Nobel laureates urge Trump, Putin to meet on denuclearisation
GENEVA: Three Nobel Peace Prize-winning groups campaigning to eliminate nuclear weapons joined forces on Monday to urge the US and Russian presidents to meet and agree on significant denuclearisation.
The joint appeal came from Japan's atomic bomb survivors' group Nihon Hidankyo, which won last year's Nobel; 2017 laureate the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN); and the 1985 winner, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
They sent a joint letter to the two leaders, ICAN said in a statement Monday.
'At this moment of extreme nuclear danger, we call on you to take urgent steps to de-escalate tensions and to engage in meaningful negotiations for nuclear disarmament,' they wrote to US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
The two countries between them control 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.
The groups said they were prompted to write their letter following Trump's suggestion after returning to power in January that he wanted the world to 'denuclearise', and the Kremlin's expressed openness to the idea.
'The current climate surrounding nuclear weapons is the most volatile in decades,' they said, warning of potential 'catastrophic consequences for all humankind'.
The Nobel laureates called in their letter on the two leaders to follow the example set by their predecessors Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.
The then US and Soviet leaders met in Iceland in 1986 during the Cold War and agreed the deepest cuts ever in their countries' nuclear forces.
'The expansion of nuclear weapons capabilities is not a route to safety,' the groups argued. 'It only increases the risk these weapons will be used by accident or design.
'The only viable security strategy is one that moves the world away from the brink of nuclear catastrophe and prioritises disarmament,' they added.
'Nuclear weapons are not an inevitable force of nature that must be endured,' they said.
'They were built by human hands, and they can be dismantled by human hands. All that's required is political will.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Tariff tensions threaten students
The country blasted the United States over moves it alleged harmed Chinese interests, including issuing AI chip export control guidelines, stopping the sale of chip design software to China, and planning to revoke Chinese student visas. 'These practices seriously violate the consensus' reached during trade discussions in Geneva last month, the Commerce Ministry said in a statement. That referred to a China-US joint statement in which the United States and China agreed to slash their massive recent tariffs, restarting stalled trade between the world's two biggest economies. But last month's de-escalation in President Donald Trump's trade wars did nothing to resolve underlying differences between Beijing and Washington and Monday's statement showed how easily such agreements can lead to further turbulence. The deal lasts 90 days, creating time for US and Chinese negotiators to reach a more substantive agreement. But the pause also leaves tariffs higher than before Trump started ramping them up last month. And businesses and investors must contend with uncertainty about whether the truce will last. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the United States agreed to drop the 145% tax Trump imposed last month to 30%. China agreed to lower its tariff rate on US goods to 10% from 125%. The Commerce Ministry said China held up its end of the deal, canceling or suspending tariffs and non-tariff measures taken against the US 'reciprocal tariffs' following the agreement. 'The United States has unilaterally provoked new economic and trade frictions, exacerbating the uncertainty and instability of bilateral economic and trade relations,' while China has stood by its commitments, the statement said. It also threatened unspecified retaliation, saying China will 'continue to take resolute and forceful measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.' And in response to recent comments by Trump, it said of the US: 'Instead of reflecting on itself, it has turned the tables and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts.' Trump stirred further controversy Friday, saying he will no longer be nice with China on trade, declaring in a social media post that the country had broken an agreement with the United States. Hours later, Trump said in the Oval Office that he will speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping and 'hopefully we'll work that out,' while still insisting China had violated the agreement. 'The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,' Trump posted. 'So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!' The Trump administration also stepped up the clash with China in other ways last week, announcing that it would start revoking visas for Chinese students studying in the United States. US campuses host more than 275,000 students from China. Both countries are in a race to develop advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, with Washington seeking to curb China's access to the most advanced computer chips. China is also seeking to displace the United States as the leading power in the Asia-Pacific, including through gaining control over close US partner and leading tech giant Taiwan. — AP
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Friction over alleged trade deal violations
The nation said it 'firmly rejects' US claims that it had violated a sweeping tariffs deal, as tensions between the two economic superpowers showed signs of ratcheting back up. Beijing and Washington last month agreed to slash staggeringly high tariffs on each other for 90 days after talks between top officials in Geneva. But top Washington officials last week accused China of violating the deal, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying Beijing was 'slow-rolling' the agreement in comments to Fox News Sunday. China hit back Monday, saying Washington 'has made bogus charges and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts'. 'China firmly rejects these unreasonable accusations,' its commerce ministry said in a statement. US President Donald Trump said last week that China had 'totally violated' the deal, without providing details. Beijing's commerce ministry said it 'has been firm in safeguarding its rights and interests, and sincere in implementing the consensus'. It fired back that Washington 'has successively introduced a number of discriminatory restrictive measures against China' since the Geneva talks. The ministry cited export controls on artificial intelligence chips, curbs on the sale of chip design software and the revocation of Chinese student visas in the United States. 'We urge the US to meet China halfway, immediately correct its wrongful actions, and jointly uphold the consensus from the Geneva trade talks,' the ministry said. — AFP
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Tariffs, tribunals and the trouble with American power
YOU can tell a lot about a country not just by the wars it wages, but by the emergencies it declares, especially when those emergencies are economic, and the weapons of choice are tariffs. That's what makes the recent US Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling so important and revealing. Because it didn't just m strike down President Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs; it struck at the very foundation of how America has come to usem - and abuse - its economic power in a world that's watching closely. Let's rewind. On April 2, 2025, the Trump administration announced a sweeping set of tariffs under the banner of a national emergency. Ten per cent across the board. Twenty-five per cent on countries accused of failing to stop fentanyl. Thirty per cent on China, later hiked to 145 per cent. It was aggressive. It was improvisational. And it was built on a fragile legal foundation: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a Cold War-era statute meant for rogue regimes and wartime exigencies, not for fighting trade deficits or playing tariff roulette with allies. This past week, the courts called that bluff. In a unanimous decision - handed down by judges appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump - the CIT ruled that the president had overstepped the bounds of IEEPA. The tariffs, they said, were not just broad - they were legally untethered, imposed with pretextual justifications and zero regard for the statute's intent. And just like that, the gears of Trump's most audacious trade weapon ground to a halt. But don't be fooled - this isn't just a procedural hiccup. It's a watershed moment in the tug-of-war between presidential power and institutional restraint. The ruling didn't just say "no" to tariffs; it said "no" to using emergency powers as a shortcut around democracy. It reasserted something many in Washington have forgotten: that trade policy, like war, is meant to be anchored in congressional authority, not unilateral whim. And yet, the game isn't over. Trump's team, and the broader apparatus of economic nationalism, still has tools in its belt: Section 232 (national security tariffs) and Section 301 (retaliatory duties for unfair trade practices). These remain untouched by the court's ruling. The problem? They're slower. They require public comment, investigation, deliberation - things this administration often sees as bugs, not features. That's why IEEPA was so seductive. It let the White House move fast and break things. It let policy emerge from impulse, not process. But that same speed is what now exposes the fragility of the whole edifice. Because when courts intervene, when lawsuits multiply - from states, importers, and even Native American tribes - what you're left with isn't just blocked tariffs. You're left with uncertainty as policy. And uncertainty, as any economist will tell you, is its own kind of tax. It's a tax on investment. A tax on supply chains. A tax on consumer confidence. You can see it in the numbers. US GDP shrank 0.3 per cent in the first quarter of 2025. Prices for fresh produce jumped 5.4 per cent. Apparel? Up 17 per cent. Meanwhile, the Economic Policy Uncertainty Index has reached its highest levels since the early days of Covid. When Macy's and Ford are pricing in policy chaos, and investors are bracing for legal whiplash, you don't have a trade strategy - you have a crisis of credibility. And that credibility matters. Because while the administration scrambles to appeal the ruling, other governments - Japan, Germany, Brazil, even Canada - are drawing their own conclusions. They see a country that can't guarantee the durability of its own trade rules from one quarter to the next. They see lawsuits in Florida, D.C., and New York battling over tariff legality, and wonder whether the US is still the anchor of the rules-based order - or just another actor improvising at scale. Even within the US, the institutional reckoning has begun. Lawmakers like Republican Don Beyer and Republican. Suzan DelBene are introducing bills to claw back congressional authority over tariffs. Legal scholars like George Mason's Ilya Somin are warning that no other statute offers the same unchecked reach as IEEPA - which is exactly why it was used in the first place. And trade policy veterans like Cato's Scott Lincicome are sighing with relief - if not certainty - now that at least one court has stood up and said, "enough." So where does this leave us? It leaves us at a crossroads. One path leads toward a restoration of discipline and institutional integrity - where Congress reclaims its rightful role, and emergency laws are used for actual emergencies. The other path leads deeper into the fog where executive power expands unchecked, and economic strategy becomes a rolling headline war fought through tweet, tariff, and tribunal. Because in the end, this isn't just about trade. It's about how power is used in a democracy. It's about whether economic statecraft can be wielded responsibly in a multipolar world. And it's about whether the United States still believes that credibility and coherence are strengths worth preserving. Trump's tariffs may have been paused. But the bigger question - about how America governs its economy in an age of fragmentation - remains wide open.
