Growing pains and absent leaders hang over Brics summit
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
India braces for higher US tariffs, eyes broader trade deal, sources say
By Manoj Kumar NEW DELHI (Reuters) -India is preparing to face higher U.S. tariffs — likely between 20% and 25% — on some of its exports as a temporary measure, as it holds off on fresh trade concessions ahead of Washington's August 1 deadline, two Indian government sources said. Instead, New Delhi plans to resume broader trade negotiations when a U.S. delegation visits in mid-August, with the goal of finalising a comprehensive bilateral agreement by September or October, one of the Indian officials told Reuters. "Talks are progressing well, and a delegation is expected in Delhi by mid-August,' one of the Indian government officials said, adding that President Donald Trump could issue a tariff letter imposing duties of 20 or 25% in a "worst-case scenario". "However, we assume it would be a temporary measure, considering the five rounds of trade talks that have taken place. A deal will soon be worked out,' the official said. Trump said on Monday most partners that do not negotiate separate trade deals would soon face tariffs of 15% to 20% on their exports to the United States, well above the broad 10% tariff he imposed in April. His administration will notify some 200 countries soon of their new "world tariff" rate. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told CNBC on Monday that talks with India required more negotiations as Trump was more interested in good deals than quick deals. India has shown "strong interest in opening portions of its market" though its trade policy had long focussed on protecting domestic interests, Greer said. Piyush Goyal, India's trade minister, told Reuters last week India is making "fantastic" progress in U.S. trade talks. Indian officials said New Delhi has offered tariff cuts on a wide range of goods and is working to ease non-tariff barriers. However, agriculture and dairy remain 'no-go' areas, with India unwilling to allow imports of genetically modified soybean or corn, or to open its dairy sector. Total bilateral goods trade reached about $129 billion in 2024, with India posting a trade surplus of nearly $46 billion. India is holding back on fresh offers while calibrating its strategy amid broader U.S. tariff threats targeting BRICS nations, including India, over issues such as de-dollarisation and purchases of Russian oil, said another official. "We remain hopeful of securing a deal that gives Indian exporters preferential access compared to our peers," the official said. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorised to speak to media. India's commerce ministry and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comments. "We need more negotiations with our Indian friends to see how ambitious they want to be," Greer said. Analysts said, without a deal, Indian exports could face average U.S. tariffs of around 26%, higher than those faced by Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan or the European Union. Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Forbes
When Silence Speaks: The Doctrine Of Communication By Conduct
Majeed Javdani is a Board Member of Mercator Group and an internationally recognized practitioner in law and business. In a world increasingly saturated with instant messages, press releases and diplomatic declarations, it is tempting to assume that international relations are shaped by what is said. Yet, seasoned observers of geopolitical strategy understand a deeper, subtler truth: What is done often speaks more clearly than what is said. This brings us to a principle that sits quietly at the center of international law and diplomacy—communication by conduct. This mode of interaction operates beneath the surface of formal negotiation. It bypasses the volatility of words and ideological assertions, relying instead on actions—restrained, repeated or intentionally withheld—to convey strategic intentions. In environments where language has become too loaded or relationships too adversarial for open dialogue, conduct becomes the lingua franca of diplomacy. The doctrine of communication by conduct is not merely a theoretical construct. It is rooted in the foundational logic of international law itself, specifically in the principle of customary law. Under this doctrine, consistent and general state practice, when coupled with a sense of legal obligation, crystallizes into binding legal norms. This is not just about precedent—it is about how behavior builds legitimacy. States do not need to sign a treaty to show compliance with an international norm; often, they simply need to behave in a way that others interpret as recognition of that norm. This behavioral logic extends into the diplomatic realm. Silence, when paired with inaction or deliberate moderation, is never neutral in global politics. It is often read, rightly or wrongly, as an intentional message. And it is this interpretive space—where conduct becomes legible as policy—that the doctrine operates most powerfully. Unlike strategic ambiguity, which aims to obscure intentions to gain leverage, communication by conduct is inherently about clarity—albeit a clarity achieved through implication, not assertion. It creates space for de-escalation, recalibration and quiet coordination, all without triggering the political costs of formal declarations or public alignment. It enables rival actors to feel each other out without committing to an irreversible path. In this respect, it is less of a diplomatic tool and more of a diplomatic environment—an atmosphere in which policy is shaped through restraint, repetition and refusal. One key reason communication by conduct remains durable in the practice of statecraft is because it transcends language and ideology. It relies not on what a state claims to value, but on what it demonstrably prioritizes. In moments of crisis or strategic recalibration, when explicit engagement may be too risky or politically untenable, conduct becomes the only available channel for credible signaling. The key metric is not volume, but consistency. What matters is whether a pattern of behavior emerges that others can interpret and anticipate. This raises the question of interpretation. After all, conduct, unlike contractual language, does not define itself. It must be read, and all readings are contextual. In this ambiguity lies both the strength and vulnerability of the doctrine. On one hand, it allows states to test strategic shifts in a deniable format; on the other, it opens the door to misinterpretation, escalation or diplomatic paralysis. This interpretive complexity is why communication by conduct must be viewed as a layered process, not a one-off signal. One action may be ambiguous; 10 consistent actions begin to look like a message. And when that consistency aligns with a broader policy trend or institutional adjustment, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore its strategic meaning. In many ways, the doctrine is a counterbalance to the performance of diplomacy. Whereas formal diplomacy operates in the spotlight—with joint statements, red-carpet visits and sound bites—communication by conduct happens in the shadows. It is quiet, cumulative and often retroactively understood. But this does not make it passive. On the contrary, it requires intention, discipline and a long-term strategic view. It is the diplomacy of the serious. This framework is particularly relevant in an age where the tools of coercion and persuasion are expanding beyond the battlefield and negotiation table. Sanctions, supply chain disruptions, regulatory delays or even the withholding of military or economic support are all actions that speak volumes—whether or not anyone is speaking. And when such conduct is repeated across time, interpreted consistently by observers and unchallenged by the international community, it begins to constitute a normative message. What this means for business leaders, policymakers and international observers is straightforward: Watching what states do is often more instructive than listening to what they say. This does not mean that words are irrelevant. Rather, it means that conduct supplies the evidentiary base that gives meaning to language. A diplomatic statement, no matter how eloquent, must be supported by action to carry weight. Without such alignment, rhetoric becomes noise. This understanding also has practical implications for interpreting strategic risk and opportunity. Investors looking at foreign markets, legal advisors evaluating compliance landscapes and analysts tracking geopolitical trends would all benefit from applying the lens of communication by conduct. When a state begins quietly relaxing enforcement on a domestic regulation, or when it abstains from retaliation in the face of provocation, these are not anomalies—they are signals. Importantly, communication by conduct does not necessarily aim for resolution. It often precedes negotiation, conditions it or exists alongside it. It may mark the beginning of a strategic thaw or simply serve as a stabilizing force in a volatile situation. Either way, it creates room. And in diplomacy, room is everything—room to think, adjust and reposition without losing face or triggering escalation. The challenge, of course, lies in ensuring that such communication is recognized, interpreted accurately and reciprocated in kind. This requires not only diplomatic literacy but also the institutional memory to track patterns, connect signals and identify when conduct begins to cohere into policy. It also requires restraint: the willingness to allow ambiguity when clarity would be counterproductive. In a world where overcommunication often leads to confusion and escalation, conduct reminds us that sometimes the most powerful statements are made without words. For those who know how to read them, these statements are never silent. Forbes Communications Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify?
News24
5 hours ago
- News24
Palestinian PM calls on Hamas to give up control of Gaza and ‘hand over its weapons' at UN meeting
Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa said on Monday that Hamas must disarm and give up control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority to restore security in the war-torn territory. 'Israel must withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip and Hamas must relinquish its control over the strip and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority,' Mustafa said at a conference on the two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians at the United Nations in New York. There is no alternative to a two-state solution between Israelis and the Palestinians, France told a UN conference co-chaired with Saudi Arabia on Monday that was boycotted by Israel and branded a stunt by Washington. 'Only a political, two-state solution will help respond to the legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. There is no alternative,' French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said at the start of the three-day meeting. Days before the conference, French President Emmanuel Macron announced he would formally recognise Palestinian statehood in September, provoking strong opposition from Israel and the US. Barrot said that other Western countries would confirm their intention to recognise the state of Palestine during the conference, without confirming which. 'All states have a responsibility to act now,' said Mustafa at the start of the meeting, calling for an international force to help underwrite Palestinian statehood. He called for the world to recognise Palestinian statehood. France is hoping Britain will follow its lead. More than 200 British members of parliament on Friday voiced support for the idea, but UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that recognition of a Palestinian state 'must be part of a wider plan'. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at the meeting 'the two-state solution is farther than ever before.' According to an AFP database, at least 142 of the 193 UN member states now recognise the Palestinian state proclaimed by the Palestinian leadership in exile in 1988. In 1947, in a resolution approved by the General Assembly, the UN decided to partition Palestine, then under a British mandate, into Jewish and Arab states. Israel was proclaimed in 1948. For decades, most UN members have supported a two-state solution with Israel and a Palestinian state existing side-by-side. But after more than 21 months of war in Gaza, the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and Israeli officials declaring designs to annex occupied territory, it is feared a Palestinian state could become geographically impossible. The current war in Gaza started following a deadly attack by Hamas on Israel, which responded with a large-scale military response that has claimed tens of thousands of Palestinian lives and destroyed most infrastructure in the enclave. Barrot said it would be an 'illusion to think that you can get to a lasting ceasefire without having an outline of what's going to happen in Gaza after the end of the war and having a political horizon'. Beyond facilitating conditions for recognising Palestine, the meeting will focus on three other issues: Reform of the Palestinian Authority, disarmament of Hamas and its exclusion from Palestinian public life, and normalisation of relations with Israel by Arab states. However, no new normalisation deals are expected to be announced at the meeting, according to a French diplomatic source. Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud said US President Donald Trump could be a 'catalyst' to ending the war in Gaza and jump-starting the two-state solution, stressing Riyadh had no plans to normalise relations with Israel. Following his plea to Trump, the US State Department labelled the three-day event 'unproductive and ill-timed', as well as a 'publicity stunt' that would make finding peace harder. Jordan's Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said action was needed to counter Israeli 'settlements, land confiscation (and) encroachments on the holy sites'. Israel and the US were not taking part in the meeting, amid growing international pressure on Israel to end nearly two years of war in Gaza. Despite 'tactical pauses' announced by Israel, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza will dominate speeches. Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said 'this conference does not promote a solution.'
