Latest news with #UniversityofStGallen
Straits Times
26-05-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Trump forces Switzerland to question its love for farmers
Switzerland's bid for a US trade deal risks sparking a showdown with one political force at least as feisty as US President Donald Trump: its own farmers. A country whose lush Alpine pastures, cowbells and cheese underpin the national identity, and whose agricultural lobby wields outsized influence to match, is in danger of a tough reckoning over what that's worth when economic prosperity is at stake. While Mr Trump makes no secret of his desire to push farm exports – as evidenced by the inclusion of beef in his framework deal with the UK this month – it still came as a surprise when Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter disclosed that such a political hot potato is on the table in talks with the US. Having lobbied him to rethink tariffs of 31 per cent on Switzerland just hours before the suspension of many of his global levies were announced, she is now pushing hard to be among the next countries to clinch an accord. Previous confrontations with the US, such as over banking secrecy in 2009, are a reminder of just how little leverage it has, and America's role as Switzerland's biggest single trading partner apart from the European Union underscores the extent of commerce that's on the line. Talks with Washington could ultimately force the government into an awkward choice of taking a brutal economic hit or enduring the political fallout of hurting farmers. In that case, the answer is clear, according to Mr Thomas Borer, a former Swiss ambassador to Germany. 'We cannot snub the world's most important economy because of an industry that stands for less than 1 per cent of our gross domestic product,' he said in an interview. In the ongoing trade negotiations with the US – whose second round took place in Geneva this month – outlines of any agreement remain far from clear. 'It's hard to see what kind of deal could be made,' said Mr Stefan Legge, senior trade researcher at the University of St Gallen. 'Many goods the Americans care about are very sensitive to the Swiss. It would be very hard to lower any tariffs there.' One problem for Switzerland is that it has been uncommonly open to trade, meaning that it's not easy to find areas for possible concessions to grant the US a face-saving deal. On all industrial products, the Swiss unilaterally abolished tariffs last year. That leaves agriculture as a key area of focus for the US, a big exporter of soybeans, corn, wheat and meat. All those products face high tariffs in Switzerland, which runs its own complex and highly subsidised market for food, forcing Europe's highest prices on consumers. A tightly controlled system of quotas applies. On beef, a likely target of the US, the Swiss allowed some 5,850 tonnes of high-quality produce to be imported last year. Every shipment above that quota was charged a tariff of as much as 22 francs (S$34) per kilogram, almost doubling the average sales price of beef in Switzerland. 'We would vehemently fight' any changes, said Ms Sandra Helfenstein, a spokesperson for the Swiss Farmers' Association. 'For us, it's completely wrong and inappropriate to talk about deals in the agricultural sector.' Acceptance of the current design of the domestic food market is widespread, despite its burden on consumers, fostered by a national belief in self-reliance. But bigger economic interests may prevail when set against agriculture, which represents a small fraction of gross domestic product. The voice of farmers is often amplified in advanced economies, as seen with recent tractor protests from London to Paris and Brussels. In Switzerland, their influence pervades the political system. In the lower house of parliament in Bern, a quarter of lawmakers are either farmers themselves or have ties to agriculture, according to an analysis by national broadcaster SRF. Three out of the seven members of the Federal Council – Switzerland's cabinet – grew up on a farm. Another was a farmer's apprentice. And yet, Ms Keller-Sutter, who isn't one of them, acknowledged this month that agricultural produce is 'a topic' of discussion. 'It's down to the people talking on a technical level to look at this very closely.' Since specific quotas for a single product such as US beef aren't allowed under the rules of the World Trade Organisation – an institution Switzerland supports and also hosts in Geneva – Mr Legge reckons the Swiss will try to find groups of goods they could offer concessions on instead. The harsh truth however is that Switzerland's experience with the US shows they don't have much choice when Washington insists. That's what happened in 2013, when the country ended banking secrecy after years of pressure from the Americans. 'If the US put their foot down, they could force Switzerland to give up its agricultural protection,' said Mr Legge. 'That would be similar to how they forced Switzerland to give up its banking secrecy.' The domestic political ramifications could be explosive if things went so far as to undermine its food market, though actions so far by the Trump administration, from South Africa to Europe, suggest its officials aren't shy about stirring things up in individual countries. Mr Trump's desire to deliver deals however could still help Switzerland, according to Mr Joost Pauwelyn, an international trade lawyer and professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute. 'Don't underestimate Swiss diplomacy,' he said. 'Whatever deal the Swiss may strike, it would probably have to be accepted by parliament, possibly even by referendum. That could strengthen Swiss negotiators because they can honestly say: Look, we won't be able to get this through with our people.' BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Miami Herald
25-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Trump forces Switzerland to question its love for farmers
Switzerland's bid for a U.S. trade deal risks sparking a showdown with one political force at least as feisty as President Donald Trump: its own farmers. A country whose lush Alpine pastures, cowbells and cheese underpin the national identity, and whose agricultural lobby wields outsized influence to match, is in danger of a tough reckoning over what that's worth when economic prosperity is at stake. While Trump makes no secret of his desire to push farm exports - as evidenced by the inclusion of beef in his framework deal with the U.K. this month - it still came as a surprise when Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter disclosed that such a political hot potato is on the table in talks with the U.S. Having lobbied him to rethink tariffs of 31% on Switzerland just hours before the suspension of many of his global levies were announced, she is now pushing hard to be among the next countries to clinch an accord. Previous confrontations with the U.S., such as over banking secrecy in 2009, are a reminder of just how little leverage it has, and America's role as Switzerland's biggest single trading partner apart from the European Union underscores the extent of commerce that's on the line. Talks with Washington could ultimately force the government into an awkward choice of taking a brutal economic hit or enduring the political fallout of hurting farmers. In that case, the answer is clear, according to Thomas Borer, a former Swiss ambassador to Germany. "We cannot snub the world's most important economy because of an industry that stands for less than 1% of our gross domestic product," he said in an interview. In the ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S. - whose second round took place in Geneva this month - outlines of any agreement remain far from clear. "It's hard to see what kind of deal could be made," said Stefan Legge, senior trade researcher at the University of St Gallen. "Many goods the Americans care about are very sensitive to the Swiss. It would be very hard to lower any tariffs there." One problem for Switzerland is that it has been uncommonly open to trade, meaning that it's not easy to find areas for possible concessions to grant the U.S. a face-saving deal. On all industrial products, the Swiss unilaterally abolished tariffs last year. That leaves agriculture as a key area of focus for the U.S., a big exporter of soybeans, corn, wheat and meat. All those products face high tariffs in Switzerland, which runs its own complex and highly subsidized market for food, forcing Europe's highest prices on consumers. A tightly controlled system of quotas applies. On beef, a likely target of the U.S., the Swiss allowed 5,850 tons of high-quality produce to be imported last year. Every shipment above that quota was charged a tariff of as much as 22 francs ($26) per kilogram, almost doubling the average sales price of beef in Switzerland. "We would vehemently fight" any changes, said Sandra Helfenstein, a spokesperson for the Swiss Farmers' Association. "For us, it's completely wrong and inappropriate to talk about deals in the agricultural sector." Acceptance of the current design of the domestic food market is widespread, despite its burden on consumers, fostered by a national belief in self-reliance. But bigger economic interests may prevail when set against agriculture, which represents a small fraction of gross domestic product. The voice of farmers is often amplified in advanced economies, as seen with recent tractor protests from London to Paris and Brussels. In Switzerland, their influence pervades the political system. In the lower house of parliament in Bern, a quarter of lawmakers are either farmers themselves or have ties to agriculture, according to an analysis by national broadcaster SRF. Three out of the seven members of the Federal Council - Switzerland's Cabinet - grew up on a farm. Another was a farmer's apprentice. And yet, Keller-Sutter, who isn't one of them, acknowledged this month that agricultural produce is "a topic" of discussion. "It's down to the people talking on a technical level to look at this very closely." Since specific quotas for a single product such as US beef aren't allowed under the rules of the World Trade Organization - an institution Switzerland supports and also hosts in Geneva - Legge reckons the Swiss will try to find groups of goods they could offer concessions on instead. The harsh truth however is that Switzerland's experience with the U.S. shows they don't have much choice when Washington insists. That's what happened in 2013, when the country ended banking secrecy after years of pressure from the Americans. "If the U.S. put their foot down, they could force Switzerland to give up its agricultural protection," said Legge. "That would be similar to how they forced Switzerland to give up its banking secrecy." The domestic political ramifications could be explosive if things went so far as to undermine its food market, though actions so far by the Trump administration, from South Africa to Europe, suggest its officials aren't shy about stirring things up in individual countries. Trump's desire to deliver deals however could still help Switzerland, according to Joost Pauwelyn, an international trade lawyer and professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute. "Don't underestimate Swiss diplomacy," he said. "Whatever deal the Swiss may strike, it would probably have to be accepted by parliament, possibly even by referendum. That could strengthen Swiss negotiators because they can honestly say: Look, we won't be able to get this through with our people." (Hugo Miller contributed to this report.) Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Daily Mail
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Experts say Pakistan-India war could lead to nuclear Armageddon leaving 125 MILLION dead in a week
The slaughter of over two dozen Indian tourists in the Baisaran valley by alleged Pakistani Islamist gunmen has left India and Pakistan edging closer to a potential nuclear conflict. The April 22 shooting, in which assailants reportedly singled out those who could not recite Islamic verses for execution is the worst massacre of civilians in India since the Mumbai bombings in 2008. It also represents a 'massive intelligence failure' on the part of India's security services and 'cannot go unpunished', especially amid public outrage and growing demand for action, according to many Indian analysts. Relations between the two countries are now 'arguably at their lowest point in decades, just short of war', according to Dr Manali Kumar, Indian national identity and foreign policy expert at the University of St Gallen. However, any overt military attack from India would likely trigger an equally harsh response from Pakistan which could quickly push both parties beyond the point of no return. The armed forces of India, one of the world's largest economies and its most populous nation, far outstrip those of Pakistan on paper. India maintains an active army of more than 1.2million and also have another 250,000 servicemen in the navy and air force, compared to Pakistan's which total to less than 700,000. However, defence experts warn that Islamabad's military capabilities are still 'in the same order of magnitude' as Delhi and are robust enough to 'inflict significant damage and cause massive casualties'. Also, Pakistan, unlike India, does not need to dedicate significant military resources to monitor China. Although both powers boast a comparable nuclear arsenal of around 170 warheads, according to the Arms Control Association, India maintains a 'no first use' nuclear doctrine. Pakistan has no such rules over launching first. In 2019 researchers warned that a nuclear conflict in the heavily populated countries could leave 125million people dead in a matter of days. Indian authorities claim that the killing spree on April 22 was perpetrated by Pakistani nationals associated with the terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) - or the 'Army of the Righteous' - a Salafi-Islamist outfit that was also responsible for the devastation in Mumbai 17 years ago. Islamabad has resolutely denied any involvement in the attacks and warned that it would respond swiftly to any Indian military manoeuvres launched 'on the pretext of baseless and concocted allegations'. LeT is widely suspected of having links with Pakistan's Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI) agency, sparking fears that Delhi could justify a military operation across the de facto border between India and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. This boundary, now known as the Line Of Control (LoC), was established in 1949 after the United Nations brokered a ceasefire between newly independent India and Pakistan, who went to war over Kashmir in 1947. Thousands of people died in the conflict before the UN ceasefire came into effect and there have been several flare-ups since. Analysts are divided over what a potential Indian operation would look like. Delhi could launch an incursion into Pakistan-administered Kashmir or be bolder and strike undisputed Pakistani territory, for example, by attacking suspected LeT targets. However, no matter how the clash unfolds there will be the possibility of nuclear war. Researchers have already laid out a hauntingly detailed account of the havoc a nuclear conflict would wreak on the civilian populations of both nations and beyond. Their article, published in the Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists in 2019, reported that a nuclear war would 'kill tens of millions of people immediately and would create enormous environmental impacts, causing famines that affect millions – or even billions – around the world'. The article continued: 'The direct effects of this nuclear exchange would be horrible; the authors estimate that 50 to 125 million people would die, depending on whether the weapons used had yields of 15, 50, or 100 kilotons. 'The ramifications for Indian and Pakistani society would be major and long-lasting, with many major cities largely destroyed and uninhabitable. 'Smoke and radioactive particles would 'spread globally within weeks... cooling the global surface, reducing precipitation and threatening mass starvation'. Pakistan's information minister yesterday claimed that 'credible intelligence' suggested that India could begin its military operation within two days. The statement by Attaullah Tarar came after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday met with army and security chiefs, giving the military 'complete operational freedom' to respond to the attack, a senior government source said. However, Indian analysts have pointed out that Delhi will have to consider the potential consequences of any armed response for its wider international objectives - namely, to cement their status as an influential global power, and a responsible, stable leader of South Asia in line with its 'Neighbourhood First' policy. Happymon Jacob, Indian foreign policy expert and associate professor of disarmament studies at the School Of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, said: 'In a conventional military action-reaction scenario, it is hard for even a stronger military to emerge as a clear winner. 'A military action-reaction spiral with Pakistan, laden with escalatory potential, will take Delhi's political and diplomatic attention away from its global objectives. 'India has successfully managed to de-hyphenate itself from Pakistan in the eyes of the international community.' He added that nuclear fears and concerns about military escalation in the subcontinent would erode that decades-long progress. Professor Amitabh Mattoo, Chair of the Centre For International Politics, Organisation And Disarmament and former member of India's National Security Council's Advisory Board, called for a strong response to the killings from New Delhi. Speaking to The Hindu, he said: 'Condemnation (of the April 22 shooting) is necessary but insufficient... Pakistan has too often acted without paying a proportionate cost. That must change.' He went on to claim that the attack fits the Pakistani strategy of 'inflict pain on India, sow uncertainty in Kashmir... under a thin veil of deniability'. However warned that Delhi's response cannot afford to be rash, advocating for a long-term, calculated and systematic deterrence strategy that stops short of overt military clashes. Mattoo said: 'Deterrence... is the imposition of credible, visible, and cumulative costs that alter the behaviour of the adversary over time. 'This includes sustained efforts to diplomatically isolate Pakistan on platforms where it seeks legitimacy; the careful reconsideration of trade and water-sharing mechanisms that Pakistan depends on; and the expansion of covert and intelligence-based capabilities to disrupt terrorist infrastructure across the Line of Control (LoC).' Though no major military offensives have been launched at the time of writing, both sides have dramatically ramped up their military readiness amid daily skirmishes across the LoC and have unleashed a raft of diplomatic punishments. India launched naval drills, test-fired several long-range missile systems and suspended a key treaty that ensures India supplies Pakistan with water from the Indus River, a provision that is crucial for Pakistan's water supply and agricultural economy. The unprecedented abeyance of the treaty on India's part is seen by some analysts as a key factor that could hasten a full-scale armed engagement. Kumar said: 'India's response, moving beyond conventional diplomatic and past kinetic military actions to include the unprecedented suspension of participation in the foundational Indus Waters Treaty... carries immense risks. 'It is perceived by Pakistan as an existential threat – an act of war if water flows are curtailed - drastically increasing the likelihood of military confrontation between two nuclear-armed states. 'This also sets a dangerous precedent for the weaponisation of shared resources, raising alarms among India's other neighbours who will be watching how this develops very carefully.' In turn, Pakistan has deployed its air force to close its airspace to Indian airlines and has mobilised its army with footage appearing to show artillery batteries and armoured vehicles on their way to the LoC. However, even if a significant military conflict is avoided, the events of April 22 have had a debilitating impact on relations between India and Pakistan and have heightened tensions between Hindu and Muslim populations. Kumar added: 'Continued militarisation and political hardening pose significant domestic risks for India's internal security. A major concern is the worsening hate and communal tension against Muslims across India... and crucially, the condition of the Kashmiri people is severely impacted. 'The intensified security crackdown, economic ruin, and erosion of civil liberties following the attack further deteriorate their already contested 'normalcy', fuelling alienation and grievances and posing long-term challenges to peace within Indian-administered Kashmir. 'Driven by ideology and a disregard for human life, terrorist activity in Kashmir tragically impacts Kashmiris and Muslims across India more than anyone else, and makes any kind of peaceful resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan even harder to achieve.' The international community has warned against escalation in Kashmir, though the U.S. has declared that it stands in solidarity with India and supports Delhi's right to defend itself. However, India's commitment to handling its affairs with Pakistan internally means global players will likely have little say on how tings unfold.
