Indonesia sees no further need to send delegation to US for trade talks
JAKARTA: The government currently sees no need to send another delegation to the United States for the negotiations on tariffs as it believes it has made its case for open bilateral trade and says the ball is now in the US' court.
Coordinating Economic Minister Airlangga Hartarto (pic), who helmed an Indonesian delegation dispatched to Washington, DC, in April, said in a press conference on Friday (June 13) that the documents submitted to his US counterparts were 'already relatively comprehensive' and that what was left was 'the [US] decision.'
Asked whether Jakarta's negotiators would visit the US for a second round of top-level talks as US import tariffs loom over Indonesian exports, the minister replied: 'So far, no, because it's already deemed complete.'
That contrasts with statements from June 6, when Airlangga said the team would depart to the US around this week. The decision not to send another trade mission comes after President Prabowo Subianto received a 15-minute phone call from US President Donald Trump on Thursday night, in which the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to global stability, according to Jakarta.
The topic of the phone call included the two presidents seeing eye to eye on 'increasing bilateral cooperation between Indonesia and the US', said Cabinet Secretary Teddy Indra Wijaya in a press statement on Friday.
The US Embassy in Jakarta declined to respond when asked about Jakarta's decision not to send a delegation, while the Office of the US Trade Representative, which spearheads Washington's side in the tariff negotiations, was not immediately available for comment.
Monday marked the 56th day since Airlangga said on April 18 that both sides had agreed to conclude the negotiations within 60 days, before a grace period expires that the US granted Jakarta to try and stave off a 32 per cent import tariff on Indonesian goods shipped to the US.
Trump announced the suspension on April 9, mere hours after the policy became effective, making July 9 the deadline by which dozens of countries need to conclude negotiations with Washington, or risk steep tariffs.
Edi Prio Pambudi, an undersecretary for coordinating economic cooperation and investment at Airlangga's office, told The Jakarta Post last week that Indonesia was 'awaiting America's response'.
Edi said the two sides had engaged in dialogue to follow up on the initial Indonesian trade delegation but admitted the previously agreed 60-day target to wrap up those talks was uncertain, noting: 'Who can guess what President Trump might do? Let's wait; the US is the one to decide the time limit. The ball is in their court.'
The United Kingdom is the only country to have secured a tariff deal with the US so far, which was signed just a month after Trump had issued the reciprocal tariffs. Others are playing hard to get, like the European Union, which said on Monday that the trade talks with Washington were now focussing on the details but there was no guarantee of a deal.
Japan also appears to be holding out, with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba last week stating: 'We won't compromise Japan's interests by prioritising a quick deal', according to Bloomberg.
Bank Permata chief economist Josua Pardede told the Post on Monday that Indonesia did not have the privilege to adopt a similar stance, as doing so risked creating new uncertainties.
'At present, Indonesia is not in a particularly strong position, as it is already contending with a weakening domestic economy. Therefore, policy decisions that enhance certainty are essential in mitigating the adverse effects of global uncertainty,' said Josua.
While the US itself was facing economic challenges from the tariff policy, such as inflationary pressure and market backlash, 'Indonesia's current position is equally, if not more, vulnerable,' since the archipelago is grappling with current account and fiscal deficits, said Josua.
Washington has pointed to its trade deficit as justification for double-digit levies placed on goods from dozens of countries in what it calls 'reciprocal' measures. The main concessions Jakarta had offered consist of importing more US-made products, exclusive tariff cuts and deregulation to benefit US companies.
Indonesia has also presented a prospective US$2 billion investment in a blue ammonia project in the US state of Louisiana as a concession, even though that investment would come from Indorama, a private company rooted in Indonesia.
Economist Intelligence Unit analyst Wen Chong Cheah told the Post on Wednesday that the concessions Jakarta offered were 'very generous' but had yielded 'insignificant progress' in the negotiations.
'The delay suggests Indonesia is not a current priority. [...] The negotiation with Indonesia may be perceived as less urgent from the US perspective, especially if the US is focused on larger geopolitical or trade wins,' said Cheah. - The Jakarta Post/ANN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wondersabout the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" (Reporting by Ted Hesson in Washington and Kristina Cooke in San Francisco; Editing by Amy Stevens and Sam Holmes)
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by John Kruzel, Nate Raymond, Jan Wolfe and Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Will Dunham)
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Global tensions rattle COP30 build-up but 'failure not an option'
THIS year's UN COP30 summit in Brazil was hotly anticipated as a pivotal moment for the planet, as the world fast approaches a key global warming threshold. But the hosts are yet to propose a headline ambition for the marathon November talks, raising concerns they could fall flat. The build-up has been overshadowed by devastating conflicts on three continents and the United States' withdrawal from global cooperation on climate, trade and health. Expectations have dimmed since Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's pitch three years ago to host climate talks in the Amazon. A warm-up UN climate event in Germany that concluded on Thursday saw disputes flare over a range of issues, including finance, adding to anxiety about how much headway COP30 can make. Brazil is a deft climate negotiator, but the "international context has never been so bad", said Claudio Angelo, of the Brazilian organisation Climate Observatory. Given the stakes, former UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa said Brazil may have to make do with "baby steps". "One of the main messages that should be coming out of COP30 is the unity of everyone behind multilateralism and international cooperation. Not achieving that means everybody will suffer," she said. "Failure is not an option in this case." Previous COPs have been judged on the deals clinched between the nearly 200 nations that haggle over two weeks to advance global climate policy. Recent summits have produced landmark outcomes, from a global pledge to transition away from fossil fuels, to the creation of a specialised fund to help countries hit by climate disaster. COP30 chief executive officer Ana Toni said that "most of the big flashy topics" born out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change had been dealt with. That leaves Brazil with an arguably harder challenge — trying to ensure what has been agreed is put into practice. Much of the action is set for the COP30 sidelines or before nations arrive in the Amazonian city of Belem. National climate plans due before COP30 from all countries — but most importantly major emitters China, the European Union and India — will be more consequential than this year's negotiations, experts say. It is expected this latest round of national commitments will fall well short of containing global warming at 1.5° Celsius, and possibly even 2°C, the less ambitious of the Paris accord's climate goals. "I expect that the COP will need to react to that," said Ana Toni, although what form that reaction would take was "under question". Uncertainty about how COP30 will help steer nations towards 1.5°C has left the Alliance of Small Island States bloc "concerned", said lead negotiator Anne Rasmussen. "Our survival depends on that," she said. How countries will make good on their promise to transition away from fossil fuels may also become a point of contention. Angelo said he hoped Brazil would champion the idea, included in the country's climate plan, of working towards "schedules" for that transition. But he likened Brazil's auctioning of oil and gas extraction rights near the mouth of the Amazon river this month — just as climate negotiators got down to business in Bonn — to an act of "sabotage". Another key priority for Brazil is forest protection, but otherwise COP30 leaders have mostly focused on unfinished business from previous meetings, including fleshing out a goal to build resilience to climate impacts. According to the hosts of last year's hard-fought climate talks, global tensions might not leave room for much else. "We need to focus more on preserving the legacy that we have established, rather than increasing ambition," said Yalchin Rafiyev, top climate negotiator for COP29 host Azerbaijan. He fears that trying and failing to do more could risk undermining the whole UN process. Those close to the climate talks concede they can move frustratingly slowly, but insist the annual negotiations remain crucial.
