Tariff war must end quickly, German finance minister tells G7 partners
'But I also want to say very clearly: There will be no deal at any price, there should be no victory at any price,' Klingbeil said in Durban, South Africa, on the sidelines of the G20 finance chiefs meetings, where G7 ministers also met separately.
Klingbeil called for a fair deal between the U.S. and Europe on tariffs.
The 30% tariff on imports from European Union threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump would, if implemented, be a game-changer for Europe and a heavy blow for Germany with its export-oriented economy.
Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel also warned of the 'great global damage' that the uncertainty from tariffs is causing.
'My appeal to the U.S. side is not to play games with the situation, because in the end, the prosperity of us all is at stake here,' Nagel said at the press event with Klingbeil.
EU chief delays retaliation for US tariffs in search of deal
The head of Germany's Bundesbank had warned on Thursday in an interview with Reuters that the tariff plans risk wiping out even a modest recovery in Europe's largest economy in the coming years.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent did not attend the two-day G20 meeting in person, his second absence from a G20 event in South Africa this year, though he did join the G7 meeting online on Friday morning, according to Klingbeil.
'We were once again very much in agreement that we want to overcome existing problems, that in the end there should be a solution,' Klingbeil said, referring to his talks with ministers from the G7 nations.
However, the EU is ready and willing to take determined countermeasures if a negotiated solution with the U.S. was not found, Klingbeil said. 'In the end, for me it is about protecting jobs and companies in Europe.'
Brussels is discussing countermeasures if a deal is not reached by August 1, including the so-called anti-coercion instrument, which allows the bloc to retaliate against countries that put pressure on EU members to change economic policies.
Asked about this instrument in an interview with Reuters on Thursday, Klingbeil said talks are now focusing on finding a joint solution with Washington, but if it doesn't work out, the EU will act 'united and decisively.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
European powers plan fresh nuclear talks with Iran: German diplomatic source
BERLIN: Britain, France and Germany are planning to hold fresh talks with Iran on its nuclear programme in the coming days, a German diplomatic source told AFP on Sunday. The European powers, known as the E3, 'are in contact with Iran to schedule further talks for the coming week', the source said, following warnings from the trio that international sanctions against Iran could be reactivated if Tehran does not resume negotiations. Iran's Tasnim news agency also reported that Tehran had agreed to hold talks with the three European countries, citing an unnamed source. Consultations are ongoing regarding a date and location for the talks, the report said. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a call Friday with his British, French and German counterparts and European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. European powers urge Iran to continue US nuclear talks During the call, the Europeans warned that if Iran did not return to talks soon, they would activate a so-called 'snapback' mechanism to reimpose sanctions lifted in a 2015 deal to curb Tehran's nuclear output. Iran and the United States had held several rounds of nuclear negotiations through Omani mediators before Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran on June 13. However, US President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities effectively ended the talks. 'Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is why Germany, France and the United Kingdom are continuing to work intensively in the E3 format to find a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear programme,' the German source said. Iran denies it is pursuing nuclear weapons. The 2015 deal between Iran and world powers, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), placed significant restrictions on Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. But the hard-won deal began to unravel in 2018, during Trump's first presidency, when the United States walked away from it and reimposed sanctions on Iran. 'If no solution is reached over the summer, snapback remains an option for the E3,' the German source said.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Tehran says air defence systems restored after Israel conflict
A satellite overview shows the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Facility, along with damage from recent airstrikes, amid the Iran-Israel conflict, near Qom, Iran, June 24, 2025. Maxar Photo:REUTERS Listen to article Iran has replaced air defences damaged during last month's conflict with Israel, Iran's Defah Press news agency reported on Sunday quoting Mahmoud Mousavi, the regular army's deputy for operations. During the conflict in June, Israel's air force dominated Iran's airspace and dealt a heavy blow to the country's air defences while Iranian armed forces launched successive barrages of missiles and drones on Israeli territory. "Some of our air defences were damaged, this is not something we can hide, but our colleagues have used domestic resources and replaced them with pre-arranged systems that were stored in suitable locations in order to keep the airspace secure," Mousavi said. Prior to the war, Iran had its own domestically-made long-range air defence system Bavar-373 in addition to the Russian-made S-300 system. The report by Defah Press did not mention any import of foreign-made air defence systems to Iran in past weeks. Following limited Israeli strikes against Iranian missile factories last October, Iran later displayed Russian-made air defences in a military exercise to show it recovered from the attack. Earlier today, Iran, Britain, France and Germany could hold talks next week on Tehran's nuclear programme, Iran's semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on Sunday, following warnings by the three European countries that failure to resume negotiations would lead to international sanctions being reimposed on Iran. "The principle of talks has been agreed upon, but consultations are continuing on the time and place of the talks. The country in which the talks could be held next week has not been finalised," Tasnim reported, quoting a source informed on the matter. Read: Iran says 'no specific date' for US nuclear talks The report on possible talks comes a few days after the foreign ministers of the so-called E3 nations, as well as the European Union's foreign policy chief, held their first call with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi since Israel and the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities a month ago. The three European countries, along with China and Russia, are the remaining parties to a 2015 nuclear deal reached with Iran - from which the United States withdrew in 2018 - that lifted sanctions on the Middle Eastern country in return for restrictions on its nuclear programme. The E3 have said they would restore UN sanctions on Tehran via the so-called "snapback mechanism" by the end of August if nuclear talks that were ongoing between Iran and the US before the Israel-Iran air war do not resume or fail to produce concrete results. "If EU/E3 want to have a role, they should act responsibly, and put aside the worn-out policies of threat and pressure, including the 'snap-back' for which they lack absolutely [any] moral and legal ground," Araqchi said earlier this week. The snapback mechanism can be used to restore UN sanctions before the UN Security Council resolution enshrining the deal expires on October 18. Prior to the Israel-Iran war, Tehran and Washington held five rounds of nuclear talks mediated by Oman but faced major stumbling blocks such as uranium enrichment in Iran, which Western powers want to bring down to zero to minimise any risk of weaponisation. Tehran maintains its nuclear programme is solely meant for civilian purposes.
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Downed jets & dangerous storylines
In May this year, India's prized Rafale jets — once paraded as the crown jewels of its military modernisation — fell from the skies during an unprovoked escalation with its adversary, nuclear-armed neighbour, Pakistan. What followed was less a military debrief than a media spectacle, as New Delhi worked tirelessly to rebrand the skirmish as a triumph, spinning the narrative long after the dust had settled. Two months after the nuclear-armed rivals edged toward open conflict, India's Deputy Chief of Army Staff made a revelation — not in a formal strategic forum or before an international audience, but while addressing a gathering hosted by the Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. During 'Operation Sindoor', he claimed, India had confronted not one but three adversaries – Pakistan as the 'front face,' with China and Türkiye allegedly providing critical support to Islamabad behind the scenes. Lieutenant General Rahul R. Singh, stitching together India's latest storyline around Operation Sindoor, reached for an ancient analogy to make his point. Citing The 36 Stratagems, a Chinese military classic, he invoked the tactic of 'killing with a borrowed knife' — the idea of striking an enemy through a proxy. China, he suggested, had done precisely that, using Pakistan as its instrument to inflict damage on India while avoiding direct confrontation. 'China would rather use the neighbour to cause pain [to India] than get involved in mudslinging on the northern border,' he told the gathering — a line that neatly folded geopolitics into parable. The officer went further to claim a-known fact that Pakistan is heavily dependent on Chinese military hardware. 'If you were to look at statistics in the last five years, 81% of the military hardware that Pakistan gets is from China.' By that logic, experts point out, India too was effectively backed by France — and even Russia — given that the weapons deployed against Pakistan were sourced from those very countries. Rafale jets and their SCALP-EG missile systems were used in strikes that left scores of Pakistani civilians dead. The use of these French-supplied arms, critics argue, sits uneasily with the European Union's own arms export regulations, which prohibit the transfer of weapons likely to be used in acts of aggression or against civilian populations. Both the Rafale aircraft and SCALP-EG missiles are exported under the EU's Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, which outlines eight legally binding criteria that member states must apply when granting arms export licences. These are not advisory guidelines, but enforceable obligations under EU law. Failure to comply with these criteria, experts said, not only undermines EU credibility but may also constitute a breach of international humanitarian law. Hassan Akbar, a former Pakistan Fellow at the Wilson Center, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, described the latest iteration of India's narrative as 'convoluted.' 'It is being peddled by New Delhi in an attempt to explain away the failures of its military against a smaller adversary, and to paint Pakistan as a proxy of China—particularly for Western audiences,' he said. Pakistan's success, he noted, was primarily the result of indigenous advancements that enabled its fighter jets, radars, electronic warfare platforms, and sensors—sourced from various countries—to operate seamlessly in a networked, multi-domain environment. 'If one follows India's logic, then Pakistan wasn't just fighting the Indians, but also the Russians, the French, and others from whom India procures its defence equipment. It's evident that India's narrative lacks both evidence and coherence,' said Hassan. But India has, by now, earned a reputation for narrative-building. Investigations by the Brussels-based EU DisinfoLab previously uncovered a sprawling network of fake news websites linked to New Delhi — suggesting that the Modi government has long been engaged in shaping favourable perceptions abroad, particularly to keep Western allies firmly in its corner. Its latest attempt to rope in China and Türkiye — apparently to deflect international embarrassment over Operation Sindoor — appears to follow that same well-worn playbook. 'Shifting Indian narratives around Operation Sindoor — particularly the effort to draw China and Türkiye into the equation — only undermines whatever credibility is left,' said Dr Talat Wizarat, former head of international relations at the University of Karachi. For a country that claims regional power status, she added, 'India has shown remarkably little control over keeping its own storyline steady and consistent.' Shifting lines in the sand In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, India was drawing lines in the sand—each washed away for the next. What began as a brief military flare-up with Pakistan quickly morphed into a campaign of narrative consolidation, where the facts of the operation were overshadowed by the story New Delhi wanted the world to see and believe. The Modi government packaged the operation as a masterstroke in strategic deterrence, but the cracks were visible from the start. India's own Rafale jets crashed, yet the official line barely acknowledged that, choosing instead to inflate the scale and scope of the threat. So extreme was the narrative that India claimed it wasn't merely facing Pakistan but a coordinated axis including China and Türkiye—an assertion that lacked substantive proof and seemed more geopolitical theatre than military assessment. This reframing allowed India to sidestep uncomfortable scrutiny over intelligence gaps and civilian casualties. The use of French-supplied Rafales and missile systems against Pakistani targets, some of which struck civilian zones, also threw a wrench into the European Union's arms export standards, which ostensibly forbid such end-use. In Brussels and Paris, the silence was telling. India's post-operation messaging relied heavily on volume and repetition rather than verifiability, in keeping with its now-familiar strategy of managing perception rather than consequence. Critics argue that Operation Sindoor wasn't a turning point in regional security dynamics but rather a continuation of a pattern – military engagement followed by information warfare, where ambiguity is weaponised and accountability conveniently disappears. 'The fact that the Indian government had to offer so many versions of what it called a victory over Pakistan suggests there was no real victory to begin with—if any at all,' quipped Wizarat, a keen observer of regional affairs. The great embarrassment Prime Minister Narendra Modi has developed a reputation for his showmanship. After every major international event, the BJP leader tends to fire off posts on X, formerly Twitter, calling most — if not all — foreign leaders his dear friends. His image as India's prime minister, experts argue, has been carefully choreographed. At the consecration of the Ram temple — built on the site of the Mughal-era Babri Masjid — it was not the high priest but Modi himself who led the ceremony, performing rituals traditionally reserved for Hindu religious leaders. The aftermath of Operation Sindoor has, in many ways, proved an embarrassment for Modi's curated image — both at home and abroad. 'The chorus of critical voices has been louder,' said one expert, who did not wish to be named. The extent of the unease was captured in a recent post by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who shared a clip of US President Donald Trump suggesting that India lost five jets during the escalation. 'Modi ji, what is the truth about the five jets? The country has the right to know,' Gandhi posted — a pointed jab at his political rival and India's sitting prime minister. But the embarrassment hasn't been confined to India alone. Shares of Dassault Aviation — the French manufacturer of Rafale jets used by India during 'Operation Sindoor' — slumped on European stock markets. A symbolic fall, some noted wryly, echoing the very aircraft reportedly brought down by Pakistani fire. 'New Delhi's credibility as a country claiming military superiority over its adversaries came crashing down with those jets. Had it maintained a consistent narrative, the embarrassment might have been avoided,' said Wizarat. Akbar, in his precise assessment of Modi's predicament, noted -- 'India's political and military leadership has been trying to sell their shortcomings during the conflict as a victory to domestic audiences.' The former Wilson Center fellow's view rings true in light of Prime Minister Modi's actions. Shortly after the operation — and despite the humiliation of Indian fighter jets smouldering in the wake of Operation Sindoor — Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as The Wire reported, positioned himself squarely at the heart of a triumph he had all but choreographed. His public addresses became rituals of symbolism, thick with invocations of sindoor, however, conspicuously devoid of any reference to the militants behind the Pahalgam attack. Then, on 12 May — a full forty-eight hours after US President Donald Trump brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan — Modi launched into an unrelenting campaign blitz -- nine rallies in eight days across six states, as if electoral momentum could be spun from the ashes of a fractured narrative. Wizarat described the entire operation as meticulously timed for electoral gain. 'It has become almost predictable,' she noted, for India's political leadership to invoke the threat of Pakistan — or the spectre of Muslims — in the run-up to elections, as a way to consolidate support among its Hindu base. The China conundrum They say one lie begets another — a spiral of invention to conceal what never truly was. India now finds itself tangled in precisely such a mess. Despite New Delhi's persistent evasions over the fate of its downed fighter jets during the skirmish, new reports have emerged confirming what the government has long tried to bury -- that its prized aircraft were indeed shot down — not by a technologically superior Western force, but by Chinese-made weapons in Pakistani hands. Armed with that uncomfortable truth, Indian officials have begun aiming their rhetorical fire at Beijing, painting China as the main villain in the conflict. However, experts argue that the accusation stretches the boundaries of credibility. 'The sale of arms — however consequential — does not make China a combatant, any more than France or Russia were deemed parties to the conflict for supplying India with the very weapons it used against Pakistan,' said Wizarat. India, Wizarat argued, must move past its obsession with outpacing China in the regional — or even broader global — power race. 'If anything, the recent escalation between Pakistan and India has shattered the myth of Western superiority in the arms race,' she concluded. According to Akbar, India's attempt to reframe the narrative was less about facts on the ground and more about courting Western sympathy — achieved by invoking alleged Chinese involvement in the tit-for-tat exchanges with Pakistan. The insult that bleeds If the downing of the Rafales was an insult, the injury hasn't let up — not because it must, but because India's persistent denial and deflection keep inviting it. The most recent blow came from The Economist, which detailed an incident Indian authorities still refuse to acknowledge. On May 7, the London-based publication reported, residents of Akalia Kalan — a village near a northern Indian airbase — were jolted awake by an unfamiliar roar and a series of explosions. A ball of fire streaked across the sky before crashing into a field. The wreckage, unmistakably a fighter jet, killed two villagers. The pilots had ejected and were later found injured in nearby fields. India has yet to officially confirm the incident — one of several aircraft losses during a brief but intense four-day conflict with Pakistan. While New Delhi disputes Islamabad's claim of downing six jets — including three French-made Rafales — foreign military observers, The Economist noted, have verified that at least five Indian aircraft were lost. Indian military sources have since quietly conceded losses, though they suggest operational errors, not technological failure, may be to blame. The implications are far-reaching. According to defence experts, this was the first time advanced Chinese weapons — Pakistan's J-10 fighters and PL-15 missiles — were deployed against Western and Russian systems. Early assessments, The Economist reported, pointed to the superiority of Chinese systems — and possible real-time intelligence sharing from Beijing. But the most damning revelation may have come from within -- a leaked recording of India's defence attaché in Jakarta, Captain Shiv Kumar, aired in June. In it, he admits India's initial losses were due to political constraints that barred the air force from targeting Pakistani military installations. Only after suffering setbacks, he said, were the rules of engagement expanded. 'The fact that India continues to deflect questions about gains and losses shows there were real issues not only during the operation, but also in its aftermath — where any victorious side would have flaunted its trophies right away. India, however, has been on the back foot ever since,' said Wizarat. 'Instead of adding China to the equation, India must fix its own equation,' she concluded.
