Latest news with #MorristownMunicipalAirport
New York Post
3 days ago
- Business
- New York Post
Asian shares mostly decline as uncertainty grows about what's next with Trump's tariffs
Asian shares were mostly lower Friday as uncertainty grew about what will happen next after a US court blocked many of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 lost 1.1% in afternoon trading to 38,022.62. Government data showed Tokyo core inflation, excluding fresh food, rising to a higher-than-expected 3.6% in May. Some analysts say that makes it more likely the Bank of Japan will raise interest rates. Advertisement 3 President Trump walks to speak to journalists before boarding Air Force One from Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey, May 25, 2025. AFP via Getty Images Australia's S&P/ASX 200 rose 0.3% to 8,436.30. South Korea's Kospi declined 0.9% to 2,696.40, ahead of a presidential election set for next week. Hong Kong's Hang Seng slipped 1.4% to 23,234.42, while the Shanghai Composite shed 0.3% to 3,354.83. Advertisement On Wall Street, the S&P 500 rose 0.4% on Thursday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average added 117 points, or 0.3%, and the Nasdaq composite rose 0.4%. It's a downshift after stocks initially leaped nearly 2% in Tokyo and Seoul, where markets had the first chance to react to the ruling late Wednesday by the US Court of International Trade. The court said that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act that Trump cited for ordering massive increases in taxes on imports from around the world does not authorize the use of tariffs. 3 The screens showing the Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) and the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the South Korean won at a dealing room of Hana Bank in Seoul, South Korea, Friday, May 30, 2025. AP Advertisement The ruling at first raised hopes in financial markets that a hamstrung Trump would not be able to drive the economy into a recession with his tariffs, which had threatened to grind down on global trade and raise prices for consumers already sick of high inflation. But the tariffs remain in place for now while the White House appeals the ruling, and the ultimate outcome is still uncertain. The court's ruling also affects only some of Trump's tariffs, not those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, which were invoked under a different law. Advertisement The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday allowed the president to temporarily continue collecting the tariffs under the emergency powers law while he appeals the trade court's decision. Trump 'is still able to impose significant and wide-ranging tariffs over the longer-term through other means,' according to Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, chief investment officer of global equities at UBS Global Wealth Management. On Wall Street, tech stocks led the way after Nvidia once again topped analysts' expectations for profit and revenue in the latest quarter. The chip company has grown into one of the US market's largest and most influential stocks because of the frenzy around artificial-intelligence technology, and its 3.2% rise was the strongest force by far lifting the S&P 500. All told, the S&P 500 rose 23.62 points to 5,912.17. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 117.03 to 42,215.73, and the Nasdaq composite gained 74.93 to 19,175.87. 3 Dealers talk to each other near the screens showing the Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI). AP In the bond market, Treasury yields eased following mixed economic reports. One said the US economy likely shrunk by less in the first three months of the year than earlier estimated. Another said slightly more US workers applied for unemployment benefits last week than economists expected. Advertisement The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 4.43% from 4.47% late Wednesday. In energy trading, benchmark US crude dropped 18 cents to $60.76 a barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, fell 20 cents to $63.95 a barrel. In currency trading, the US dollar declined to 143.90 Japanese yen from 144.12 yen. The euro cost $1.1347, down from $1.1367.
Newsweek
6 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Puts New Deadline on EU Tariffs
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump on Sunday said he was delaying imposing planned 50 percent tariffs on trade with the European Union from June 1 to July 9 following a request from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Newsweek contacted the European Commission for comment on Monday via online inquiry form outside regular office hours. Why It Matters Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has introduced a series of biting tariffs targeting most of America's trade partners, though many of the tariffs have since been rolled back. Trump argued that the move was needed to boost government revenue and restore America's manufacturing industry, while critics said it would boost inflation and cut economic growth. President Donald Trump speaks to journalists before boarding Air Force One from Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 25, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks to journalists before boarding Air Force One from Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 25, 2025. SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY What To Know In a post on his Truth Social website on Saturday, Trump said it was his "privilege" to delay plans for a 50 percent tariff on trade with the EU from June 1 to July 9. He said it had been requested by von der Leyen, who heads the bloc's executive arm, in a phone conversation earlier in the day. Earlier on Saturday, von der Leyen said she'd had a "good call" with Trump and would need until July 9 "to reach a good deal," in a post on her X account. On May 23, Trump announced that he would be "recommending a straight 50% Tariff on the European Union, starting on June 1, 2025" as "our discussions with them are going nowhere!" Trump has imposed a 20 percent tariff on trade with the EU as part of what he called his "liberation day" tariffs, announced on April 2, which also saw a 25 percent levy imposed on South Korea and an additional 34 percent on China. However, after a negative market reaction, Trump announced that all except the China tariffs would be suspended for 90 days to allow time for talks and replaced with a flat 10 tariff rate. A separate 25 percent tariff on automobile imports remained in place. At the end of April, a report from Oxford Economics forecast that U.S. industrial output would shrink by 0.8 percent between 2025 and 2026 as a direct result of the tariffs. In a series of tit-for-tat moves, the U.S. and China imposed tariffs of 145 percent and 125 percent, respectively on each other's goods, before both sides agreed to bring their rates down by 115 percent following talks in Switzerland this month. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump, on Truth Social: "I received a call today from Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, requesting an extension on the June 1st deadline on the 50% Tariff with respect to Trade and the European Union. I agreed to the extension — July 9, 2025 — It was my privilege to do so. The Commission President said that talks will begin rapidly. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, on X: "Good call with @POTUS. The EU and US share the world's most consequential and close trade relationship. "Europe is ready to advance talks swiftly and decisively. To reach a good deal, we would need the time until July 9." Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of self-styled "pro-democracy" media outlet Medias Touch, on X: "Trump reduced the tariffs on China in exchange for nothing. He paused the tariffs on Canada & Mexico in exchange for nothing. "He postponed tariffs on EU in exchange for nothing. He threatened Russia with sanctions if they didn't sign ceasefire & did nothing. Art of the Deal." Indian columnist and YouTuber S.L. Kanthan, on X: "The European Union is America's largest trade partner. Trump's 50% tariff is a bluff. "He will get some concessions from the EU and call it the greatest deal to please his MAGA base." What Happens Next It remains to be seen whether the U.S. and EU will agree to a new trade deal to avoid the new tariffs before July 9, and if not, whether Trump's threatened 50 percent tariffs will go into effect or be delayed again.
New York Post
7 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Russia suggests Trump has ‘emotional overload' after calling Putin ‘crazy' over Ukraine attacks
Russia on Monday suggested President Trump is suffering from 'emotional overload' after the commander-in-chief blasted Russian President Vladimir Putin as 'crazy' for his attacks on Ukraine. 'We are really grateful to the Americans and to President Trump personally for their assistance in organizing and launching this negotiation process,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said when asked about Trump's earlier criticism of Putin. 'Of course, at the same time, this is a very crucial moment, which is associated, of course, with the emotional overload of everyone absolutely and with emotional reactions.' Advertisement Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, N.J., Sunday, May 25, 2025. AP It comes after Trump declared late Sunday that Putin had 'gone absolutely CRAZY' by unleashing the largest aerial attack of the war on Ukraine. 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him,' Trump raged on Truth Social. Advertisement Emergency workers extinguish fire in the debris of a private house that was destroyed in a Russian rocket strike, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Markhalivka, Kyiv region, Ukraine, May 25, 2025. REUTERS 'He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.' Trump ripped Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, too. 'Everything out of [Zelensky's] mouth causes problems, I don't like it, and it better stop. This is a War that would never have started if I were President. This is Zelensky's, Putin's, and Biden's War, not 'Trump's,' I am only helping to put out the big and ugly fires, that have been started through Gross Incompetence and Hatred,' he said.
The Wire
7 days ago
- Business
- The Wire
Full Text: Experts on Tariffs, India and the Global South Today
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now World Full Text: Experts on Tariffs, India and the Global South Today Centre for Financial Accountability 18 minutes ago Amidst rapidly shifting geopolitical shifts, the first webinar in a joint series attempted to understand the deeper currents shaping today's tariff war and its implications on Global South economies. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, N.J., Sunday, May 25, 2025. Photo: AP/PTI. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now The Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), in collaboration with The Wire as media partner, Sambhaavnaa Institute, and Progressive International, is co-organising this eight-part webinar series titled 'The Political Economy of the Trump Era: Challenges & Opportunities of the Shifting World Order', conceived to better understand the global moment we are all inhabiting. Amidst rapidly shifting geopolitical shifts, the first webinar in the series titled 'The Tariff Wars: India and the Global South in a Fragmenting System of World Trade' attempted to understand the deeper currents shaping today's tariff war and its implications on Global South economies. At a time when rising protectionism, weakened multilateralism, and increasing geopolitical tensions are reshaping how trade is negotiated and controlled. The webinar moved beyond the narrow framing of tariff disputes to examine the historical biases and structural inequalities embedded in the global trading system to highlight how trade rules have long favoured the interests of developed countries and multinational corporations, often at the expense of the Global South. Speakers traced the continuity of US trade policy across administrations, unpacked the use of non-tariff measures as hidden barriers, and critiqued the expansion of trade rules into areas like data governance, intellectual property, and government procurement. Central to the conversation was the urgent need for the Global South to assert economic sovereignty and find newer alternatives through regional cooperation, welfare-led development, and alternative financial architectures. This webinar included speakers Prabhat Patnaik, Ranja Sengupta and Andres Arauz and was moderated by V Sridhar. Below is the full text of the talk. The transcribed text has been edited lightly for clarity and readability. Opening Remarks by V Sridhar: 'The first point that I would like to make, the assumption of Donald Trump as President of the United States has triggered a widely contested debate. However, a provocative statement must be made: this is not a tariff war. In fact, I don't think it is even about tariffs or a question of reciprocal tariffs. Nor is it a war in the sense that we understand wars to be, because one side is firing all the shots. And neither is this about trade. Instead, it is about controlling the productive basis of countries, especially those in the Global South. Therefore, it is much more than trade that is at stake here. The second point is that the post-war imperialist axis is undergoing convulsions. Where it is heading, and what contradictions are inherent in these convulsions, is something our specialist speakers will talk about. But the dumbed-down media characterisation of Trump as a madman is both intellectually lazy and bereft of analytical rigour. That's the easiest thing to ascribe it to. Since the tariff onslaught was unleashed on countries all over the world, there has been some kind of romantic nostalgia for the so-called consensus on past trade agreements. But I believe there is no salvation in that. If we go back to GATT – the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which preceded the WTO, it was unequal, unfair, and biased in favour of the developed industrialised countries and against the countries of the Global South. Take GATT, for instance. Through the actions of the developed countries, acting in concert with the multinational companies that were ascendant in that period, several major primary commodity agreements were undermined and almost all of them were completely demolished. They became ineffective due to the intransigent attitude of these developed countries and the major multinationals that controlled the flow of trade in these commodities. Similarly, the WTO itself has been in limbo for the last several years. After the global financial crisis of 2007–2008, it is effectively dead in the water. There is no salvation in salvaging the WTO regime, which has long been against the interests of the Global South. In particular, I would draw your attention to the Agreement on Agriculture which is a fundamentally lopsided agreement that has gone against the interests of the poorest people on this planet. It is a rigged element that is flawed in every respect. The chaos triggered by Trump's tariffs is aimed at driving countries, especially poorer countries into negotiating deals. These deals are fundamentally flawed. Why? Because when a superpower negotiates with a lesser power, the superpower has a portfolio of interests across many fronts. Trade-offs can be made in realms seemingly unconnected to trade – climate change, nuclear power equipment suppliers, government procurement contracts. Take, for example, the Indian context. Even allowing Elon Musk's Starlink access to the Indian market, who can say with authority that there is no quid pro quo in the ongoing negotiations between the Narendra Modi government and the United States regime? That may not be on the table, and it is not possible to draw a direct causal link, but circumstantial evidence from the past tells us that these connections are very much there. For instance, the Indo-US nuclear deal, signed under the earlier Congress-led government, resulted in Air India—then the national carrier—being forced to purchase a large number of aircraft. It was like buying potatoes and onions. The burden was so great that it effectively ruined Air India, which was later privatised. Again, I cannot draw a direct causal connection, but it would be foolish to believe these are not related in some way. Such deals also affect trade relations with other countries. The recent US-UK trade deal, for instance, prohibits the UK from entering into trade or investment arrangements with Chinese companies. After recent talks between the US and China in Geneva, China protested that this was unfair. Take the Indo-UK trade deal: it opens up government procurement to UK companies, effectively treating them on par with Indian firms. These negotiations undermine national sovereignty in a fundamental way. Countries end up ceding ground in areas seemingly unrelated to trade but ultimately compromising their sovereign rights in various realms.' Prabhat Patnaik On Trump's tariffs, the global trade regime, and the crisis of neoliberalism 'The discussion that has generally unfolded around Trump's tariffs, to my mind, is shot through with misconceptions. Two common claims dominate mainstream commentary: first, that Trump unilaterally subverted a system that had been carefully negotiated among nations; and second, that he behaved like a 'madman' or 'a bull in a china shop.' Both these propositions, I believe, are wrong. Firstly, as already pointed out, the so-called international rule-based order that existed before Trump was highly iniquitous. It was not just unfair to countries of the Global South and was especially damaging to the poor within those countries. There are at least three obvious problems with that order. One, it rests on the hegemony of globalised finance. Even Trump, for all his apparent radicalism, never suggested capital controls or any restrictions on financial flows. Countries have been drawn into opening their economies to free financial movement. As a result, the nation-state ends up confronting globalised finance, and therefore must bend to its will. This is a subversion of sovereignty, of popular sovereignty, and of democracy. No matter which government comes to power, if a country is caught in the web of financial flows, its policies will be dictated by global finance. So even elected governments cannot meaningfully change course. This, in my view, is a direct attack on democracy in the Global South. The second flaw in the system is the artificial and baseless distinction drawn between different types of subsidies. Direct cash transfers are permitted under trade rules, but subsidies through input and output pricing are frowned upon. This allows the United States and Europe to massively subsidise their farmers and sometimes to the extent that subsidies equal half the total value of agricultural output. In India, where we have 120 million farmers, direct cash subsidies are simply not feasible. So we provide support through subsidised inputs or assured prices. Yet we are told these are trade-distorting. There is no rational basis for this. The only economic justification is a theoretical one: that in perfectly competitive markets, any interference with relative prices is inefficient. But perfect competition is a myth. To draw a conclusion from such a mythical framework and use it to justify Northern subsidies while condemning those in the South is deeply unjust – and inimical to peasant agriculture. The third issue is the export-led growth model. There's a lot of confusion around this. A few success stories are held up and used to argue that if all countries just liberalise, they too can succeed. That is nonsense. The world market has a finite size. If one country grabs more, others get less. Supply does not create its own demand. Export-led growth pits countries against one another which leads to a kind of Darwinian competition that is ethically unacceptable and materially harmful for the majority. So this so-called 'rule-based' order is of little value to us. Rather than mourn its decline, we should treat this moment as an opportunity to discard it and develop alternative frameworks for trade and finance. Now, why did Trump do what he did? I believe it's not because he is a madman, but because the neoliberal economy has run into a cul-de-sac. Growing inequality has suppressed global demand. Labour productivity has risen, but wages have stagnated. The result is a massive rise in economic surplus – but that surplus cannot be absorbed through consumption, because the rich don't consume as much of their income as the poor do. Redistributing income from poor to rich leads to overproduction. This tendency became pronounced after the collapse of the US housing bubble. Even before the pandemic, the world's decadal growth rate was at its lowest since World War II, which have only worsened since the pandemic. Under these conditions, a country can only grow at another's expense. The Keynesian route of government expenditure through taxing the rich or deficit spending, is essentially blocked. Globalised finance won't allow it. Most countries are bound by fiscal responsibility laws that cap deficits at 3% of GDP. Taxing the rich is also frowned upon. So governments cannot use public spending to raise demand. That's why countries are turning to 'beggar-thy-neighbour' policies and policies that export unemployment by grabbing others' markets. Trump's tariffs are one such mechanism. These only work if other countries don't retaliate and so he's been trying to prevent that through strategic negotiation. But this isn't just about Trump. It's about the crisis of world capitalism. Trump is merely responding to a deeper structural problem. In this context, I believe countries like India should exit this entire rule-based regime. We must expand our home market. That means increasing public expenditure, especially on welfare and financing it by taxing the rich. The recent rise in inequality gives us enormous room for wealth taxation. Of course, global finance won't like this. It will flee the country. So we need capital controls. But if we have capital controls, then to manage our trade deficit, we also need trade controls. So I propose a new regime of capital and trade controls, backed by expanded domestic production and welfare. We must support agriculture, especially peasant agriculture and build internal demand. This does not mean autarky. No country can be fully self-sufficient. We need trade. But trade should be bilateral. India once had such arrangements with the Soviet Union, where deficits and surpluses were settled over time through targeted reciprocal trade and without incurring debt to international bankers. Smaller countries should come together and form economic unions like the European Union did, so they can diversify their production structures. For large, relatively diversified economies like India, bilateral trade can meet most of our needs, with exceptions like oil. The recent upheavals in the world economy, to me, are not a signal to renegotiate better deals with Trump. They are a chance to walk away from the existing order and create something new.' Prabhat Patnaik on the US-China question ' Let me also clarify: I don't believe in thinking of the world as 'US versus China.' I do not want China to replace the United States as the dominant force for the Global South. Yes, China has provided assistance to many Southern countries and that's good. But fundamentally, the countries of the Global South must stand on their own. Smaller nations should form regional unions. African countries, for instance, should move toward an economic union. India, as a large country, can also consider a South Asian union. But even on its own, India is large enough to aim for a diversified and self-reliant economy. There is no essential commodity except oil, that India cannot produce. Abandoning food self-sufficiency, as many African countries have done, has led to disaster. Globalisation has created what Professor Romeo Bakshi calls 'globalisation famines.' Expanding our home market is the only way to absorb the vast reserves of labour we have. Export-led growth suppresses wages to compete globally. But if we grow through our domestic market, we can raise wages, which in turn boosts demand. We must stop defining development in terms of either China or the US and focus on building our internal capacity and sovereignty.' On the unravelling of the post-War order 'Finally, on the apparent unravelling of the post-war imperialist axis: I do see rising neo-fascist tendencies across the world, including in the Global South. Argentina is one such example. This, too, is tied to the crisis of neoliberalism. So, delinking from neoliberalism economically, and from neo-fascism politically, must happen together. But this can only happen if there is a class alliance—a political movement led by the working people, peasants, and labourers. That's what it will take to push back against both these forces. When the farmers' movement took place in India, it gave us a glimpse of this possibility. Whether we seize it will depend entirely on how politics unfolds in the near future.' Andres Arauz On neo-Monroeism, trade regimes, and the Global South's fight for sovereignty ' I want to pick up on what's already been said – that Trump's trade measures are not the actions of a crazy madman. From the perspective of Latin America, it is clear that these moves are not erratic, but rather intentional and strategic. What we're witnessing is what many in Latin America refer to as a neo-Monroeism, which is a contemporary revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which historically claimed 'America for the Americans,' meaning, in practice, the United States. This neo-Monroeism is evident in how Trump linked tariffs with geopolitical aspirations: suggesting the takeover of Greenland (a Danish territory), talking about Canada as a potential 51st state, and even speaking of 'reclaiming' the Panama Canal. The measures against Mexico fit squarely within this frame. From Latin America, we see this as an extension of old imperial logics. Moreover, it's important to note that this didn't begin with Trump. The Biden administration's near-shoring strategy is part of the same trend, as were tariff and non-tariff measures during both the Trump and Obama administrations. The US-UK Free Trade Agreement includes provisions restricting Chinese participation in value chains and infrastructure. The same holds true in the updated NAFTA—USMCA—which explicitly excludes China from key regional economic interactions. We are seeing a Monroe Doctrine that has now widened its geographic scope but continues to assert control over economic relations in the Western Hemisphere – particularly to exclude China.' On a longstanding continuum of US trade policy ' This isn't just about Trump. The United States has used unilateral tariffs as a policy tool for decades. Under George W. Bush in 2002, under Obama in 2009 (safeguards), and then again under Trump with special tariffs on steel and aluminium, Section 301 tariffs related to intellectual property violations are all part of a continuum. These actions include the systematic removal of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), including for India during Trump's first administration. This had a major impact on India's industrial exports to the US. GSP, whether in the US or Europe, has often been used as a tool of blackmail, coercing countries into Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) to retain longstanding preferences. But FTAs are not just about tariff reductions. They include investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms which is one of the key offensive interests of transnational capital. These treaties also lock in commitments on issues that have failed to advance in WTO negotiations: intellectual property, procurement, services, and most recently, so-called e-commerce, which essentially protects Big Tech interests. Meanwhile, the United States has paralysed the WTO appellate body, not just under Trump, but under Obama and Biden as well, by blocking appointments and rendering the system toothless. This bipartisan effort over nearly two decades is a planned attempt to render obsolete the very multilateral system the US helped build, replacing it with unilateral dominance. We must also go beyond tariffs and adopt a balance-of-payments perspective. About 70% of world trade is now governed by non-tariff measures (NTMs), and these are extremely asymmetric. The institutions that set global standards such as the ISO, IEEE, Codex Alimentarius, are dominated by agencies and corporations from the Global North. It is rare to see a corporation or agency from the Global South participating in these technical committees. These standards often become permanent trade barriers, entrenching a global technological hierarchy that favours Northern capital. This asymmetry has been in place for decades and tariffs are simply the latest chapter. The United States is not just using trade rules. It's using financial sanctions, OFAC, and strategic exclusions to shut out Chinese service and telecom providers, not only in the US but globally. At the same time, remittances have become a lifeline for many in the Global South, while capital flight continues to be a structural feature of the system. When countries trade with the US, they don't receive goods in return. They get dollar-denominated IOUs, US liabilities, which fuel Wall Street asset inflation. And this doesn't happen just in US trade. When Peru trades with India, the payment often still settles in dollars. This reveals the deep entrenchment of dollar hegemony, and the way financial capital profits off global imbalances.' On intrafirm trade and the power of corporations ' Another crucial aspect is the nature of trade itself. About one-third of global trade and nearly half of US imports is intrafirm trade. That means this is not country A selling to country B. It's Corporation X selling to Corporation X, with production scattered across borders. So, when we talk about the US benefiting from trade, we must be clear: it's not the American people, it's US-based corporations. Trump's slogans about 'America First' ignore the reality that these corporations control supply chains, manipulate pricing through transfer pricing, exploit tax loopholes, and dominate services trade through Big Tech and finance. Services now play a major role in compensating for the US's goods trade deficit. The surplus in services, led by tech and finance, is an offensive front for US economic policy. For instance, policy tools are used to promote Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite company, and ensure the dominance of Google, Amazon, Meta, and PayPal, who push for free data flows, algorithm secrecy, and stronger intellectual property regimes. They also exploit tax evasion mechanisms: fake royalty payments, bogus knowledge exports, and other tricks to avoid taxation and repatriate profits.' On delinking and building southern alternatives ' Given the current context, I believe the Global South must seize this moment. We must unilaterally but in a coordinated way, think about ways to delink from the current trade regime. That means withdrawing from ISDS and creating an independent Southern finance and payments system. The technical capacity already exists. What's missing is political will. In closing, I invite everyone to read the Programme of Action for a New International Economic Order for the 21st Century, developed by Progressive International alongside the G77. As Prabhat Patnaik emphasised earlier, this moment of crisis is also an opportunity. We must reject the paradigm and rules being set by the United States and come together on our own terms – terms that advance development, protect sovereignty, and ensure the rights of the peoples of the Global South.' Ranja Sengupta On tariffs, trade injustice and bilateral FTAs ' Trade has suddenly become a very hot issue again. I agree very much with what has already been said – this is not just about Trump – it's part of a continuum. We've seen this in US trade policy, but also in the WTO and in bilateral trade agreements. From the days of GATT through to the WTO era, the rules were always unfair and so was their implementation. Developed countries have implemented only what suits them, and have ignored the rest. The negotiations themselves were rigged. The design of the rules was hopelessly tilted against the interests of developing countries. As pointed out earlier, the Agreement on Agriculture epitomises this inequity. We work closely in Geneva, and it's shocking how injustice has been normalised in the WTO system over decades. Countries or organisations that challenge this hegemony are seen as outliers. What we've also seen is the quiet but major shift in which new issues have been introduced through bilateral FTAs and are now being multilateralised within the WTO. These include not just digital trade, but the future of the digital economy itself, as well as liberalisation of government procurement, higher intellectual property standards, which we know have established rights of North-based corporations and it gives them their control over technology. It has raised, for example, medicine prices, agriculture input prices around the world. So where the WTO already had rules, we've seen these going deeper and deeper against developing country interests. Other issues, which we call the 'new issues', have been brought in through the free trade agreements. Now there's a massive push to multilateralise these in the WTO. And all the developed countries have been working in perfect alliance and partnership for this new framework to work. The rules that were already present in the WTO are now being deepened against developing countries through this new agenda. All the developed countries are working in close alliance to build this new framework. The WTO, which has always been a power-based system dressed up with the semblance of rules, now looks more hollow than ever. The most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle, central to the WTO has been undermined, as we're seeing through US actions. Many developing country negotiators we speak to remain in the WTO precisely to avoid the kind of blatant power-based deals the US is now pushing. But what we are now seeing is this power-based system, with its so-called semblance of rules is being completely taken apart. Trump's policy is a very extreme manifestation of this power-based system. Some believe the WTO may implode. I worry instead that we may see a worse WTO, one where the US sets the agenda more openly, pushing rules that serve its own corporations. Trump's direction clearly benefits big business and rich countries. What we need, in contrast, is a framework that supports small farmers, SMEs, patients, and marginalised communities. This moment could be an opportunity but only if we work hard to seize it. That means forming alliances among developing countries, building trust, sharing technology, and forging deeper cooperation. Unfortunately, developing countries today are often competing, not cooperating. Many see the tariffs on LDCs as their own opportunity, including India and it is this very attitude must be challenged.' On tariffs and development tools under attack 'A lot of myths have suddenly emerged, as though global trade is now just about tariffs. Yes, there are many important non-tariff issues, but let's address the tariff question first. The US has broken WTO rules: its MFN obligations and its bound tariff commitments. It justifies this on the grounds of a national security exception by claiming its large trade deficit is a national emergency. This was done during Trump's first term as well, and was challenged by several countries in the WTO. The US lost every time but with the dispute settlement system now paralysed, no action can be taken. What's important to understand is that tariffs are a development policy tool – for which developing countries fought for during GATT and the WTO formation. When the US and EU were industrialising, they used import duties extensively—up to 50% in the US, 18–30% in the EU. Developing countries have fought to retain tariffs because they protect infant industries, enable growth, safeguard livelihoods, and preserve critical domestic production. It is unacceptable that the richest country in the world now uses tariffs against developing countries while pressuring them to dismantle their own tariff regimes. This is deeply hypocritical. During the Uruguay Round, the WTO's foundation bargain was that developing countries would retain higher tariffs to support their development. In exchange, they accepted significant concessions: TRIPS, TRIMS, commitments in services and investment. This has now turned around with developing countries again being asked to give up their tariffs, while developed countries retain theirs. Meanwhile, developed countries continue to use massive subsidies. The US and EU have used 'box-shifting' techniques to make trade-distorting subsidies look legal. If you look at subsidy intensity, the differences are staggering: the US gives nearly $13,000 per farmer, China around $528, and India only $236. And yet, it is developing countries that are criticised. Standards, especially in food have been another tool of exclusion. These technical barriers have hurt farmers across the Global South. The US's reciprocal tariffs now hit even Least Developed Countries (LDCs) some of which face tariffs of 30–50%, like Madagascar. This completely reverses the principle of special and differential treatment, which was intrinsic to the WTO. This could further intensify and this extreme reversal may spread to other developed countries. The US will demand far more than tariff cuts. There will be pressure on agriculture, dairy, cereals, meat, dry fruits, ethanol, GM foods. This could also increase pressure on pharmaceutical tariffs—India's generics industry will be targeted and face additional pressure on IP rights, TRIPS-plus, on autos, medical devices, steel, aluminium. The EU and UK have already told India that any concession it offers the US, whether on tariffs or non-tariff issues, must also apply to them. In this way, even bilateral deals will become de facto multilateral commitments.' On BRICS and beyond 'China's resistance post-Trump offers important lessons. Unlike many countries that rushed to make concessions, China held firm—and in doing so, inspired others. But building a Southern alliance can't just mean relying on China. Many countries still view China's WTO positions with suspicion. BRICS alone is not enough. Brazil's current agricultural policy, led by exporters, often undermines the interests of small farmers. Even within BRICS, competitive interests dominate. Cooperation must go beyond BRICS, to include broader coalitions committed to shared development goals, not just market access. We need alliances that focus on linking production, distribution, technology, and finance and not on undercutting each other. The urgency of this moment demands that we resist, not just in tariffs but in the non-tariff areas that penetrate deeply into domestic policymaking. If developing countries cave in these bilateral deals, the foundation of any future alliance will collapse.' Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Trump Warns Apple: Pay 25% Tariff if iPhones are Made in 'India, or Anyplace Else' Trump's Afrikaners are South African Opportunists, Not Refugees: What's Behind the US Move 'US Did Call Up, But Ceasefire Was Negotiated Directly Between India and Pakistan': Jaishankar Ahead of Bilateral Talks, India Notifies WTO About Proposal to Impose Tariffs on Imports from the US Is Modi's Friend up to Mischief, or Is He Telling the Truth? India Silent on Trump's Offer to Work Together on 'Solution Concerning Kashmir', Pak Appreciates Move Why Keir Starmer Says Britain is Becoming 'A Nation of Strangers' Eight Times Trump Made Claims that Undermined India But Wasn't Really Rebutted by New Delhi What the Modi Govt Can Learn From an Indian President's Rebuttal to Bill Clinton 25 Years Ago View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
The Star
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Star
Trump says Putin has gone 'gone absolutely CRAZY', considering more sanctions on Russia
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump disembarks Air Force One as he arrives at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey U.S., May 23, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard/File Photo MOSCOW/KYIV (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said Vladimir Putin had "gone absolutely CRAZY" by unleashing the largest aerial attack of the war on Ukraine and said he was considering more sanctions on Moscow, but he also scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. "Something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!" Trump said of the Russian president on Truth Social. "I've always said that he wants ALL of Ukraine, not just a piece of it, and maybe that's proving to be right, but if he does, it will lead to the downfall of Russia!" Trump also criticised Zelenskiy, posting that the Ukrainian leader "is doing his Country no favours by talking the way he does. Everything out of his mouth causes problems, I don't like it, and it better stop." Speaking to reporters at the airport in Morristown, New Jersey, Trump said of Putin: "I don't know what's wrong with him. What the hell happened to him? Right? He's killing a lot of people. I'm not happy about that." He raised the possibility of imposing more sanctions on Russia in response to the ongoing attacks. There was no immediate response from the Kremlin or from Zelenskiy's office on Trump's remarks. In the biggest aerial assault of the war, Russia pummeled Ukrainian cities and other targets with at least 367 drones and missiles overnight on Sunday, killing at least 12 people, including three children in the northern region of Zhytomyr, Ukrainian officials said. The Russian attack was the largest of the war in terms of weapons fired, although other strikes have killed more people. Trump has been pressuring Russia and Ukraine to end the more than three-year war, but the two sides remain far apart - and while major powers talk, the war is intensifying and Russian forces are advancing in eastern Ukraine. Swarms of drones are being launched by both sides while fierce fighting is underway along key parts of the front. The Kremlin says it is conducting what it calls a "special military operation" in Ukraine to protect Russia from NATO encroachment on its borders. Ukraine says Russia launched an unprovoked war of aggression. (Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge in Moscow, Tom Balmforth in Kyiv and Jeff Mason and Steve Holland in MORRISTOWN, New Jersey; Editing by Toby Chopra)
