MBRSG Launches UAE Economic Diplomacy Report at Public Administration Forum
Held at the Dubai World Trade Centre, the forum gathered diplomats, economists, and policymakers to explore the UAE's evolving economic diplomacy strategies. This year's edition, themed 'Strategic Horizons,' marked the report's official launch, jointly developed by MBRSG and the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy (AGDA), with input from global and local experts.
Dr. Ali bin Sebaa Al Marri, Executive President of MBRSG, described the forum as a platform for shaping a forward-thinking approach to economic diplomacy. 'The report showcases the UAE's growing global presence through indicators on investment, sovereign wealth funds and economic partnerships,'
he said.
The report details key components of the UAE's economic outreach, including its 24 Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements (16 already in effect), rising foreign direct investment, and the role of sovereign wealth funds like ADIA and Mubadala. It also examines the integration of digital economy tools and climate diplomacy into foreign policy frameworks.
Notable figures show FDI inflows reaching US$30.7 billion in 2023, AED835 billion in non-oil trade in Q1 2025, and non-oil exports making up 21% of total trade. The UAE's GDP hit AED1.77 trillion in 2024, with 75.5% coming from the non-oil sector.
AGDA's Deputy Director-General Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim Al Dhaheri emphasized the broader vision behind these numbers, stating, 'Economic choices today form part of a broader national narrative.'
The forum featured discussions on CEPAs, foreign aid, sovereign wealth, and policy integration, concluding with a collaborative dialogue session aimed at strengthening cross-sector partnerships for future-ready economic diplomacy.
News Source: Emirates News Agency
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
US and China to resume tariff talks in effort to extend truce
Senior US and Chinese negotiators meet in Stockholm on Monday to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of the countries' trade war, aiming to extend a truce keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached a preliminary deal in June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from duties exceeding 100%. The Stockholm talks, led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, take place a day after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen meets Trump at his golf course in Scotland to try to clinch a deal that would likely see a 15% baseline tariff on most EU goods. Trade analysts on both sides of the Pacific say the discussions in the Swedish capital are unlikely to produce any breakthroughs but could prevent further escalation and help create conditions for Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to meet later this year. Previous US-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing US and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include US complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that US national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. 'Stockholm will be the first meaningful round of U.S.-China trade talks,' said Bo Zhengyuan, Shanghai-based partner at China consultancy firm Plenum. Trump has been successful in pressuring some other trading partners, including Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, into deals accepting higher US tariffs of 15% to 20%. He said there was a 50-50 chance that the US and the 27-member European Union could also reach a framework trade pact, adding that Brussels wanted to 'make a deal very badly'. Two of Trump's top trade officials, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, will attend the Scotland talks and then travel to Stockholm. Analysts say the U.S.-China negotiations are far more complex and will require more time. China's grip on the global market for rare earth minerals and magnets, used in everything from military hardware to car windshield wiper motors, has proved to be an effective leverage point on US industries. In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon whether to visit China in a landmark trip to address trade and security tensions. A new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail any plans for a meeting with Xi. 'The Stockholm meeting is an opportunity to start laying the groundwork for a Trump visit to China,' said Wendy Cutler, vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute. Bessent has already said he wants to work out an extension of the August 12 deadline to prevent tariffs snapping back to 145% on the US side and 125% on the Chinese side. Still, China will likely request a reduction of multi-layered US tariffs totaling 55% on most goods and further easing of US high-tech export controls, analysts said. Beijing has argued that such purchases would help reduce the US trade deficit with China, which reached $295.5 billion in 2024. China is currently facing a 20% tariff related to the US fentanyl crisis, a 10% reciprocal tariff, and 25% duties on most industrial goods imposed during Trump's first term. Bessent has also said he would discuss with He the need for China to rebalance its economy away from exports toward domestic consumer demand. The shift would require China to put an end to a protracted property crisis and boost social safety nets to encourage household spending. Michael Froman, a former US trade representative during Barack Obama's administration, said such a shift has been a goal of US policymakers for two decades. 'Can we effectively use tariffs to get China to fundamentally change their economic strategy? That remains to be seen,' said Froman, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank. Reuters
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
Why the world is treating the new Syria differently from the new Lebanon, and what Beirut can learn from that
The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are pressing ahead to encourage Syria to become a model for much of the Middle East. That involves co-existence with Israel, the containment of extremist movements and engagement with minorities, all within the framework of the state. The issue of the state's monopoly on the possession of arms remains a major hurdle. Some of Syria's minority groups insist on retaining their weapons until it becomes clear how the new government will handle their rights and to what extent it will rein in extremist militants. There is also the issue of federalism and decentralisation, which the state opposes. But despite the massacres and atrocities committed in Sweida and on the coast, those investing in President Ahmed Al Shara's project and the new Syrian model are forging ahead. When it comes to the future of Lebanon, however, western countries – namely the 'European three' (E3, which comprises the UK, France and Germany) and the US – are wavering on several fronts. In dealing with Lebanon itself, the E3 has chosen to take a backseat to US diplomacy, led by Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Lebanon and Syria Thomas Barrack. But Iran is a hugely important part of what happens in Lebanon, and the E3 limited recent discussions with representatives from Tehran solely to nuclear issues. Iran's nuclear programme must be addressed, but that should not prevent Europe from raising other concerns, like Tehran's proxy network. Succumbing to Iran's traditional insistence that neither the US nor Europe discuss its regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, is a strategic error. It fails to prevent Iran's ongoing erosion of Lebanese sovereignty its use of Lebanon as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the West. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms instead of handing them over to the Lebanese state. This is dangerous, especially given how confused and contradictory US positions have become towards both Iran and Lebanon. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms Mr Barrack's three visits to Lebanon have drawn criticism because at times he wielded the stick and at others, he expressed understanding of the 'complexity' of disarming Hezbollah. One moment, he described Hezbollah as a political party and the next a terrorist organisation. He appears to have emerged from meetings with Lebanese officials more influenced by their appeasement tactics than persuasive in moving them towards sovereign decision-making. The contradictions in the American position in Lebanon may be intentional, as part of a strategy to alarm Lebanese officials and the public, or unintentional, the result of Mr Barrack's frequent gaffes, only to be followed by retractions. Mr Barrack says he understands the 'difficulties', and that 'everyone is doing their part and trying to settle things in Lebanon, but the situation is complex, both for Lebanese leaders and for all of us'. Such statements devalue American prestige and seriousness. They are not so much the words of a serious emissary carrying US President Donald Trump's demand that Lebanon's leaders enforce a monopoly on arms as they are those of a local-style politician who 'understands' the difficulties but cannot guarantee how Israel might react to Hezbollah's outright refusal to disarm. Nor has Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's envoy to the Iran negotiations, insisted that Iran cease using its grip over Lebanon through Hezbollah as a negotiation card with Washington. All of this will cost Lebanon dearly when Israel inevitably destroys its infrastructure in response to Hezbollah's rebuilding of its military capabilities, including Iranian missiles on Lebanese soil. The Trump administration does not want Israel to open multiple fronts. But it also cannot restrain Israel in Lebanon if Israel deems Hezbollah's refusal to disarm a security threat. Yet in Syria, Mr Trump wants Israel to act with restraint. Iran has lost its staging ground there, a devastating blow to its regional axis. And while Washington recognises the persistence of extremism and the survival of ISIS, it believes that containment of these factions is possible through co-optation, offering them a slice of the cake instead of a bloody conflict. In return, Israel gains a buffer zone and security guarantees along its border with Syria. The message to Israel is that even if ISIS remains dominant in some areas, security arrangements can contain its threat as long as it remains within isolated pockets that pose no danger to the Syrian state structure. In other words, Syria will not be a threat to Israel. Gulf states have quickly moved to encourage Syria's re-integration into the Arab fold. Despite all the challenges, the Gulf is a key partner in backing Mr Al Shara and rebuilding Syria. This was reflected last week in the Saudi-Syrian Investment Forum, a watershed moment that signalled a long-term strategic partnership between Riyadh and Damascus. Forty-seven agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed, worth about $6.4 billion. They included the construction of a medical city as well as deals in agriculture, industry, transport, gas, water, electricity, infrastructure and real estate development. Syria is being placed on a new track, and should indeed be congratulated for this strategic leap towards realism that embraces investment as the basis of policy. One hopes Lebanon's leaders take a lesson from their new counterparts in Damascus and abandon their arrogance towards eager assistance from fellow Arab states, hiding behind the excuse of being unable to rein in Hezbollah. They ought to demand the US, Europe and the Arab world also pressure Iran and not just offer security guarantees via Israel, because the two issues are inseparable. One hopes they also cease dodging political accountability under the guise of protecting Lebanon's safety. Perhaps Arab states will consider taking a calculated risk in supporting Lebanon, as they did in Syria. Both countries suffer from instability. Just as Hezbollah and Israel are playing havoc with Lebanon, extremist fundamentalism continues to trouble Syria. May the international partnership playing a constructive role in Syria inspire those involved to think outside the box in order to rescue Lebanon from regional war and ruin. Lebanon, too, deserves to be rebuilt and invested in to defy those who want it destroyed.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Mediators resume contact with negotiators despite angry US and Israeli reaction to Hamas's response
Mediators have resumed contact with Israeli and Hamas negotiators on a Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal, rekindling hopes for a breakthrough after Israel and the US angrily rejected Hamas's response to the latest proposals, sources told The National on Sunday. They said remote discussions intensified in the past 48 hours between the Egyptian and Qatari mediators on one side and US and Israeli officials on the other. The US offered assurances that full-blown negotiations will resume, they added. Israel's announcement on Sunday of a daily pause in military operations in three parts of Gaza and the opening of new aid corridors was in effect the implementation of the humanitarian segment of the latest proposals to pause the Gaza war, said the sources. The parties involved have also reportedly touched upon the possibility of an enduring settlement of the Gaza war, including the governing of the devastated enclave, reconstruction and the fate of Hamas's arsenal and leaders. Hamas has already given its unconditional agreement to a 60-day truce and signalled it was open to suggestions to lay down its arms and the departure of its leaders from Gaza to live in exile with their families. The sources said those issues will be discussed in more detail during the proposed 60-day truce. The United States has given assurances that the truce would continue as long as negotiations did not break down, they added. Since giving its response last week, the sources said Hamas informed mediators it has dropped the "small amendments" it wanted introduced to the deal and which provoked an angry response from the US and Israel. The changes, said the sources, dealt with Israel's redeployment of its forces in Gaza, plus the number and identity of Palestinians it wants freed from Israeli prisons as part of the agreement. "We believe the Trump administration and Israel, through their hard-line and ominous public response to Hamas's position, wanted to turn up the pressure on the group to accept the deal as is," said one source. "Mostly, the Hamas amendments were secondary. In some cases, they were to do with 100 metres here and 200 metres there when it comes to the redeployment of Israeli troops in Gaza." The sources said the continuing contacts between mediators, Israel and Hamas to finalise a deal were being mostly conducted remotely, with the Palestinian group showing flexibility on all contentious issues. They also pointed out that technical teams from Egypt, Israel, the US and Qatar were staffing an operations centre in Cairo to oversee the delivery of aid to Gaza and iron out relevant security issues. "The only route now open to a deal is for Hamas to accept what it's being presented with," said another source who has directly participated in the months-long negotiations over Gaza. "If Hamas does that, then we will all know whether Israel really wants a deal or not. That said, Hamas's response could have been dealt with through further negotiations. I don't understand why Israel and the US acted in public like they were slamming the door shut on the entire process." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ominously said Israel and the US were "considering alternative options" to bring home the remaining 49 hostages and end Hamas's rule of Gaza. The two close allies on Friday withdrew their negotiators from Qatar, where the latest round of Gaza talks began on July 6. The Gaza war began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led fighters stormed southern Israel, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking another 250 hostages back to Gaza. Since then, Israel's military response has killed nearly 60,000 Palestinians and wounded more than twice that number, according to Gaza health officials. It has also reduced much of the enclave to ruins and displaced nearly all the 2.3 million population.
