&w=3840&q=100)
Cambodian PM nominates Trump for Nobel Peace Prize for 'averting' war with Thailand
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet has nominated US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his role in defusing tensions between Cambodia and Thailand.
In a Facebook post published late Thursday, Hun Manet shared that he had formally submitted a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, commending Trump's 'extraordinary statesmanship' for helping to halt the border dispute. The letter described Trump's involvement as among his 'exceptional achievements in de-escalating tensions in some of the world's most volatile regions.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'This timely intervention, which averted a potentially devastating conflict, was vital in preventing a great loss of lives and paved the way towards the restoration of peace,' the Cambodian leader wrote in the letter.
It was a July 26 call by Trump to the leaders of both Thailand and Cambodia that broke the deadlock in efforts to end some of the heaviest fighting between the neighbours in recent history, Reuters has reported.
That led to a ceasefire negotiated in Malaysia on July 28. The two countries agreed on Thursday to ensure no reigniting of hostilities and to allow observers from Southeast Asia.
In total, 43 people were killed and more than 300,000 displaced by a five-day conflict that started with small arms fire and quickly escalated into heavy artillery and rocket fire, then Thailand's deployment hours later of an F-16 fighter jet for air strikes.
The nomination had been expected after Cambodia's deputy prime minister last week announced the plan, while thanking Trump for a tariff of 19% on Cambodian imports by the United States – sharply reduced from the previously threatened 49% that he said would have decimated its vital garment manufacturing sector.
Pakistan said in June that it would recommend Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in helping to resolve a conflict with India, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last month he had nominated Trump for the award.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
3 minutes ago
- India.com
Which countries are biggest buyers of Russian oil, and why is India still in stronger position despite 50% US tariffs?
Which countries are biggest buyers of Russian oil, and why is India still in stronger position despite 50% US tariffs? U.S. President Donald Trump has announced an additional 25 per cent tariff on goods imported from India, starting August 27. This is in addition to the existing 25 per cent tariff and is a response to India continuing to buy oil from Russia. The move has sparked global debate over trade policies, especially among countries that still import large amounts of energy from Russia. Asia becomes Russia's main oil buyer after EU pullback There was a time when the European Union (EU) was the biggest buyer of Russian oil. But after the EU placed sanctions on Russia, Asian countries like China, India, and Turkey stepped in and now lead in buying Russian energy. Asia has now become Russia's largest oil market. At present: China imports about USD 219.5 billion worth of energy (oil, gas, and coal) from Russia. India buys energy products worth around USD 133.4 billion. Turkey imports nearly USD 90.3 billion in energy from Russia. Some European countries, like Hungary, still buy small amounts of Russian oil through pipelines, but most have reduced their purchases due to sanctions. Russia's oil revenue still strong despite sanctions Even with sanctions from the U.S. and Europe, Russia continues to earn big from its oil exports. According to the Kyiv School of Economics, Russia made around USD 12.6 billion just from oil sales in June. For the entire year of 2025, it is expected to earn up to USD 153 billion from oil exports. Why is India in a better position? Even though President Trump has imposed a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods, India is still in a better position compared to China. Under Trump's new trade policy, Chinese imports are facing a much higher 30 per cent tariff, while imports from Vietnam are being taxed at only 20 per cent. This means Indian and Vietnamese products will continue to compete in the U.S. market, but India still has an edge over China. Recently, Fitch Ratings updated its 'Effective Tariff Rate (ETR) Monitor,' a tool that tracks how tariffs affect trade. According to the latest update: The average effective tariff rate in the U.S. has risen to 17 per cent, up from 15 per cent last year. Among all major U.S. trading partners, China's ETR is now the highest at 41.4 per cent, a big jump from its earlier rate of 10.7 per cent. India's ETR stands at just over 21 per cent, which shows that India is still in a relatively better spot compared to China. The Effective Tariff Rate (ETR) helps measure the real impact of tariffs on a country's trade and economic strategies. Liao Yu, a lecturer at Renmin University in China, says that during his second term, Trump has become more aggressive with his 'Make America Great Again' agenda. According to Liao, many supporters of this policy believe free trade has hurt the U.S., and they mainly blame China for it. In the future, China might face even tougher tariff battles. However, since Trump's 'America First' approach is also weakening old U.S. alliances, it could open up some new strategic opportunities for China.
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Express View on Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on India: Bracing up
From edging closer to signing a trade deal in early July, to the imposition of a 25 per cent penalty on August 6, on top of a 25 per cent tariff levied just a few days earlier, India-US trade relations have now moved into uncharted territory. While the additional tariffs will come into play in 21 days, opening up a possible window for negotiations — US trade negotiators are slated to arrive in Delhi on August 25 — the weaponisation of tariffs by US President Donald Trump to achieve what seem to be both trade and non-trade objectives, has placed India at a considerable disadvantage when compared to competitors such as Vietnam and Indonesia. In the face of this mounting pressure, India must stand firm, put its national interest first. Not surprisingly, Trump's action has evoked a strong response. Calling it 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable', the Narendra Modi government has said it will take 'all actions necessary to protect its national interests'. As it continues the trade talks with the Trump administration, it may be possible to offer more concessions in certain segments, there may be room for greater give and take. But, at the same time, Delhi should stay with its red lines in the face of mounting pressure in sectors such as agriculture and dairy — politically contentious areas, which are critical to the livelihoods of large sections of the Indian labour force. On Thursday, speaking at the M S Swaminathan Centenary International Conference in Delhi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphatically stated the government's position: 'India will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock rearers and fisherfolk'. India's purchase of discounted Russian oil, which has ensured price stability in the global oil market, was a pragmatic move to secure its energy supplies. But with Trump raising the costs of continuing with this trade — as he attempts to curb the flow of money to Russian President Vladimir Putin, ostensibly to end the conflict in Ukraine — the same hard-headed realism must guide Delhi's approach now. Imports of Russian oil were at 1.6 million barrels per day in July, down 24 per cent from the month before, as per a report in this paper. The cost-benefit analysis of relying on one source of supply to such a large extent, however, must be seen only through the prism of India's interests — not dictated by Trump. Goldman Sachs, an investment firm, has estimated that the steep tariff on India could bring down economic growth by around 0.6 percentage points. But who India should trade with, or for that matter, which grouping it should be part of — Trump has in the past also taken umbrage at BRICS — should be guided by India's interests alone. Such issues should, in any case, not be part of trade talks between the two countries.
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Best of Both Sides: Bargain with the US on tariffs is still possible
India has finally come into the crosshairs of the Trump storm, having lived a reasonably charmed life in the initial weeks of his presidency. The magnitude of Donald Trump's additional 25 per cent tariff, taking the total to 50 per cent, goes beyond the narrow confines of bilateral trade and economics. It has political ramifications, meant to hurt India. When we look back, India was quick off the mark to engage with Trump 2.0, with visits by the External Affairs Minister for the inauguration ceremony and then by Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself within a month of Trump taking office. Behind the scenes, India was also quick to present a forward-looking trade package to American negotiators, having drawn lessons from his last term when Trump withdrew the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) for India. Geopolitically, India welcomed the US President's intention to end the Ukraine conflict. It viewed the announcement of tariffs on China as a much-needed correction to Western indulgence of China. The personal chemistry between PM Modi and President Trump was taken as an accepted fact. Things seemed to be going well. Admittedly, there was foreboding of tough times on trade and tariff matters. The pejorative references to India were becoming uncomfortably frequent and strident, and the memories of difficult negotiations under Trump 1.0 never went away. Yet, India escaped Trump's notice as he set about turning against US allies, striking at the foundations of the trans-Atlantic alliance, challenging Canada's sovereignty, not to forget renaming the Panama Canal and the proposal to buy Greenland. The vocabulary and mood of the India-US relationship has changed. The romanticism of shared values is no longer visible. It has now boiled down to teaching a lesson and meting out punishment at the leadership level. We are told that the President is a man in a hurry, and is counting his time, not in weeks but days. The relationship has been dealt a severe blow, the likes of which has not been seen in recent memory. India has been stigmatised for allegedly funding Russia's war effort, in addition to being called the 'tariff king'. Passing the blame for lack of progress in Eastern Europe on India or believing that punishing Delhi will bring Moscow to the negotiating table is obfuscation. Russia's war machine is funded not by India. It is built on the billions of dollars of earnings from energy exports to Europe over decades, besides ongoing imports. The war machine will continue even if India were to bring its imports to zero. It is a well-advertised fact that top US and Russian negotiators were, till a few months ago, discussing potential US investments, trade and economic cooperation with Russia. A better attempt to enfeeble Russia would be to squeeze Beijing. Painting India and China with the same brush is a geopolitical self-goal. Moscow and Beijing are happy to see the US doubling down on India. India is not going to fall, but questions which were considered settled on the durability of friendship with the US have resurfaced. Some in the West and the US project India's purchase of oil from Russia as an exhibition of its pursuit of 'strategic autonomy'. Nothing could be more inaccurate. India has justified its energy trade with Russia ad nauseum. There is a bigger concern at play. If this is an era where transactionalism and unilateralism form the basis of foreign policy and there are no taboos, why should India not brace for a scenario of the US striking a deal with China, or even a breakthrough in US-Russia relations? It is the existence of such uncertainties that strengthens, rather than weakens, the Indian impulse towards geopolitical hedging. The surreal hosting of the Pakistani army chief in the White House and other encomiums heaped on Pakistan, turning a deliberate blind eye to its sponsorship of terrorism in India with Chinese backing, make such hedging more imperative. There is more to the tariff war launched against India than frustration with Russia. Other sources of anger seem to stem from India's non-committal posture on buying certain high-value defence platforms, and the denial of any mediatory role played by the US during Operation Sindoor. There is frustration on Indian bargaining hard on agriculture and dairy imports on the trade track. Added to this are accusations relating to Indian immigration practices, cut back in visas, and people-to-people movement, considered a foundational element of the relationship. Several pressure points are being applied. The India-US relationship is being tested to its limits. It will get worse before it gets better. For Indians, this is a useful reality check. National security and economic growth cannot be outsourced. India is far from being a rejectionist state, but its interests are real, not imagined. The tariffs imposed could lead to the outpricing of Indian goods, services and human resources from the US market; to a possible unravelling and dismantling of the connectivities built over the last few decades. How should India respond to the US President's onslaught? To begin with, keep calm, avoid raising decibel levels, and control the damage. There is a need to focus on internal reform and rebalancing. The India-US relationship is too important to be derailed. The two countries have had a history of talking straight to each other, which has seen them through seemingly unbridgeable positions in the past. Red lines cannot be shifted, but grand bargains are always possible. The past seven months of the Trump era have been marked by volatility and sharp turns. The next few months are likely to be much the same, because much of what Trump is doing is still work in progress. The writer is convenor, NatStrat, former deputy national security adviser and former ambassador to Russia
