Latest news with #G6
The Star
6 hours ago
- Automotive
- The Star
Chinese model tops electric car sales in Israel in H1
JERUSALEM, July 2 (Xinhua) -- The Xpeng G6, a mid-size electric crossover SUV manufactured by China's Xpeng Motor, topped electric car sales in Israel in the first half of 2025 (H1), according to figures released by the Israel Vehicle Importers Association on Wednesday. With 3,164 units sold in H1, the G6 overtook another Chinese model, the Atto 3, an electric compact crossover manufactured by BYD Auto, which sold 3,009 units during the same period. The next four best-selling electric models in Israel were also from Chinese manufacturers, each selling more than 1,500 units in H1. These included the Chery's compact crossover SUV Omoda 5, also known as FX, the Lynk & Co 02 compact car, the MG4 small family car from SAIC Motor, and the Geometry C compact crossover, manufactured by Geely Auto Group. Next on the list was Model Y, a compact crossover SUV from U.S. manufacturer Tesla, which sold 929 units in H1. A total of 21,252 Chinese electric cars were sold in Israel during the period, accounting for 81.2 percent of electric car sales in the country in H1. Overall, China remained Israel's top vehicle exporter in the first half of 2025, with 45,439 vehicles sold, including both electric and gasoline-powered cars. South Korea and Japan followed in the second and third place, respectively.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Business
- Express Tribune
G7 risks disappearing into oblivion
The Western efforts to display cohesion on global challenges collapsed after US President Donald Trump left the G7 summit in the middle and embarrassed other member states by accusing them of not offering a fair trade deal. The widening cracks imply that G7 has effectively regressed into G6 with the future of the alliance entering an uncharted territory. G7 was originally established to cope with economic challenges but it broadened its scope in the 1980s to foreign and security policy issues. In the coming years, this seismic shift aggravated conflicts and hampered peace and prosperity the world over, weighing upon credibility of an alliance whose approach was replete with risks and relevance marred by internal differences. Beneath G7 downfall, there lies aggrandisement of threats and advancement of self-seeking interests. These narcissistic cravings drove the bloc to impose the US-led international order on the rest of the world, preventing greater involvement of major international players and shunning collaboration on pressing global challenges. Yet once Trump returned with all his bully and bluster, the G7 member states began to feel the pinch of venturing recklessly with Washington. As a result, they are seeking "independence" from America's security guarantees, declaring US tariffs as "brutal and unfounded" and recalibrating ties with China to diversify their trade away from the US. Trump believes that the European Union was formed to "screw" the US. In his first term too, he had launched a scathing criticism of the bloc. This prodded then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel to rely less on Washington and "take our fate into our own hands". While factors such as lack of follow-through and Trump's acrimony have the bloc's unity to test, middle powers' exclusion has contributed to a sharp decline in G7 international prominence. The alliance's waning economic heft is another rationale behind its declining significance. G7 share in global GDP on purchasing power parity, per International Monetary Fund, is set to contract from 51.8% in 1980 to 28.4% in 2025. With emerging and developing countries accounting for almost 61% of global economic output, the North can more stifle the rise of the Global South or strip it of its legitimate right of having a greater role in the global governance system. In order to prevent it from fading into triviality, G7 posed itself as an inclusive organisation by inviting leaders of emerging economies such as Brazil, India and South Africa that are part of the China-led BRICS, a multilateral alliance seeking to strengthen economic, political and social cooperation and increase influence of the South. But G7 is unlikely to catch the South's attention because it has for decades denied accession to the emerging economies and remained narrowly focused on interests of a handful of advanced industrial economies. A literal exclusion of South suggests that the bloc pursues to leverage its economic relationship to achieve its own mercenary goals. Its spending cuts, leaving developing countries exposed to poverty, hunger, conflicts and climate disasters, debunk its commitment with the South. The BRICS is being accused of diminishing the role of West-dominated institutions. Its long-term priorities have been to reform and strengthen these very multilateral bodies with the aim of enhancing representation of marginalised countries. The notion of a reimagined G7 to resolve the global governance crisis is doomed from the outset given it will just be an extension of an elite club, constraining the involvement of the South as a bystander. Even proponents of the concept have acknowledged the South would find a little appeal in it as they will still be excluded from the alliance. The Western double standards are the biggest obstacle to G7 drive of tantalising the South into its camp. For instance, the US and allies have been framing Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a struggle for democracy, supporting its right to defend itself and its sovereignty under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Yet when it came to Gaza and now Iran, the rich nations extended full-throated support to Israel, disregarding the latter's violations of international law and the UN Charter. This powerful display of the Western hypocrisy - as Trump dismissed his own intelligence community's assessment that Tehran wasn't building nuclear weapons - would further alienate the North from the South. The West's violent strategy, inflated threat perception and hypocrisy on climate change - as well-heeled countries historically accounted for most of the carbon emissions but shifted the responsibility of the green transition on the South that contributed the least to triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution yet suffered the most - have triggered resentments in the South and would continue to blight the G7 ambition of carving out developing world from China's influence into its orbit. For decades, G7's delusion of grandeur has precluded it from authorising entry of developing economies to the forum, ensuring it remains an exclusive club of wealthy-only nations. This stubbornly arrogant posture accompanying a marked propensity to spark conflicts has faced a pushback from the South, dishing out a beatdown to the alliance's significance. The bloc is at a crossroads, ergo: mend its hypocritical approach or risk disappearing into oblivion.
The Guardian
23-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
David Lammy sleepwalks into ‘fast-moving' Middle East crisis
The situation was, said the foreign secretary, 'fast moving'. Fast moving as in totally sub-optimal. Fast moving as in completely out of his control. Fast moving as in he would rather have pulled the duvet over his head and pretend the whole thing had been a bad dream. That he could go back to sleep for a while and wake up to the world as it was. Maybe we all wish we could do that. These are the days that many of us would rather had never happened. Does the world feel any safer to you today? Then there is no accounting for Donald Trump. There has never been a more capricious US president. Even The Donald has no idea what The Donald is going to do next. The only certainty is uncertainty. A man who lives almost entirely in the present. No sense of the past. No sense of the future. Just a collection of unpredictable neurons desperately trying to fire across the synapses. Just last week, Keir Starmer felt able to sign a communique with other leaders of the G6 – Trump had long since got bored and gone home – which talked of finding a diplomatic solution in the Middle East. There were hopes that The Donald could be talked out of the military option. That his macho posturing was no more than just that. Hell, even Trump was talking of giving Iran two weeks to come good on reaching a nuclear deal acceptable to the west. There again, the president often says things will happen in two weeks. It's almost a Pavlovian response. Almost as if he has no idea how long two weeks is. Could be a day. Possibly two. Maybe it was the Taco label that got to The Donald in the end. Trump Always Chickens Out. But sometime between sunrise and sundown on Saturday, The Donald decided he knew better than his own director of intelligence services and ordered stealth bombers to unload their Massive Ordnance Penetrators AKA bunker busters on three of Iran's nuclear facilities. Trump had asked himself, 'Do you feel lucky, punk?' and had decided that, on the whole, he did feel very lucky. Hell, that Nobel Peace prize wasn't going to win itself, was it? The reaction was everything the Donald would have hoped for. Total confusion. Chaos. Trump's speciality. The US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, immediately declared the operation a total success. The greatest military raid the US had ever done. No other president could have been that visionary. Iran's nuclear capability had been totally destroyed, Pete said. Just as the rest of the world were saying there was no real evidence as yet to support that. Maybe Iran's nuclear facilities were still in the game after all. But don't worry, Pete added. Everything was going to be just fine. This was just a one-off. Regime change had never been part of the plan. Hold my beer, The Donald chipped in. Back in Blighty, David Lammy was trying to play catch-up. Trying to look as though he had known about the military operation all along, when he had been just as blind-sided as the rest of us. That he had got the call from the president when the planes were about an hour out of Iran and been presented with a fait accompli. Even now, he was still unsure whether it would have been better to be in on the plan – part of the inner circle – or to have the legitimate deniability of the outsider. Come Monday morning, Lammy was in entirely defensive mode on Radio 4's Today programme. Refusing to answer any questions about whether the US action had been lawful. 'We weren't involved,' he said, time and again when Justin Webb pressed him. Which wasn't really the point. The UK was certain that other wars in which we were not involved were unlawful. So if we could pronounce on their legality, how come the foreign secretary was so reluctant to give a view on the US bombing Iran? A simple yes or no would have cleared things up. Things were no clearer when Lammy gave a statement to the Commons in the afternoon. Iran couldn't have nukes, he said. It had failed to reassure the west. So … it had sort of had it coming. Not that we Britons would have gone about things that way, but the Americans quite liked the smell of napalm in the morning. Now things got even more confused. Because although the escalation had been one of those things that just happen from time to time, it was now time to de-escalate. And it was up to Tehran to dial things down a bit. Run that one past me again, Dave. Iran was the one that had just been attacked and it was somehow their fault. They were the ones who needed to come to the negotiating table. Clearly different rules apply in the Middle East. We need a diplomatic solution, said Lammy. Though he couldn't rule out a little more recreational bombing in the days ahead. 'What happens next is hard to predict,' he concluded. Code for 'HELP'. 'RUN FOR THE HILLS'. This was to be a session of firsts. Because in reply, Priti Patel said she wanted to work constructively. Something she has never before done in her life. Mostly, though, she was just sad that she wasn't foreign secretary and could have launched a few bombs of her own. There's no way she would ever have been left out of the loop. Please, please, she begged. If there is to be a second attack, please can she join in. Possibly even flying a plane. Other people saw things differently. Emily Thornberry observed that the only way to end the crisis was with a deal and at present she could see the US had no clear objectives. Negotiations could only be successful if there was mutual trust. And bombing wasn't generally conducive to trust. Wimp, muttered Priti Vacant. Constructive to the last.
New Statesman
18-06-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
A perilous age
We go to print this week at a moment of deep peril, uncertainty and, it has to be said, shame. In the Middle East, Israel and Iran are engaged in an existential battle for supremacy which, at the time of writing, threatens to spiral out of control, causing unknown death and destruction. In Ukraine, Vladimir Putin's assault continues, and in Gaza, the suffering of millions intensifies even as their fate falls down the global agenda. We do not live in a world bending towards justice, but one being bent out of shape by those with power. While all this was happening, the leaders of what was once thought of as 'the West' looked on in Canada, paralysed in the face of the spectacle unfolding. Is there even such a thing as the G7 any more, you wonder? What we have, it seems, is an increasingly incongruous G6 – a gathering of half a dozen mid-sized powers, once loyal to the US, but now seemingly powerless to do much about anything. As the likes of Keir Starmer and Mark Carney put their names to another communiqué, the strongmen of the world did as they pleased. Naturally, much of this week's magazine is devoted to the unfolding crisis and the new world we now seem to have entered. Lawrence Freedman provides a masterly account of the grand strategy – and grand gamble – behind Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to attack Tehran, as well as the possible consequences in the days and weeks ahead. Freddie Hayward, our US correspondent, reports on the fractious world of Maga, where some of Trump's most ardent supporters are now watching with alarm as the one-time candidate of peace finds himself drawn ever closer to another foreign war. Katie Stallard reports from Washington and the strange spectacle of Trump's birthday parade, considering what it reveals about the uncertainty of the world now. In this world of strongmen, the personalities of those in power is crucial: what they believe and why. For this reason, we have delved into the personal history of Netanyahu, a pariah figure in much of the world today (justly) who, nevertheless, looks set to remake the Middle East to Israel's advantage through raw military power and violence. Ami Dror, who was the head of Netanyahu's secret service security detail between 1996 and 1999, provides a startling insider account of the prime minister who became a warlord. And Israeli-American journalist Joshua Leifer explains why Netanyahu has been waiting for this showdown with Iran for most of his adult life. At home, meanwhile, the government continues to flail, subcontracting its most difficult decisions to others. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, recently completed the government's latest U-turn by announcing that there would be a national inquiry into the euphemistically named 'grooming gangs' scandal. As Hannah Barnes writes, it beggars belief that after months of obfuscation, the government has finally been forced into this position by the findings of Louise Casey. I have sat in meetings with some of the most senior Labour officials in this government who have spoken passionately about the moral stain of what happened in Rotherham and elsewhere, raging against the Labour councils which failed to act. And yet still nothing happened until someone else outside the government ordered them to change course. Voters – and, I suspect, New Statesman readers – want a government that knows what it stands for and is prepared to set it out in clear, unambiguous terms. From the protection of young girls in Britain to the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, Britain expects a government that leads, not one that follows. It's not all doom and gloom though. In the New Society, Tina Brown takes a look at Princess Diana's contested legacy, Zoë Huxford explores modern Britain through Alexander McQueen's most famous shows, and Kate Mossman meets a growling Brian Cox. Not a big fan of the prime minister, it seems. Enjoy the issue, and please do get in touch to let us know what you think. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Kemi Badenoch sinks further into the mire] Related
18-06-2025
- Politics
In Kananaskis, the G7 held together, but showed signs of strain
After Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Donald Trump met one-on-one for 30 minutes on Monday morning, but before their respective teams joined to continue the discussion, the two leaders invited reporters and television cameras into a meeting room in Kananaskis, Alta. to witness them exchanging formal pleasantries. Carney opened by wishing the president a happy belated birthday and then noted the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army (the reason for Trump's military parade in Washington this past weekend (new window) ). The prime minister then segued to the fact this was the 50th anniversary of these meetings of the leaders of the world's most powerful democracies. And the G7 is nothing without U.S. leadership, your personal leadership, leadership of the U.S., Carney said. In fairness, Carney also told German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that we'd be nowhere without Germany and without you personally and he said that French President Emmanuel Macron, the current dean of the G7 leaders, offered essential leadership. But perhaps, given the context, this suggestion to Trump resonates differently. On one level, this no doubt flattered the president, personally. Perhaps it could even be read as an entreaty for the United States to remain engaged and allied with the nations of the G7. On another level, it might read as a simple statement of the obvious — about the central, historic importance of the United States to the G7, about American influence over a body that operates on consensus or about the simple mathematical reality that the G7 without the United States would be the G6. On a higher level, Carney's comments might have spoken to the central tension of this week's meetings in Kananaskis and the larger questions about the G7's utility and future (new window) in a world where Trump is president of the United States. On a different level, there is also the question of whether the United States still wants to lead — or in what direction and in what ways. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta., on Monday. Photo: AP / Mark Schiefelbein Some or all of this might be said to have hung over the two days of meetings that Carney chaired in Alberta — two days that highlighted both the potential value and the real strains of a grouping that at least made it through its 50th meeting without falling apart. Indeed, moments after Carney's opening comments, the challenge of finding consensus became loudly apparent when Trump, unprompted, began to lament (again) that Russia was expelled from what had been the G8 in 2014 (new window) . When a reporter asked him whether China should also be invited, Trump agreed. Carney, appearing increasingly eager to get on with the rest of his meeting with the president, finally stepped forward and encouraged reporters to be on their way. WATCH | What Carney achieved at the G7 after Trump left: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? At that point, the 50th meeting of the Group of Seven was still an hour or so away from officially beginning — shortly after concluding his meeting with Trump, Carney would go outside to officially welcome each leader to the summit. We're gathering at one of those turning points in history. A turning point where the world looks to this table for leadership, Carney said, perhaps a little hopefully, when the leaders gathered around a circular table inside to begin their formal talks. We might not agree on absolutely every issue, but where we will cooperate, we will make an enormous difference, for our citizens and for the world. Approximately 12 hours later, Trump departed by helicopter, pleading that he needed to return to Washington urgently to deal with the Israel-Iran conflict. Where the G7 leaders agree and disagree The president's early exit from Kananaskis recalled his early departure from Charlevoix in 2018 and thus might suggest something about Trump's interest in these forums. But before he left he still claimed to have enjoyed himself this time. I tell you, I loved it, Trump told reporters at the G7's family photo. And I think we got a lot done. As foreshadowed by Canadian officials last week, the Kananaskis summit did not produce the sort of expansive joint communique — a formal expression of the G7's shared views and desired actions — that typically follows these kinds of international confabs. Instead, the summit ended with narrower statements on artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, migrant smuggling, transnational repression, critical minerals and responding to wildfires. Limiting the desired results to those topics likely prevented a more acrimonious summit. But the differences were still impossible to completely paper over. WATCH | Carney pledges support for Ukraine to wrap G7: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? The leaders did ultimately agree to issue a statement on the situation with Israel and Iran, but according to reporting by the Washington Post (new window) and the Guardian (new window) references to restraint and a ceasefire were removed at the behest of American officials. And Trump then attacked Macron on social media on Monday night (new window) after Macron suggested Trump might push for a ceasefire. Official comments on Ukraine may or may not have run into some difference of opinion (new window) . But after repeated questions from reporters at his closing news conference, Carney acknowledged that there would be things that some of us, Canada included, would say above and beyond what was said in the chair's summary. And while the leaders did agree about the threat of wildfires, the text of their agreement does not explicitly refer to climate change. What was it like in the room? Over the past few days, Carney reported on Tuesday evening, Canada has worked with our G7 partners to determine where we can cooperate, build resilience and lasting prosperity. That this G7 summit came to a conclusion without a major falling-out will likely be viewed as a mark of success. Carney seemed comfortable in the chairman's seat — at least during the few moments that were broadcast publicly. And tangible progress may ultimately flow from what the leaders agreed to, however much the paper output of this summit may have left something to be desired. That the strains and limitations are still apparent will no doubt continue to raise questions about the exact nature of the G7's future. But after the time for questions from reporters on Tuesday had expired, Carney decided to pose a question to himself that no one had asked: What was it like in the room? And in answering his own question, he offered an implicit defence of the institution based on the value of dialogue (echoing comments that a former U.S. State Department official recently made to CBC News (new window) ). WATCH | Carney addresses the room where it happens: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? The advantage of, particularly, the G7 is that there are only, oddly, nine people in the room, Carney said (meetings of the G7 typically include the presidents of the European Council and European Commission). And there is a great amount of direct dialogue and discussion. Very frank exchanges, very strategic exchanges. Differences of opinion on a number of issues. But from an effort to find common solutions to some of these problems. These exchanges, Carney said, are very important for building relationships and trust. At a time when multilateralism is under great strain … that we got together, that we agreed on a number of areas … that's important, that's valuable. However much the world has changed and whatever the state of American leadership, the members of the G7, including the United States, apparently still see value in gathering around the G7's table. Aaron Wherry (new window) · CBC News · Senior writer Aaron Wherry has covered Parliament Hill since 2007 and has written for Maclean's, the National Post and the Globe and Mail. He is the author of Promise & Peril, a book about Justin Trudeau's years in power.
