Berlin says still backs global minimum tax for multinationals
G7 nations last month agreed to exempt the US firms because they are already taxed in the United States -- a win for President Donald Trump's government, which had pushed hard for the compromise.
German press reports Tuesday said that Chancellor Friedrich Merz had voiced deep skepticism over whether the international tax project had a future.
But Klingbeil, asked about those reports, said Berlin remained committed to the agreement, negotiated over more than 10 years through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
'The chancellor and I agree that we are committed to this global minimum tax and that we will do everything to maintain this project,' Klingbeil told a press conference with his French counterpart Eric Lombard near Berlin.
Nearly 140 countries struck a deal in 2021 to tax multinationals, an agreement that includes two 'pillars.'
The first aims to make multinationals, particularly in the digital sector, pay taxes in the countries where their customers are located. The second sets the minimum rate at 15 percent of profits.
Trump, after returning to power this year, withdrew the United States from the agreement and threatened retaliation against any country that applied Pillar 1 to American companies.
Pillar 2 is applied by some 60 countries including Brazil, Britain, Canada, Japan, Switzerland and members of the European Union.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
4 hours ago
- Arab News
With gavel in hand, Trump chisels away at the power of a compliant Congress
WASHINGTON: 'Mr. President, this is the gavel used to enact the 'big, beautiful bill,'' House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a White House signing ceremony on the Fourth of July. 'I want you to have it,' he said. Handing over the gavel delighted President Donald Trump who, seated behind a desk outdoors, immediately tested it out with a few quick thumps. The moment left a memorable mark on a historic day. The gesture reflected a traditional nod of honor, from one leader to another, a milestone of the Republican Party's priority legislation becoming law. But the imagery also underscored a symbolic transfer of political power, from Capitol Hill to the White House as a compliant Congress is ceding more and more of its prerogative to the presidency. Congress gives Trump what he wants Since Trump's return to the White House in January, and particularly in the past few weeks, Republicans in control of the House and Senate have shown an unusual willingness to give the president of their party what he wants, regardless of the potential risk to themselves, their constituents and Congress itself. Republicans raced to put the big package of tax breaks and spending cuts on Trump's desk by his Independence Day deadline. Senators had quickly confirmed almost all of Trump's outsider Cabinet nominees despite grave reservations over Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary, Pete Hegseth as the Pentagon chief and others. House Republicans pursued Trump's interest in investigating his perceived foes, including investigating Democratic President Joe Biden'suse of the autopen. But at the same time, Congress hit the brakes on one of its own priorities, legislation imposing steep sanctions on Russia over its war on Ukraine, after Trump announced he was allowing President Vladimir Putin an additional 50 days to negotiate a peace deal, dashing hopes for a swifter end to the conflict. This past week, Congress was tested anew, delivering on Trump's request to rescind some $9 billion that lawmakers had approved but that the administration wanted to eliminate, including money for public broadcasting and overseas aid. It was a rare presidential request, a challenge to the legislative branch's power of the purse, that has not been used in decades. The pressure on Republicans is taking its toll 'We're lawmakers. We should be legislating,' said a defiant Sen. Lisa Murkowksi, R-Alaska, as she refused to support the White House's demand to rescind money for National Public Radio and others. 'What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, 'This is the priority. We want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round,'' she said. 'I don't accept that.' Congress, the branch of government the Founding Fathers placed first in the Constitution, is at a familiar crossroads. During the first Trump administration, Republicans frightened by Trump's angry tweets of disapproval would keep their criticisms private. Those who did speak up — Liz Cheney of Wyoming in the House and Mitt Romney of Utah in the Senate, among others — are gone from Capitol Hill. One former GOP senator, Jeff Flake of Arizona, who announced in 2017 during Trump's first term that he would not seek reelection the next year, is imploring Republicans to find a better way. 'The fever still hasn't broken,' he wrote recently in The New York Times. 'In today's Republican Party, voting your conscience is essentially disqualifying.' Seeking a 'normal' Congress But this time, the halls of Congress are filled with many Republicans who came of political age with Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement and owe their ascent to the president himself. Many are emulating his brand and style as they shape their own. A new generation of GOP leaders, Johnson in the House and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have pulled closer to Trump. They are utilizing the power of the presidency in ways large and small — to broker deals, encourage wayward lawmakers to fall in line, even to set schedules. Johnson, R-Louisiana, has openly pined for what he calls a 'normal Congress.' But short of that, the speaker relies on Trump to help stay on track. When Republicans hit an impasse on cryptocurrency legislation, a Trump priority, it was the president who met with holdouts in the Oval Office late Tuesday night as Johnson called in by phone. The result is a perceptible imbalance of power as the executive exerts greater authority while the legislative branch dims. The judicial branch has been left to do the heavy lift of checks and balances with the courts processing hundreds of lawsuits over the administration's actions. 'The genius of our Constitution is the separation of power,' said Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the former speaker, in an interview on SiriusXM's 'Mornings with Zerlina.' 'That the Republicans in Congress would be so ignoring of the institution that they represent, and that have just melted the power of the incredibly shrinking speakership' and Senate leadership positions, 'to do all of these things, to cater to the executive branch,' she said. Confronting Trump comes with costs Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., endured Trump's criticism over his opposition to the tax and spending cuts bill. The senator raised concerns about steep cuts to hospitals, but the president threatened to campaign against him. Tillis announced he would not seek reelection in 2026. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted against that bill and the rescissions package despite Trump's threat to campaign against any dissenters. One Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, appears to be pressing on, unphased. He recently proposed legislation to force the administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, something the president had been reluctant to do. 'Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that if the president wants something, you must do it,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in a Senate speech. 'We don't have to do this. We don't have to operate under the assumption that this man is uniquely so powerful.'
Arab News
12 hours ago
- Arab News
Support for Palestinian statehood gathers momentum
In many European countries, official recognition of a Palestinian state is an excruciatingly slow process, more so than it should be. Despite mounting pressure from parliamentarians, civil society organizations and the wider public, many governments remain cautious, including British and the French authorities who have already expressed support for such a move. Their caution, even fear, before taking such a crucial decision is harming their own national interests, violates natural justice, and ignores the fact that the promise of the advancement of a peace based on a two-state solution outstrips, by far, any political risks that come with taking the plunge and recognizing Palestine as a state. Therefore, it was refreshing to hear French President Emmanuel Macron, during his visit to London this month for an Anglo-French summit, tell British parliamentarians: 'With Gaza in ruins and the West Bank being attacked on a daily basis, the perspective of a Palestinian state has never been put at risk as it is (now), and this is why this solution of the two states and the recognition of the state of Palestine is … the only way to build peace and stability for all in the whole region.' This is a somewhat late realization of something that, had it been done years ago, might have prevented the events of the past two, horrific years. Still, Macron deserves credit for advancing this agenda now and resisting Israeli claims that in the aftermath of Oct. 7, such recognition would be a reward for Hamas and terrorism. Israel is deliberately advancing this spurious theory that recognition of Palestinian statehood is effectively caving in to terrorism, when in fact the aim of such recognition is to break the impasse in resolving the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully, and actually sideline extremism. If nothing else, recognition would be a step toward redressing the power imbalance between Israel and Palestine, which has become a hindrance to efforts at reaching a peace agreement based on a two-state solution. Macron's remarks in London created some momentum for Palestinian statehood; immediately after his departure, perhaps inspired and encouraged by his statements, 59 MPs from Britain's governing Labour Party signed a letter addressed to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, calling on him to recognize, 'with great urgency,' the State of Palestine. Certainly, many of those who signed the letter have for a long time been outspoken proponents of such recognition. But others were new recruits to the idea, who see it not only as an end in itself but also a response to the shocking news coming out of Gaza every day, and to the constant stream of 'novel ideas' that originate from the Israeli government and inflict even more misery on the Palestinian people. Recognition would be a step toward redressing the power imbalance between Israel and Palestine. Yossi Mekelberg Deplorable suggestions from both Washington and senior Israeli officials have also served as a catalyst for the letter from MPs, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's proposal of a 'voluntary migration' of Palestinians from Gaza, and the announcement by Defense Minister Israel Katz of his plan to forcibly transfer hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, if not the entire population of the territory, to a camp in the almost completely destroyed city of Rafah. The MPs called for action to prevent Katz's sinister plan becoming reality before it is too late. Israel's former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week described it as tantamount to the construction of a 'concentration camp.' It is designed to make the lives of those forcibly placed there impossible, while preventing them from leaving unless their destination is outside of Mandatory Palestine. The British politicians who signed the letter to Lammy consider recognition of Palestinian statehood a priority, but in the meantime they also demanded the removal from the agenda of Katz's draconian proposal to concentrate masses of Palestinians in such a camp, which seems to be more of a transitional facility serving as a precursor to expulsion. In addition, they urged Lammy to continue to support the work of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in providing aid to the people of Gaza, while also pressing for the 'full and unhindered resumption of the humanitarian aid,' and efforts to secure the release of all hostages. This is an opportunity for the British government to adopt these recommendations — some would call them demands — and in doing so become an important player in efforts to resolve one of the most intractable conflicts in modern history. In an ideal world, recognition of the State of Palestine by European nations would come from the EU as a whole and not happen in piecemeal fashion, as has been the case so far with the much-welcomed recognition in May last year by Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, and Norway (the last of which is not a member of the EU). Nevertheless, the need for unanimity in passing such a resolution within the EU makes it almost impossible to achieve, as long as countries such as Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Hungary oppose it. Therefore, if Paris and London were to announce recognition of Palestinian statehood in tandem — either before or during the upcoming summit of world leaders on the two-state solution, which was postponed by the outbreak of the war between Israel and Iran in June and is now scheduled to convene at the UN headquarters in New York in September — it would send a strong message from two major powers, which are also permanent members of the UN Security Council, in support of what is already the policy of 147 other members of the UN. The message should be clear: This is not an anti-Israeli act, and most definitely not a reward for terrorism, but instead a positive move toward the peaceful resolution of one of the longest-running disputes in contemporary international politics, stretching all the way back to the beginning of the 20th century. It reaffirms the partition plan of 1947 and many subsequent international resolutions, and follows in the footsteps of diplomatic efforts that began with the Oslo Accords in 1993 and have been negotiated in different rounds of peace talks since then. It could be a game-changer, allowing the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis as equals. As long as this does not happen, the asymmetry in the balance of power between the two protagonists remains a major obstacle, and it is one Israel is unfairly using during negotiations to demand concessions their Palestinian interlocutors cannot deliver, or to cause crises in the discussions. This effectively allows Israel to postpone indefinitely any agreement based on a two-state solution, while also creating a situation on the ground that is prohibitive to the establishment of a territorially contiguous independent Palestinian state. Recognition of a Palestinian state would send a clear message from the international community to those who are hell-bent on annexation of the occupied West Bank and the building of Israeli settlements there. Whatever the setbacks along the way, the only viable and long-term sustainable solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians remains a two-state solution. The letter from British MPs is, therefore, a welcome contribution to the efforts to advance this cause, and the British government must heed its recommendations. • Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
Saudi Gazette
18 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
Trump says five jets shot down during India-Pakistan conflict in May
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed that at least five fighter jets were shot down during the latest round of hostilities between India and Pakistan in May, and insisted that it was the United States that 'stopped the war' between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. 'Planes were being shot out of the air ... I think five jets were shot down, actually,' Trump said during a dinner meeting with Republican lawmakers at the White House on Friday night. He did not clarify whether the jets were Indian or Pakistani. This marks the first time a head of state from a third country has confirmed the downing of jets in the four-day conflict that erupted in early May. The fighting followed the April 22 bombing at the Pahalgam tourist resort in Indian-administered Kashmir, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan. Islamabad denied the accusation and called for a neutral probe. Pakistan has claimed responsibility for shooting down six Indian aircraft, including three French-made Rafale fighter jets, during India's cross-border airstrikes on May 7. India has not confirmed those figures, though Gen. Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defense staff, later acknowledged that some aircraft were lost. 'What is important is not the jet being down, but why they were down,' Chauhan said at the said the escalation was 'getting bigger and bigger,' but was ultimately 'solved through trade,' describing how Washington leveraged ongoing trade negotiations to pressure both sides into restraint.'We said, you guys want to make a trade deal. We're not making a trade deal if you're going to be throwing around weapons, and maybe nuclear weapons—both very powerful nuclear states,' Trump said.'We stopped a lot of wars. And these were serious,' he added, referencing repeated claims he has made about U.S. mediation efforts in South May conflict marked one of the most dangerous flare-ups between India and Pakistan in recent years, with cross-border strikes, high-altitude dogfights, and mounting fears of a broader military confrontation. — Agencies
