EU stalls probe into Elon Musk's X amid trade talks with US
The Commission will miss the deadline for finalizing its investigation into X, which was expected to be done before its summer recess, the report said, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
A decision was likely to come after clarity emerged in the EU-US trade talks, the report said.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report. The EU and X did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment.
EU tech regulators said last year that X breached EU online content rules under the Digital Services Act.
Any firm found in breach of the act faces a fine worth up to 6 percent of its global turnover, and repeat offenders may be banned from operating in Europe altogether.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
7 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
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
North Africa must look south to boost trade
Rising tariffs, geopolitical fragmentation, and persistent supply chain disruptions are roiling international trade. The World Trade Organization projects a 0.2 percent contraction in the global goods trade during 2025, which could deepen to 1.5 percent if tensions escalate. UN Trade and Development warns that policy uncertainty is eroding business confidence and will slow global growth to 2.3 percent in 2025. Against this backdrop, developing economies are under mounting pressure to diversify partnerships and reduce external dependencies. The pressure is particularly acute in North Africa. The region, comprising Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, and Tunisia, has long been tethered to European economic cycles. In 2023, the EU accounted for 45.2 percent of North Africa's trade, making the region vulnerable to any slowdown in European demand. At the same time, North Africa has played a marginal role in international commerce, accounting for only 3.7 percent of global trade in 2023. But this moment of uncertainty also represents a strategic opportunity for North Africa to look southward toward the fast-growing markets of Sub-Saharan Africa, which currently account for just 2.4 percent of North Africa's total trade. As I, and others, argued nearly a decade ago, stronger economic ties within the continent could reshape regional growth trajectories. That continues to be true today. With economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa estimated at 3.7 percent in 2024 and projected to rise to 4 percent in 2025, the rest of the continent offers many opportunities to North African businesses as an emerging market for manufactured exports, and as a region for the expansion of value chains. North African products, particularly from the automotive, fisheries, food processing, pharmaceuticals, and textiles sectors, would likely be well received in Sub-Saharan Africa, owing to their higher quality and competitive prices. The region's full integration with Sub-Saharan Africa would bring the largest gains in trade. Audrey Verdier-Chouchane Some progress has been made toward increasing intra-African trade and North Africa's role in it. Morocco recently became the continent's leading automobile exporter, for example, with sales of $6.4 billion in 2023. Many of these cars went to West Africa, in part as a result of regional free-trade agreements. Some North African countries belong to economic communities in other regions, including the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, and the Community of Sahel-Saharan States. But it is the ambitious African Continental Free Trade Area, or AfCFTA, that offers the best chance for deeper continental integration. It came into effect in 2021 and has 54 active members, making it the world's largest free-trade area in terms of membership. North Africa could play an important role in driving growth and enhancing trade within this area. The region has about 200 million consumers and occupies a strategic geographical position between Europe, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa. It also possesses significant natural resources, a diversified industrial base, and relatively well-developed human capital, and economic infrastructure. AfCFTA is widely expected to boost economic growth, private-sector development, investment, and capital flows across the continent. A forthcoming study by the African Development Bank to assess the effect of the free trade area on regional economies, using the Global Trade Analysis Project model, suggests that this is especially true for North Africa. Under every scenario, North Africa's gross domestic product, and its components, are projected to increase by 2031. The region's full integration with Sub-Saharan Africa would bring the largest gains in trade (5.5 percent) and GDP (0.77 percent). The study also predicts that implementing AfCFTA will lead to a decline in poverty and an increase in wages for both skilled and unskilled workers in the region. The main downside of AfCFTA is in the fiscal domain. The African Development Bank study anticipates a reduction of customs revenues in North African countries; the least affected will be those that have already entered into bilateral free-trade agreements, or have relatively high levels of economic diversification and strong productive capacities. There are also major barriers to realizing the potential of intracontinental trade, including inadequate infrastructure, tariff-harmonization challenges, and limited institutional coordination across Africa's regional economic communities. But given the overall potential benefits, North African economies should make implementation of AfCFTA a high priority. Enhanced intra-African trade flows would promote further economic diversification, job creation, investment, and GDP growth, generating long-term prosperity and private sector development in North Africa. In a fracturing global economy, regional solidarity has taken on new importance. By fully committing to AfCFTA and strengthening ties with partners in Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa can chart a new path toward inclusive, resilient, and sustainable growth. • Audrey Verdier-Chouchane is lead economist for the North Africa region at the African Development Bank. ©Project Syndicate
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
Why EU's ties with China are likely to remain tense
Relations between the EU and China last reached a mini-high during Donald Trump's disruptive first presidency, when Beijing and Brussels agreed a Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. However, bilateral ties have not warmed during Trump's second term in the White House, despite the US president threatening to instigate several new trade wars with his tariff policies. Certainly, the mood between the EU and China is generally constructive and both sides are keen to showcase some achievements in relations during this landmark year, which marks the 50th anniversary of bilateral ties. This includes during their upcoming annual summit on July 24, when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa will hold talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang. Both sides stress that they have no insuperable conflicts of interest, and instead share common economic and political interests that are deepening. Underneath this high diplomacy, however, growing challenges are chilling relations, including the issue of the war in Ukraine. Take the example of rare earths. This is a topic on which von der Leyen and Costa will this week urge China to end restrictions that require EU-based exporters to secure licenses from Beijing, which controls more than 90 percent of the global processing capacity for these key metals. During the G7 Summit in June, von der Leyen accused China of 'coercion' and 'blackmail' over the measures, asserting that 'no single country should control 80-90 percent of the market for essential raw materials and downstream products like magnets.' On the economic front, China's trade surplus with the EU hit a record high in May, and now stands at about €400 billion ($465 billion). One of the steps the EU has taken in response is to levy tariffs of up to 35 percent on Chinese electric vehicles, citing unfair subsidies. Beijing retaliated with inquiries into the European dairy and brandy sectors. In the face of these proliferating challenges, von der Leyen, Costa, and other top EU officials are trying to build a broader, bloc-wide stance on China. This reflects the fact that Brussels has struggled at times to find common purpose across all 27 EU member states on the issue, especially those such as Hungary that are more sympathetic to Beijing. Worse still, leading EU officials have become increasingly concerned in recent years about whether the nature of China's external interventions in Europe represent a strategy of divide-and-rule in an attempt to undermine the continent's collective interests. The former EU foreign affairs chief, Joseph Borrell, even asserted that Beijing was a 'systemic rival that seeks to promote an alternative model of governance' to that of Europe. Von der Leyen said more recently that 'China has an entirely different system' with 'unique instruments at its disposal to play outside the rules.' Brussels has sought to unite the bloc around a stronger policy toward China. Andrew Hammond The backstory to this is that Europe is becoming an increasingly important foreign policy focal point for Beijing, economically and politically. The rising superpower had generally enjoyed growing influence across much of the region, at least until the COVID-19 pandemic. In the past five years, however, since the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, relations have become chillier. This has affected issues such as climate cooperation, with doubts reported about whether Beijing and Brussels will sign a joint climate action pledge during their upcoming summit, despite the precedent of previous important collaboration in this area. Brussels has therefore sought to unite the bloc around a stronger policy toward China, with von der Leyen taking the lead on the issue, even though the role of European Commission president does not include any formal foreign policy mandate. While the EU still deeply values its relationship with China, the direction of travel for policy on Beijing appears to be moving in a more hawkish direction. Even on issues in which breakthroughs have been made with China over the past five years, such as the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment in 2020, ratification of this key economic deal has stalled for years in the European Parliament as a result of deteriorating relations. A central challenge for von der Leyen, however, remains the splits within the 27-member bloc regarding views on Beijing. It is too simplistic to characterize this as an East-West dichotomy within the region, not least because Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is perhaps China's biggest cheerleader in the EU. There are nonetheless differences in outlook, primarily between hawkish Eastern European nations such as the Czech Republic, Poland, and Lithuania, versus Western counterparts such as France and Spain that do much more bilateral business with China. The positions of those Western European nations can be particularly problematic for Brussels, given that both Paris and Madrid want extensive economic engagement with China to continue. The longstanding, deep business ties between Paris and Beijing are widely documented, so it is no surprise that President Emmanuel Macron is sometimes more equivocal than von der Leyen on the issue of China. During a joint visit with her to Beijing in 2023, the French president raised eyebrows in Europe by taking a large business delegation with him. He also utilized the language of economic reciprocity, rather than the European Commission president's preferred choice of 'derisking,' and did not appear to put significant pressure on China regarding its support for Russia in Ukraine. This challenging context underlines why the upcoming summit might underdeliver on even the low expectations that surround it. Overall EU relations with China are likely to remain chilly for the foreseeable future, and could yet go into a deep freeze during von der Leyen's second term as European Commission president. • Andrew Hammond is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.
