Trump, Xi might meet ahead of or during October APEC summit in South Korea: sources
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
27 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Same-sex partnerships in Hong Kong: conscience vote would set good precedent
Before humans invented law, human behaviour was governed by innate moral ethics. This is the starting point of all laws across the world. Theft is illegal, murder is a crime – these are universally accepted moral standards. Advertisement However, the idea that same-sex couples should enjoy the same legal status as heterosexual marriages is not a universally accepted moral standard. So where should Hong Kong draw the line? This is not a matter for the executive, the legislature or the judiciary. It is a moral question. The moral view of the chief executive, lawmakers and legal experts carries not one ounce more weight than the view of a Kwun Tong housewife. That is why whether to introduce a same-sex partner registration system should be decided by the collective will of the people of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, so we don't have a mechanism for a public referendum to determine our collective opinion, but our system has its own strengths. Without great fuss or cumbersome procedures, we can let our 90 legislators elected from every walk of life cast a free vote based on their individual conscience, independent of all external pressure. All political, professional and business organisations and trade unions should publicly declare that they will not issue any voting instructions to their affiliated legislators, allowing them to vote freely according to their conscience. Advertisement Likewise, the government should make clear that legislators who serve in both the Executive Council and Legislative Council are not bound by Exco's principle of collective responsibility on this particular issue and may vote freely. The executive may, as with other policy proposals, explain their rationale to the legislature but must not lobby behind the scenes or attempt to sway votes. The central government's liaison office should likewise refrain from intervening.
AllAfrica
an hour ago
- AllAfrica
The cost of Europe's great capitulation to Trump
The most epic reverse colonization in history happened with a handshake. At the Scotland Summit (July 27), European leaders queued up to sign away their continent's economic sovereignty while cameras flashed and everybody smiled. The irony would be breathtaking if it weren't so tragic: the heirs of empires that once carved up Asia and Africa with fountain pens have themselves been carved up by an American president with a Truth Social account. Donald Trump's genuine achievement is that the law of the jungle has been consecrated as legitimate in international relations. What makes this transformation particularly grotesque is how willingly Europe has contributed to its own subjugation. Scotland marked the precise moment when the EU ceased pretending to be a global power and embraced its true calling: America's preferred payment app. While Brussels officials celebrated their compromise with Washington—accepting 15% tariffs on European exports while exempting American goods entirely—they missed the essential truth of their capitulation. European citizens, do not believe your leaders: Europe had not negotiated. It had been robbed at gunpoint while applauding the thief's negotiation skills. Instead, once the dust has settled from Trump's second inaugural, a new world order has crystallized with brutal clarity. In this new arithmetic of power, America coerces, China contains, Europe complies. The tripolar world that European elites spent years theorizing through 'strategic autonomy' has collapsed into an unambiguous bipolar certainty, with Brussels relegated to the role of sponsor to a competition it cannot influence. Trump's return to office transformed transatlantic relations from partnership into organized extortion. The 'Liberation Day' tariffs announced in April—10% baseline with 'reciprocal' rates reaching 50%—were never about freeing America from unfair trade practices or correcting imbalances but blackmail elevated to statecraft. Finally, they tested which powers would resist and which would capitulate. The message was simple: pay up or face economic devastation. While China refused the costs, Europe volunteered to satisfy them, following an arc of self-deception: first, came the ritual announcements of counter-tariffs, theatrical gestures well applauded by the sycophants, meant to preserve dignity rather than impose costs. Then came the inevitable retreat, justified through euphemisms about 'maintaining dialogue' and 'preserving the relationship.' Finally, the political cowardice of European leaders was exposed and came total surrender, dressed up as 'the best possible deal we can get.' The Scotland arrangement represents the apotheosis of Ursula von der Leyen's incapacity to govern, negotiate and lead: US$750 billion in American energy purchases, $600 billion in additional investments and acceptance of punitive tariff rates in exchange for absolutely nothing—terms that would have triggered wars in previous centuries. However, European negotiators emerged from a golf course claiming victory, justifying it because Trump had apparently threatened even worse terms. In sum, the logic of the beaten spouse—gratitude for lighter beatings. Beijing watched Europe's humiliation with the amusement of a casino owner seeing gamblers double down on losing hands. Because China's response to American pressure reveals a sophistication that European leaders cannot fathom: the power of saying no. When Trump escalated tariff threats, China responded with drastic precision. Export restrictions on rare earth elements created immediate supply chain crises across Western manufacturing while avoiding the escalation that might force Washington into total confrontation. The message was calibrated perfectly: we can hurt you, but we aim not to. The choice remains yours, for now. The June rare earths framework that followed demonstrated China's mastery of tactical minimalism. Beijing agreed to resume limited shipments under strict licensing arrangements—creating enough supply stability to prevent Western economic collapse while maintaining enough uncertainty to preserve leverage. Beijing gave Washington face-saving concessions while conceding nothing of substance. Compare this to Europe's approach during the same period. While Chinese factories hummed with restricted but continuing production, European manufacturers faced supply shortages. VDL cried: 'We all witnessed the cost and consequences of China's coercion through export restrictions! This pattern of dominance, dependency and blackmail continues today.' Later, Brussels scolded Beijing about its relationship with Russia while simultaneously begging for rare earth provisions. European officials seem incapable of grasping the contradiction; you cannot lecture your supplier while depending on their mercy. The irony is exquisite: European leaders acted as if Russia were a Chinese satellite just as the EU itself became a US military and economic satellite, complete with matching uniforms. China's containment policy toward Europe reflects this same cold logic. Beijing maintains market access and diplomatic ties while offering no meaningful concessions to European demands. Why should it? The EU has demonstrated repeatedly that it will absorb any punishment rather than impose costs on others. Europe's collapse stems from confusion about the nature of power. European leaders believe that moral posturing can substitute for material leverage and legal frameworks can constrain actors who recognize no law but strength. The EU's response to the Russia-Ukraine war exemplifies this delusion. Brussels imposed sanctions on Russian energy while simultaneously financing Moscow's war efforts through continued purchases. In 2024, EU energy payments to Vladimir Putin totalled €23 billion ($26.3 billion). Since the invasion began, the bloc has transferred to the Kremlin the equivalent cost of over 2,400 fighter jets. European officials banned technology exports to Russia while maintaining dependence on Chinese supply chains that, according to the EU leaders, ultimately serve Russian interests. This schizophrenic approach to security extends to European defense spending, which provides another illustration of confusion masquerading as resolve. EU leaders agreed to increase military expenditures to 5% of GDP—a figure that would bankrupt most member states—without any coherent rationale beyond American demands. The Treaty of Versailles imposed lighter burdens and triggered a world war: this is not burden sharing but tribute payment dressed up as NATO solidarity. The Scottish-Golf-Course Summit crystallized Europe's strategic bankruptcy. European negotiators arrived believing that compliance with American demands would elevate their status from junior partner to indispensable ally. Instead, the leaders' submission confirmed their role as a source of funds to be extracted rather than a partner to be consulted. European officials (Von der Leyen, Kallas, Sefcovic) first denied the reality of what they signed, then seemed surprised by this outcome, as if their years contributing to institutional weakness might suddenly transform into strength through bureaucratic alchemy. When your victories align perfectly with your opponent's interests, you are not negotiating, but surrendering. They should finally go—preferably before they auction off the remaining pieces of European sovereignty. The emerging global architecture has three distinct layers. America has perfected coercive extraction. Washington discovered that threatening allies produces better results than persuading them, that ultimatum yields more than negotiations. It secured concrete gains—military contracts, energy purchases, duty-free market access—without resistance. This confirms America's transformation from alliance leader to alliance predator. The golf course arrangement proves that European compliance can be purchased through blatant intimidation. Why build partnerships when you can operate protection rackets with diplomatic immunity? China has mastered measured deterrence. Beijing imposes costs selectively while avoiding the total confrontation that might force uncomfortable choices on all parties. China's rare earth restrictions hurt Western supply chains without triggering war, creating leverage without eliminating options. This is statecraft as surgical strike rather than carpet bombing—inflicting just enough pain to ensure someone will think twice before hitting again. China's strengthened position sets a precedent for future disputes, underscoring Beijing's role as a growing equal to Washington. Europe has embraced subordination to America and performative assertiveness toward China. Brussels provides financing for Washington's ambitions while receiving nothing but the privilege of continued existence, then lectures Beijing while depending on Chinese supply chains for survival. European leaders have discovered that capitulation pays better than resistance: playing the client to Washington and the scold to Beijing is more comfortable than actual competition. But the tragedy of European passivity extends beyond economics to existential questions about the nature of sovereignty itself. Can political entities that refuse to defend their interests claim to represent anything more than geographical expressions? Does the European Union exist as anything beyond a mechanism for collecting and transferring resources to more assertive powers? European officials console themselves with fantasies about eventual American gratitude, imagining that sufficient compliance might restore their voice in global affairs. This is the thinking of the colonized, the belief that servitude might eventually earn respect. History suggests otherwise. The question facing Europe is straightforward: will it reclaim agency before it becomes a permanent subsidiary in a bipolar world not of its making? The past week's summits with China and the US suggest the answer, but the final chapter remains (for the time being) unwritten. Sebastian Contin Trillo-Figueroa is a Hong Kong-based geopolitics strategist with a focus on Europe-Asia relations.
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
US-South Korea strike 15% tariff deal with US$350 billion in investments
After weeks of frenzied negotiations and mounting economic anxiety, the United States and South Korea have reached a sweeping trade agreement that slashes threatened tariffs and secures billions in investment. US President Donald Trump announced the trade agreement on his Truth Social platform late on Wednesday. Under the deal, South Korean exports to the US will face a 15 per cent tariff – down from the 25 per cent levy that had been set to take effect on Friday. In exchange, South Korea has pledged US$350 billion in US investments, echoing a similar arrangement recently struck with Japan . As with Tokyo's US$550 billion pledge, the spending will be directed by the US president, with a focus on American industries. South Korean farmers hold a rally in Seoul on Monday demanding the government protect the country's agricultural industry from US tariffs. Photo: AP 'We have agreed to a Tariff for South Korea of 15 per cent. America will not be charged a Tariff,' Trump wrote on his social media platform. He also announced Seoul's commitment to 'accept American product including Cars and Trucks, Agriculture, etc.', a move likely to mean that US vehicles built to American standards can enter South Korea without additional restrictions.
