Parenting News
American public universities tend to be larger, offer more courses
iCademy Middle East's fees starting from Dh19,373
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
13 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Why are people protesting against the Boston Consulting Group?
In San Francisco, Boston, Dallas and other cities around the country, protesters have marched and chanted outside the offices of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The demonstrators were demanding accountability for BCG's role in creating a deadly new aid distribution system backed by the US and Israel that a United Nations official described as using starvation as a bargaining chip. Founded in 1961 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, BCG is one of the most prominent consulting firms in the United States and advises clients on a large number of topics, including security and humanitarian issues. BCG is one of the world's three largest management consulting firms by revenue and is no stranger to controversy. It has been reported to have worked with Isabel dos Santos, who was accused of exploiting Angola's natural resources. It is also reported to have been one of the firm's "critical" in helping Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman consolidate his grip on power in the kingdom. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Middle East Eye examines the BCG's role in Gaza's humanitarian crisis and efforts to hold the consulting firm accountable. Collaboration with Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Between October 2024 and May 2025, BCG helped establish the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF began to invite increased scrutiny in early June as evidence of massacres at GHF aid sites emerged, prompting BCG to cancel its contracts with GHF and describe their previous cooperation as 'unapproved'. 'Two former partners initiated this work, even though the lead partner was categorically told not to. This work was not a BCG project. It was orchestrated and run secretly outside any BCG scope or approvals. We fully disavow this work. BCG was not paid for any of this work,' BCG wrote on their website. But a Financial Times (FT) investigation revealed that BCG's cooperation with the GHF was extensive and discussed with senior BCG figures, while the Washington Post's reporting showed that BCG was filing monthly invoices of over $1m a month. The FT investigation found that BCG was originally contacted by Orbis, an American security company working on behalf of an Israeli think tank, to do a feasibility study for a new Gaza aid operation. Senior partners at BCG 'step down over Gaza humanitarian controversy' Read More » BCG then helped create Safe Reach Solutions (SRS), a mercenary firm that would provide security at aid sites, along with GHF. At one point, SRS reportedly chastised a contractor under its command for refusing to shoot Palestinian children. GHF's executive director resigned hours before GHF's public launch in May, claiming it was impossible to implement GHF's Gaza aid plan 'while also strictly adhering to humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence'. UN aid chief Tom Fletcher also criticised the GHF, describing it as 'a fig leaf for further violence and displacement'. BCG planned to bill GHF around $4m for work that included developing financial models of what the UN described as 'ethnic cleansing' in Gaza. The model included 'voluntary relocation', where Palestinians in Gaza would have been given $5,000, rent subsidies for four years and subsidised food for a year. The model predicted that a quarter of the population would leave, and three-fourths of them would never return, according to FT. As Israeli air strikes indiscriminately kill Palestinians and children starve to death under Israel's suffocating siege, such an offer could hardly be considered voluntary and was widely condemned by rights groups. Why is the GHF controversial? Set up to bypass UN aid distribution networks that have been in place for decades, but that Israel alleges are now linked to Hamas, GHF sites have proven deadly for Palestinians seeking aid. Israeli soldiers have admitted to deliberately killing unarmed Palestinian aid seekers at GHF distribution sites, with one Israeli soldier describing the aid centres as 'killing fields'. Over a thousand Palestinian aid-seekers have been killed, mostly at GHF sites, since May, according to the UN. Yet as malnutrition spreads across Gaza, hungry Palestinians have little choice but to brave Israeli bullets to search for aid. Israel alleges that violence at the aid sites is necessary to stop the aid from being stolen by Hamas. However, an internal US review examined 156 instances of stolen or lost aid and found no evidence that Hamas was stealing it. Rather, Israel directly or indirectly caused the loss or theft of aid in 44 instances, according to the findings. Meanwhile, Israel has admitted that it supports anti-Hamas gangs notorious for stealing aid. How other aid organisations reacted to BCG On 13 June, Save the Children International became the first charity to pause cooperation with BCG over its role in the GHF. Save the Children CEO Inger Ashing said BCG's modelling of a plan for the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza 'disregards fundamental rights and dignity, and raises serious ethical and legal questions' - and that Save the Children would suspend work with BCG pending the outcome of an external investigation. Several days later, BCG's chief risk officer and the leader of its social-impact practice resigned from their roles. Yet despite the international outcry against GHF, some humanitarian aid organisations have been hesitant to cut ties with GHF. Although the World Food Programme told The New Humanitarian that it planned to review its ties with BCG, other humanitarian aid organisations, including some that decried the GHF, did not indicate that they were considering ending their relationship with BCG. What protests have there been against BCG? Some protesters have found BCG, with dozens of locations across the US, an accessible target to protest against the killing of aid seekers in Gaza. On 25 July, demonstrators banged pots and pans outside BCG's headquarters in the Seaport district of Boston. GHF chief attacks UN and media, avoids saying 'Palestinians' when referring to Gaza Read More » A security guard at the building seriously injured one protester when he pushed the protester into a metal pole, breaking several ribs. 'Very quickly, a security guard ran from within the building without me noticing him, and slammed into me and pushed me away from the door with all his strength,' the protester, who asked to remain anonymous, told Middle East Eye. Multiple witnesses corroborated the account, and the protester was later taken by ambulance to a hospital with a trauma centre. On 25 July, at least a dozen protesters were arrested when demonstrators staged a sit-in at a BCG facility in Dallas. Protesters also demonstrated outside a BCG office in Dallas on Thursday. On the west coast of the United States, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) organised protests outside of BCG's offices in San Francisco and San Diego. 'The time to act is now! The genocide in Gaza had reached a critical moment with thousands facing starvation due to the brutal siege on the strip… we will make ourselves heard,' a statement from the San Diego chapter of PYM said.
Al Etihad
21 hours ago
- Al Etihad
Why has India vowed to protect its farmers in the face of tariff threats?
1 Aug 2025 14:13 MUMBAI (REUTERS)US President Donald Trump on Thursday slapped a 25% tariff on Indian goods after prolonged talks that got bogged down over access to India's labour-intensive agricultural sector, which New Delhi has pledged to protect. Why is India opposing the products the US is lobbying for? The United States is pressing India to open its markets to a wide range of American products, including dairy, poultry, corn, soybeans, rice, wheat, ethanol, fruits and nuts. While India is willing to provide greater access for US dry fruits and apples, it is holding back on corn, soybeans, wheat, and dairy products.A key reason for this resistance is that most US corn and soybeans are genetically modified (GM), and India does not permit the import of GM food crops are widely perceived in India as harmful to human health and the environment, and several groups affiliated with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are opposing their introduction. The commercial cultivation of a high-yielding GM mustard variety that India developed itself is currently not allowed due to an ongoing legal GM crops, dairy is also a highly sensitive issue, as it provides a livelihood for millions of farmers, including many who are landless or smallholders. The dairy industry helps sustain farmers even during erratic monsoon seasons, which can cause significant fluctuations in crop India, where a large proportion of the population is vegetarian, food choices are strongly influenced by cultural and dietary preferences. Indian consumers are particularly concerned that cattle in the U.S. are often fed animal by-products - a practice that conflicts with Indian food is self-sufficient in most farm goods, with the exception of vegetable oils. After liberalising cooking oil imports over three decades ago, the country now has to import nearly two-thirds of its supply to meet demand. India does not want to repeat this mistake with other basic foods, which account for nearly half of its consumer price agriculture makes up just 16% of India's nearly $3.9 trillion economy, it is the lifeblood for nearly half the country's 1.4 billion people. Four years ago, this powerful voting bloc forced Modi's government into a rare retreat on a set of controversial farm in power fear a flood of cheaper US imports would bring down local prices. New Delhi is also worried that a trade deal with the US could force it to open its agricultural sector to other countries. How does farming in India and the US differ? The vast disparity in the scale of farming makes it difficult for Indian farmers to compete with their US average Indian farm is 1.08 hectares (2.67 acres), compared to 187 hectares in the US. For dairy farmers, the difference is even more dramatic - a small herd of two or three animals versus hundreds or more in the Indian farmers also rely on traditional, unmechanised techniques, while American agriculture has developed into a highly efficient, tech-driven industry. Why is India hesitant to use US ethanol in its biofuel programmeOne of India's key goals with its Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) programme is to reduce energy imports and support domestic farmers by using sugarcane and corn for biofuel production. Indian companies have invested heavily in new distilleries, and farmers have expanded corn cultivation to meet the rising demand. India recently achieved its ambitious target of a 20% ethanol blend in petrol. With state assembly elections approaching in Bihar - a major corn-producing state in the east - allowing US ethanol imports would lower local corn prices. This would probably anger farmers and also undermine the growing distillery sector.
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
US President Trump says imposing 25% tariff on Indian imports
President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the United States will impose a 25% tariff on goods imported from India starting on Aug.1. He said India, which has the world's fifth largest economy, will also face an unspecified penalty on Aug.1, but did not elaborate on the amount or what it was for. Trump said on his Truth Social platform that India "is our friend' but its "Tariffs are far too high' on US goods. "While India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. "They have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE - ALL THINGS NOT GOOD!" India's commerce ministry, which is leading the trade negotiations with the United States, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump's decision dashes hopes of a limited trade agreement between the two countries, which had been under negotiation for several months. The Republican president added that India buys military equipment and oil from Russia, which he said has enabled the war in Ukraine. As a result, he intends to charge an additional "penalty' starting on Friday as part of the launch of his administration's revised tariffs on multiple countries. The new tariffs could put India at a disadvantage in the US market relative to Vietnam, Bangladesh and, possibly, China, said Ajay Sahai, director general of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations. "We are back to square one as Trump hasn't spelled out what the penalties would be in addition to the tariff," Sahai said. "The demand for Indian goods is bound to be hit.' US and Indian trade negotiators had held multiple rounds of discussions to resolve contentious issues, particularly over market access for American agricultural and dairy products. Despite progress in some areas, Indian officials resisted opening the domestic market to imports of wheat, corn, rice and genetically modified soybeans, citing risks to the livelihood of millions of Indian farmers. The new tariffs are expected to impact India's goods exports to the US, estimated at around $87 billion in 2024, including labour-intensive products such as garments, pharmaceuticals, gems and jeweler, and petrochemicals. The United States currently has a $45.7 billion trade deficit with India. India now joins a growing list of countries facing higher tariffs under Trump's "Liberation Day" trade policy, aimed at reshaping US trade relations by demanding greater reciprocity. The White House had previously warned India about its high average applied tariffs - nearly 39% on agricultural products, with rates climbing to 45% on vegetable oils and around 50% on apples and corn. The setback comes despite earlier commitments by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump to conclude the first phase of a trade deal by autumn 2025 and expand bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030, up from $191 billion in 2024. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he'll impose a 25% tariff on goods from India, plus an additional import tax because of India's purchasing of Russian oil. The announcement comes after a slew of negotiated trade frameworks with the European Union, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia — all of which Trump said would open markets for American goods while enabling the US to raise tax rates on imports. The president views tariff revenues as a way to help offset the budget deficit increases tied to his recent income tax cuts and generate more domestic factory jobs. While Trump has effectively wielded tariffs as a cudgel to reset the terms of trade, the economic impact is uncertain as most economists expect a slowdown in US growth and greater inflationary pressures as some of the costs of the taxes are passed along to domestic businesses and consumers. Trump's approach of putting a 15% tariff on America's longstanding allies in the EU is also generating pushback - possibly causing European partners as well as Canada to seek alternatives to US leadership on the world stage. Reuters / AP
