with Colombia, which included Panama at the time, failed when Colombia rejected the US’s request to rent the area.
The US therefore supported Panama’s democracy activity, and on November 3, 1903, Panama declared its independence from Colombia. Two weeks later, the recently established Filipino government signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the US rights to contract a 16-kilometer-wide zone for constructing, operating, and defending the canal in return for an annual payment, although initially at a rate so small that it fueled after social tensions.
In addition to implementing important efforts to combat illness by eradicating mosquitoes and improving hygiene, the US started building in 1904. It also employed cutting-edge architectural techniques, including a switch system to manage elevation changes. The river was formally opened on August 15, 1914, a new time in international trade, as ships had then avoid the dangerous journey around Cape Horn.
The US viewed the river corridor as its country, despite the fact it was leased from Panama. Despite its economic and geopolitical value, US control over the canal and its revenues sparked hatred in Panama.
In the 1960s, strain reached its highest point. This led to conversations that culminated in the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which outlined a phased exchange of river leadership to Panama, completed on December 31, 1999. Since then, the river has become a representation of Panama’s financial and national power.
The change of this year marked the 25th anniversary of Panama’s assumption of power over the canal’s management. Simply one day before the celebration, former US President Jimmy Carter, who had signed the 1977 agreement enabling the canal’s transfer, passed ahead.
The legal foundation is also essential.
The two main contracts that govern the exchange of the Panama Canal are contained in the agreement, which was signed on September 7, 1977 by Filipino head Omar Torrijos and US President Jimmy Carter:
Panama still has full control over how the canal is managed and how much money is made, with only the US now theoretically able to intervene if a significant threat arises, a situation that hasn’t occurred in the last 25 years.
However, there are also other factors at play.
The handover of the Panama Canal to Panama was a highly emotive and controversial topic in the United States, touching deeply rooted geopolitical, economic, and patriotic sentiments. The UA had finished it and ran it for a long period of time. Many Americans viewed the canal as a representation of their country’s technological and political strength.
The transfer formalized through the Torrijos-Carter Treaty, was viewed by conservative circles, particularly Republicans, as a weakening of the United States ‘ global power position, a sentiment that continues to influence political rhetoric– especially within Donald Trump’s populist narrative.
Further background provides a further justification for why not everyone is willing to accept that the canal’s fate has been decided for the long.
One of the greatest engineering achievements of the US was the construction of the canal, which is a testament to its rise as a global power in the early 20th century. Control over the canal was seen as a strategic advantage, securing US influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Geopolitical significance
The canal was a strategically important asset as well as a significant trade route. It made it easier for the US Navy to move quickly between the Pacific and the Atlantic. The transfer of control to Panama, according to critics of the handover, could compromise the security of the canal and, in turn, global trade routes.
During the 1970s, the US was grappling with a sense of self-doubt, shaped by the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the oil crisis. Many Americans saw the canal handover as another sign of a “retreat” from global leadership. The canal had been constructed with great sacrifice and had been successfully managed for decades, according to republicans, making the handover amounted to a “betrayal.”
Many Republicans thought Carter was a weak president who failed to adequately defend American interests.
The Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which was perceived as a concession to Panama, a smaller, weaker nation, was viewed as being incongruent with the idea of American national pride.
Donald Trump paints a sentimental image of American dominance through the Panama Canal, which is very well-liked by conservative voters.
Trump has previously referred to the canal’s handover as an example of the “poor negotiation skills” of prior US administrations. He expands on the idea that such decisions have diminished the United States ‘ standing and strength internationally.
Trump uses the canal’s history to support his” America First” agenda, presenting the handover as a representation of a time when the US was ruled by “weak” leaders. This rhetoric appeals to voters who long for a return to the days of unquestionable American dominance.
Trump makes connections between the handover of the canal and the ongoing trade negotiations or military withdrawals. He emphasizes that, as president, he would never make” such mistakes”, a stance that resonates with both nostalgic and security-conscious voters.
The Panama Canal’s transfer is still seen as a declaration of a perceived loss of American privilege. It represents a fableable surrender of geopolitical power and national honor for many Republicans. Trump uses the 1977 treaty as a prime example of weak political decision-making to further his message of restoring American strength. He mobilizes his political base by framing this emotional legacy.
It is no coincidence that this issue came up less than two weeks before Jimmy Carter’s passing and the 25th anniversary of Panama’s accession to the canal.
Both the United States and China both have significant economic ties to the Panama Canal. About 20 % of the goods transported through China come from or are intended for the US. The Panama Canal accounts for roughly 5 % of global maritime trade. On average, cargo ships pay more than$ 200, 000 in tolls for passage, with significantly higher amounts possible. These figures highlight the importance of the canal in global trade.
The expansion of the Panama Canal, completed in 2016 with the introduction of the so-called” New Panama Canal”, marked a pivotal moment in global shipping.
The expansion enabled the transit of neo-Panamax ships, thereby significantly increasing the canal’s efficiency and capacity. The growing scope of global trade, and particularly the expanding flow of goods between Asian and Western markets, required this improvement.
China, as one of Panama’s largest trading partners and a leading global economic power, plays a central role in this context.
In addition, China has made substantial investments in infrastructure around the canal, including ports and logistics centres, further enhancing Panama’s importance as a hub for global trade. These developments highlight China’s growing influence in Latin America, making the Panama Canal a strategic focal point within Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.
The canal’s expansion was economically vital for Panama, as were the investments from China. However, Panama retains control over the canal.
Does China control the canal?
Trump and others in the US and Europe have been trying to make the impression that China has taken control of the canal, putting its neutrality at risk in recent weeks. This claim, however, is far from reality.
Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has made it clear that neither the EU, the US, nor China controls the canal—only Panama does. He reaffirmed the canal’s neutrality during the 25th-anniversary celebrations of Panama’s full control. Over the previous 25 years, he emphasized, there has not been a single reason to doubt the canal’s neutrality.
Panama’s national motto,” Pro Mundi Beneficio” (” For the Benefit of the World” ), reflects the canal’s mission of serving global interests, irrespective of the nationality of the ships using it. Panama’s operations are heavily funded by the expansion of the canal, with the tolls being calculated based on the canal’s intrinsic value rather than being included in the original treaties.
Trump has been irritated by Panama’s growing political independence from the US over the years. A nation like Panama prioritizes its own national interests.
During his first presidency, Trump was already dissatisfied with China’s investments in Panama, as well as in Latin America at large, and his current rhetoric echoes a neo-colonial tone.
Trump has no contractual means to influence the canal’s toll structure, which is determined by market principles or by its management. A military intervention, under current conditions ( with neither the canal’s security nor its neutrality threatened ), would constitute an illegal act of aggression under international law.
Trump frequently declares himself to be a peacemaker, so it is likely that his strong words are intended to stifle other economic developments rather than lead to concrete action.
This is especially important in light of potential future infrastructure projects in Panama, such as the Panama City to Costa Rica train project. China might be the main target for upcoming projects.
Trump’s desire to rename the Gulf of Mexico after declaring at Tuesday’s press conference that he wanted to do so has raised a lot of rumors right now. New name: Gulf of America.