Taiwan's Dilemma: U.S. Support in Question as Tensions with China Rise Tariff War
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
18 minutes ago
- Mint
US tariff, India-UK deal: Trade unions, farmers call nationwide protest on August 13. Here are their demands
CTUs-SKM, a joint platform of 10 Central Trade Unions and Samyukt Kisan Morcha, has announced a nationwide protest on August 13, 2025 against US President Donald Trump's tariff threats and India-UK Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA). The statement released on Monday urged workers, farmers, students and patriotic citizens to show their dissent by participating in various mass actions including tractor and motorcycle rallies, protest demonstrations, public gatherings, and other forms of protest as decided by different platforms and partner organisations. According to the statement cited by PTI, the CTUs-SKM strongly condemned the recent threats by Trump to impose 25 per cent tariffs on India, along with a punitive tax for the oil trade deal with Russia. They characterised these measures as a 'blatant act of economic coercion aimed at dictating India, including its trade relations with Russia.' The organisations highlight what they perceive as hypocrisy in US trade policies, which demand open markets for American corporations while weaponising tariffs to bully sovereign nations, the news report said. The East India Company colonised India through trade; today, CETA and US trade deals are the new instruments of corporate imperialism, they alleged. Beyond the specific concerns, the protesting group has put forth several demands regarding India's trade policy: Rejection of US tariff threats: India must reject Trump's tariff threats and assert its sovereign right to trade with all nations, including Russia. Review of India-UK CETA: The trade agreement must be reviewed and altered immediately. Halt US-India trade deal negotiations: All ongoing negotiations for a US-India trade deal must be halted to prevent further corporate exploitation. Parliamentary scrutiny for future deals: No more secret trade agreements. All future deals must undergo full parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation. The CTUs-SKM criticised the government for the deal. 'Equally alarming is the Indian government's meek submission to these threats, reflecting its growing subservience to western imperialist interests,' PTI reported labour unions as saying. They further noted that this surrender is further evident in the recently signed India-UK CETA, a deal that sacrifices the interests of India's farmers, workers, and economic independence at the altar of foreign corporate profits. Instead of firmly rejecting this intimidation, the central government has responded with silence, signaling its willingness to compromise India's strategic autonomy in favour of the USA, it stated. The groups warned that this capitulation could pave the way for an even more exploitative India-US trade deal, potentially granting American agri-business corporations like Cargill unrestricted access to India's dairy sector and agriculture, leading to price collapses, destruction of the farming community and endangering food security of the nation, PTI reported.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
18 minutes ago
- First Post
Australia arrests Chinese national for spying, third case under 2018 foreign interference law
The Chinese national appeared in a Canberra court on Monday, accused of 'reckless foreign interference' for allegedly spying on a local Buddhist group on behalf of a Chinese security agency read more A Chinese woman has become the first Chinese national charged under Australia's 2018 foreign interference laws, marking only the third case since the legislation was introduced. She appeared in a Canberra court on Monday, accused of 'reckless foreign interference' for allegedly spying on a local Buddhist group on behalf of a Chinese security agency. The woman, who holds Australian permanent residency, faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted, according to a Reuters report, citing the Australian Federal Police. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The AFP will allege the woman … was tasked by a Public Security Bureau of China to covertly gather information about the Canberra branch of Guan Yin Citta, a Buddhist association,' Reuters quoted AFP as saying in a statement. Police launched an investigation into the woman's activities in March after receiving intelligence from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), added the statement. She was arrested on Saturday following police searches of properties in Canberra. The introduction of the foreign interference laws in 2018 has contributed to diplomatic tensions with China, Australia's largest trading partner. The two previous cases under the legislation involved Australian citizens accused of collaborating with Chinese intelligence services. 'Anyone who thinks it is acceptable to monitor, intimidate and potentially repatriate members of our diaspora communities should never underestimate our capabilities and resolve,' Reuters quoted Mike Burgess, director-general of the ASIO, as saying in a statement. With inputs from agencies
Deccan Herald
18 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
What happens next in the US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
Washington: A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called "America's big case," and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. .The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA.A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. .A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. .A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an "administrative stay" that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International is precedent for tariff refund requests being May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff "stacking" — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
