EU agrees reprisals against China over medical devices
BRUSSELS : EU countries voted on Monday to exclude Chinese companies from selling medical devices in the bloc in reprisal for Beijing curbing European imports in the sector, diplomats said.
The restriction was the first time the European Union has used its International Procurement Instrument, a 2022 regulation that allows reciprocal measures when it comes to public procurement.
The move was likely to increase trade tensions between Brussels and Beijing at a time of broadened commercial volatility brought on by Washington's swingeing tariffs.
An EU diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity said the bloc's move adopting restrictions suggested by the European Commission were proportional, without giving details.
An EU investigation concluded in January that China discriminated against EU medical devices in its public procurement, including in state-owned hospitals.
The China Chamber of Commerce to the EU in a statement expressed 'profound disappointment over this decision'.
It said it had 'serious concerns about the EU's move to limit Chinese enterprises' participation in the EU procurement market, particularly in the healthcare sector'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
30 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Brexit's parallels with Trump tariffs tell a tale
In figuring out why the United States tariff shock hasn't sent the economy or financial world into a tailspin, Britain's exit from the European Union trade bloc provides something of a playbook — and without a particularly happy ending. Aside from vast differences in economic scale and global reach, the two episodes bear some comparison in how they upended years of deeply integrated free trade and possibly in how business, the economy at large and financial markets reacted. The 2016 Brexit referendum and Trump's tariffs this year were each widely billed as economic shocks that would send the financial world into paroxysms. They didn't, at least not at the outset. To be sure, both were followed by dramatic downward lurches in the two countries' currencies. But, to some extent, the steep drop in sterling after the referendum vote and the dollar's plunge on President Donald Trump's tariff plan this year helped offset some of the wider impact, at least on stock markets that are loaded with global firms with outsized foreign revenue. More broadly, however, the difficulty in isolating their immediate net impact means no "big bang" economic crisis unfolds to prove critics right, even if their enduring legacy turns out to be a slow burn of economic potential and lost output, often obscured by multiple other crosswinds. In Britain's case, the seismic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic distorted any attempt to easily assess Brexit when it actually happened. Tortuous negotiations with the EU meant the UK's departure eventually occurred on the eve of the health crisis in 2020 and the new trade rules did not come into force until a year later. But in the four years between the referendum surprise and the pandemic, the UK economy never entered a recession nor recorded a negative quarterly GDP print — confounding pro-EU supporters at the time and bolstering the Brexit lobby. Emerging from the twin hits, however, the economy has almost flatlined since. What's more, it's taken more than eight years for the pound's effective exchange rate to recover its pre-referendum levels. Few mainstream economists now doubt that Brexit has taken a serious toll on the UK economy. One academic study by a number of Bank of England economists earlier this year concluded that uncertainty following the referendum resulted in little change in goods exports and imports before the exit was finalised. But after the new rules hit, UK imports fell three per cent and overall exports fell 6.4 per cent, largely because of the 13 per cent hit in exports to the EU. While this slump seems relatively modest compared with the official forecasts of the longer-term hit, the pain has been borne disproportionately by small businesses. And the cumulative damage to London and the service sector over the next 10 years continues to worry the City. The US tariff story is of a completely different order, of course, as it will reverberate across the world economy. But there are some parallels, not least in certain aspects of the market reactions and the initial resilience. Economists estimate that the tariffs could lop anywhere from 0.5 per cent to one per cent off US gross domestic product over time. That's a US$150 billion to US$300 billion hit, which, though painful, would not be an instant crisis for an economy that's growing at a roughly two per cent annualised rate, where imported goods represent just 11 per cent of GDP and where tech and AI trends are generating considerable tailwinds. But as former White House economic adviser Jason Furman said in a New York Times essay last week, the tariff damage is likely not a one-off hit. The loss of 0.5 per cent of GDP, he argued, is "the equivalent of every household in America taking around US$1,000 and lighting it on fire, then doing it again every year. Forever." In the end, the main point of the British comparison is to show how extreme partisan arguments on the pros or cons of such giant economic policy changes don't necessarily get resolved cleanly in adaptive, hardy and hyper-complex economies. The latest YouGov opinion poll shows 56 per cent of Britons now think it was wrong to leave the EU, some nine years after their narrow vote to leave. The jury on Trump's tariffs is still out.
New Straits Times
30 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
NST Leader: Of Gaza genocide and EU inaction
A sizable number of countries are beginning to respond to Israel's slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza and settler atrocities in the West Bank by taking concrete actions. But notably missing is a meaningful response from the European Union, a bloc proud of its human rights history. The deafening silence has forced 58 former ambassadors of the bloc to issue an open letter to the heads of the EU and member states, warning them that the lack of meaningful response is making it complicit in Israel's "genocide". "Silence and neutrality in the face of genocide constitute complicity. Inaction emboldens perpetrators and betrays every principle the Union and members claim to uphold." Something has stirred in this rare breed of souls and we think it is the daily genocide livestreamed to their smartphones. Rare breed given the West's habit of denying Israel's genocide. The open letter published by Al Jazeera on July 31 has been a global media story since an earlier version, signed by 34 former ambassadors, was published on July 23 by EUobserver, a news portal. The plea for the EU to do the right thing now is a developing story, as the growing number of signatories suggests. We are not surprised that so many ex-diplomats feel let down by the EU. As the 58 make it clear in the letter, "as former ambassadors of the EU, we dedicated our professional lives to upholding and promoting core European values and international law, building the reputation of the European Union and defending the rights of its peoples". Those interests and reputation, they go on to say, "are now in serious jeopardy as a consequence of EU inaction". Washington's position is clear: Israel can do no wrong, even when its military commits the crime of crimes. Its iron-clad support for the Zionist regime means it has given Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, and his extremist ministers, a free hand in committing all the genocide they want. When the United Nations Security Council members agree to a ceasefire — a rare feat indeed — Washington vetoes the resolution. Countries are condemned for criticising Israel. The International Court of Justice, the world's highest court, didn't fare any better. When it ruled that there was "a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza" and countries should stop supplying weapons to Israel, Washington dismissed the court's determination as not binding. The fate of the International Criminal Court was even worse; its officials were sanctioned for issuing arrest warrants against alleged war criminals Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, a former defence minister. But Brussels? Why the inaction, when it occasionally condemns Israel? Pretext for inaction? Some EU leaders seem to suggest a lack of consensus among the 27 member states as a reason for inaction. Even if this is true, why can't they act as individual states? The recent condemnation of Israel by 20 EU foreign ministers shows member states can, if they have the political will. The ex-diplomats have recommended a nine-point action plan, two of which are for the EU to immediately stop the supply of arms to Israel and recognise Palestinian statehood. If Brussels wants to stand on the right side of history, it must act now on the nine recommendations.
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Stocks climb tracking tariffs, US Fed
LONDON: European and Asian stock markets rose Tuesday as tariff threats eased and as investors grow increasingly confident that the US Federal Reserve will cut interest rates next month. The gains, helped also by some strong earnings, tracked Monday's rally on Wall Street. The dollar jumped against the euro and yen. Oil prices retreated after US President Donald Trump's threat to raise tariffs on India over its purchases of Russian crude. "European markets continue to wave off any concerns around the direction of travel for the US economy and Thursday's looming tariff day," noted Joshua Mahony, chief market analyst at Rostro trading group. Trump's fresh tariffs on dozens of US trade partners are set to kick in on August 7, almost one week later than planned. The European Union on Tuesday announced the suspension of its retaliatory tariffs on US goods worth 93 billion euros ($107 billion) after Brussels struck a deal with Washington last month. "The commission has today adopted the necessary legal procedures to suspend the implementation of our EU countermeasures, which were due to kick in on August 7," EU trade spokesman Olof Gill said. Ahead of the new deadline, Mahony said traders were focused "on the continued strength seen in second-quarter earnings season and the new dovish outlook for the Federal Reserve". Weakness in the US jobs market has raised concerns that the world's biggest economy is in worse shape than expected, fanning bets that the Fed will cut interest rates in September. Some analysts remained sceptical, however. "I continue to believe the Fed will not reduce rates at all this year given rising inflation caused by tariffs and a relatively stable unemployment rate," said Lazard chief market strategist Ronald Temple. On the corporate front, shares in BP climbed 2.4 percent in London midday deal after the British energy giant surprised with better-than-expected earnings in the second quarter.
