Latest news with #RonaldLauder
Business Recorder
08-07-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
The age of AI and its new currency
In the twentieth century, oil and its accessibility were one of the greatest geopolitical advantages a nation could have. Oil dictated wars, alliances, and the global balance of power. Nations rose or fell, fought or allied, all for a resource buried beneath desert sands and ocean floors. The world today, however, has drastically changed. A critical new resource is subtly redefining international relations—minerals, specifically rare earths, lithium, cobalt, and nickel. These minerals are the driving force behind technologies powering electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and advanced weaponry, making them indispensable to the new global order. Thus, a consequential shift has emerged: critical minerals now dictate global realignments, with nickel, cobalt, lithium, and rare earths forming the new geopolitical currency. China wisely anticipated this transition decades ago. Beijing now processes almost 90 percent of the world's rare-earth elements (REE), controlling nearly three-quarters of global cobalt refining. China also leads global lithium production chains. Securing strategic agreements from Latin America's 'Lithium Triangle' to cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, China has positioned itself securely ahead in a geopolitical race reminiscent of OPEC's dominance over oil markets. The US, in an effort to counterbalance this strategic deficit, seeks to reverse China's dominant position. Trump issued new executive orders to ramp up US domestic production immediately after taking oath, explicitly to limit dependency on Chinese imports; he also aimed to augment economic diplomacy to secure vital minerals abroad. Under President Trump's revived administration, America comes with a renewed international relations doctrine—it is demanding mineral access openly, using executive orders and bilateral agreements to push transactional diplomacy; a stark departure from his predecessors' approach. On 30 April 2025, the US and Ukraine formally signed their anticipated deal centered around minerals. In this minerals-for-investment agreement, the US gained priority access to Ukraine's critical minerals in exchange for capital and reconstruction support. Despite Kyiv's initial demand for security guarantees, the finalized pact provided none. The Ukrainian parliament unanimously ratified the deal, wishfully thinking higher US commercial stakes would bolster lasting peace and deter Russian aggression; none of that has happened so far. The deal, nevertheless, symbolizes a broader shift in US foreign policy under Trump: strategic support framed as commercial engagement, with direct diplomacy toward adversaries like Russia substituting for traditional alliance obligations. Since then, Ukraine has approved bidding for its major Dobra lithium field, involving US-backed firms such as TechMet and Ronald Lauder. Yet Ukraine's requests for Patriot air defence systems remain unanswered, with Trump indicating these may be sold rather than donated. At their NATO summit meeting on June 25, Zelensky proposed drone co-production with American companies, but Trump offered no concrete assurances, citing limited Patriot supplies allocated to Israel. Following Ukraine, Trump has also begun to look eastward, while countries quietly rework their strategies. Some countries are deepening ties with Washington to hedge against China's dominance yet remain skeptical of Trump's reluctance to offer security guarantees. Others are revamping their supply chains to prepare for the AI age. The Philippines, for example, is emerging as the next frontier for Trump's minerals-first foreign policy. Manila is pursuing approval of a sectoral FTA focused on critical minerals, particularly nickel. Currently, over 90% of its nickel exports go to China. Japan is deepening its role in the global EV supply chain through domestic investments — such as a US$143 million lithium-sulfide battery facility — and new extraction plans for seabed cobalt and nickel near Minami-Torishima. South Korea, meanwhile, is institutionalizing its mineral diplomacy by backing joint ventures in Africa, including a US$40 million graphite project in Tanzania under the Minerals Security Partnership. Both countries remain vital to US supply chain goals, yet neither is deemed critical enough to warrant formal US security guarantees—revealing a strategic asymmetry. Taiwan, the backbone of the global semiconductor supply chain, now faces dual pressure under Trump's second term. Washington is pushing for deeper TSMC-Intel partnerships to relocate chip production to US soil; TSMC has pledged over $100 billion for its Arizona 'Fab 21' facility to avoid tariffs, with Trump hailing it as proof of his reshoring doctrine. Prior to the latest U.S.-Taiwan Defence Industry Forum—led by former Army Secretary Christine Wormuth and contractors like Lockheed Martin—the Pentagon had notably declined to comment after Taiwan publicly affirmed US defence cooperation. The forum instead emphasized drone co-production, unmanned systems, and calls for Taiwan to increase its own defense spending. This reflects a growing Trump-era pattern: strategic economic integration without military guarantees, and a Ukraine-style push for allied rearmament absent alliance commitments. Pakistan also finds itself pressed into this uneasy environment; possessing mineral reserves estimated at over $3 billion in Gilgit-Baltistan alone. This figure, however, is just a glimpse of what lies beneath; the country has flaunted its much larger potential—nearly $6 trillion in mineral resources—at international investment forums aimed at attracting global capital. Weeks before recent Indian escalations along the northern border, Trump's administration explicitly expressed direct interest in Pakistan's minerals, notably in Gilgit-Baltistan and the Reko Diq copper-gold project. Canadian giant Barrick Gold, with significant US financing, recently finalized a US$440 million deal with Japanese manufacturer Komatsu to deliver mining equipment beginning in 2026—marking Komatsu's first major placement in the region and accompanied by a US$100 million service and maintenance hub in Karachi. Although Pakistan has yet to sign a formal bilateral mineral agreement with Washington, Trump's approach departs sharply from previous White House administrations. This divergence became pronounced on June 19, when Trump hosted Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, for an unprecedented White House lunch. Trump publicly praised Pakistan's role in defusing tensions with India and for capturing the Abbey Gate bombing suspect, yet stopped short of offering any explicit security guarantees or alliance framework. Privately, critical minerals, crypto initiatives, and tariff incentives reportedly dominated the discussion. Just days later, both countries agreed to finalize a bilateral trade framework that includes preferential access for Pakistani exports and U.S. participation in mining projects such as Reko Diq — reportedly backed by Ex-Im Bank financing of up to US$1 billion. Previous American administrations leveraged such overtures into broader security arrangements—deterring India through quiet diplomatic assurances—while Trump is currently seeking economic deals alone. His team continues to advance a Saudi minerals strategy as well. In May, California-based MP Materials signed a joint venture with Saudi Arabia's Maaden to establish a vertically integrated rare-earth magnet supply chain. Saudi Arabia—eager to diversify away from oil—offers the US a low-regulation environment and refining expertise. Meanwhile, India seizes the opportunity created by American ambiguity. Beyond traditional military aggression, India has weaponized water infrastructure upstream, strategically choking Pakistan's critical rivers. In this environment, Pakistan urgently needs more than transactional diplomacy — it needs credible partners willing to balance economic access with strategic reliability. Pakistan must strategically leverage its minerals in this new world without optical delusions. Islamabad must realize America under Trump seeks profitable clients rather than strategic allies. Pakistan's foreign policy should maturely recognize this distinction. Selling mineral rights or permitting investment offers short-term economic gains, but Pakistan must rely on more than economic transactions alone for security guarantees against aggressive neighbors. Pakistan faces two strategic choices. It can engage cautiously with Trump's transactional America — accepting investments, securing market access, and hedging against security risks. Alternatively, Islamabad's stance could revolve around deeper multilateral integration, drawing Pakistan closer to Western-led initiatives involving governance reforms, transparency standards, and broader strategic commitments, thus balancing existing ties with China. Both paths carry risks, yet indecision carries the greatest peril. Minerals have become the oil of the 21st century, and Pakistan, by virtue of its strategic location, sits squarely in the middle of this race. Its reaffirmation of CPEC, recent coordination with Beijing ahead of the SCO summit, and outreach to both Washington and Riyadh all reflect an uneasy calculus: how to remain indispensable without becoming dispensable. Pakistan's strategic ambiguity may have worked in an era of oil diplomacy, but today's mineral politics demand decisive clarity. Islamabad must understand this new game clearly—transactional diplomacy without security guarantees leaves nations susceptible. A resource-rich country can quickly find itself isolated, economically exploited, and strategically stranded. In a world increasingly shaped by minerals rather than oil, Pakistan's path forward must be defined by wise alignments, carefully chosen partners, and clear-eyed realism. The future demands no less. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Al Jazeera
06-07-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Ukraine's sovereignty was violated long before Trump
On June 16, the Ukrainian government started the process for opening bids for foreign companies to mine lithium deposits in the country. Among the interested investors is a consortium linked to Ronald S Lauder, who is believed to be close to United States President Donald Trump. The bid is part of a minerals deal signed in April that is supposed to give the US access to Ukraine's mineral wealth. The agreement was negotiated over months and was touted by Trump as 'payback' for US military support for the Ukrainian military. The final text, which the Ukrainian side has celebrated as 'more favourable' compared with previous iterations, paves the way for US investment in the mining and energy sectors in Ukraine. Investment decisions will be made jointly by US and Ukrainian officials, profits will not be taxed and US companies will get preferential treatment in tenders and auctions. Trump's demand for access to Ukrainian mineral wealth was slammed by many as infringing on Ukrainian sovereignty and being exploitative at a time when the country is fighting a war and is highly dependent on US arms supplies. But that is hardly an aberration in the record of relations between Ukraine and the West. For more than a decade now, Kyiv has faced Western pressure to make decisions that are not necessarily in the interests of its people. Interference in domestic affairs Perhaps the most well-known accusations of Western influence peddling have to do with the son of former US President Joe Biden – Hunter Biden. He became a board member of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma in May 2014, three months after Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian president of Ukraine, fled to Russia during nationwide protests. At that time, Joe Biden was not only vice president in President Barack Obama's administration but also its pointman on US-Ukrainian relations. Over five years, Hunter Biden earned up to $50,000 a month as a board member. The apparent conflict of interest in this case bothered even Ukraine's European allies. But Joe Biden's interference went much further than that. As vice president, he openly threatened then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko with blocking $1bn in US aid if he did not dismiss the Ukrainian prosecutor general, whom Washington opposed. When Biden became president, his administration – along with the European Union – put pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give foreign 'experts' a key role in the election of judges for Ukraine's courts. As a result, three of the six members on the Ethics Council of the High Council of Justice, which vets judges, are now members of international organisations. There was fierce opposition to this reform, even from within Zelenskyy's own political party. Nevertheless, he felt compelled to proceed. The Ukrainian government also adopted other unpopular laws under Western pressure. In 2020, the parliament passed a bill introduced by Zelenskyy that removed a ban on the sale of private farmland. Although polls consistently showed the majority of Ukrainians to be against such a move, pressure from the West forced the Ukrainian president's hand. Widespread protests against the move were muffled by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Subsequently, Ukraine's agricultural sector became even more dominated by large, export-oriented multinational companies with deleterious consequences for the country's food security. Attempts to challenge these unpopular laws were undermined by attacks on courts. For example, the Kyiv District Administrative Court ruled that the judicial reform law violated Ukraine's sovereignty and constitution, but this decision was invalidated when Zelenskyy dissolved the court after the US imposed sanctions on its head judge, Pavlo Vovk, over accusations of corruption. The Constitutional Court, where there were also attempts to challenge some of these laws, also faced pressure. In 2020, Zelenskyy tried to fire all the court's judges and annul their rulings but failed. Then in 2021, Oleksandr Tupytskyi, the chairman of the court, was sanctioned by the US, again over corruption accusations. This facilitated his removal shortly thereafter. With Western interference in Ukrainian internal affairs made so apparent, public confidence in the sovereignty of the state was undermined. A 2021 poll showed that nearly 40 percent of Ukrainians did not believe their country was fully independent. Economic sovereignty In step with interference in Ukraine's governance, its economy has also faced foreign pressures. In 2016, US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt urged the country to become an 'agricultural superpower'. And it appears that the country indeed has gone down that path, continuing the process of deindustrialisation. From 2010 to 2019, industry's share of Ukraine's gross domestic product fell by 3.7 percentage points while that of agriculture rose by 3.4 percentage points. This didn't benefit Ukrainians. UNICEF found that nearly 20 percent of Ukrainians suffered from 'moderate to severe food insecurity' from 2018 to 2020, a figure that rose to 28 percent by 2022. This is more than twice as high as the same figure for the EU. This is because the expansion of agriculture has favoured export-oriented monocrops like sunflowers, corn and soya beans. Although Ukraine became the world's biggest exporter of sunflower oil in 2019, a 2021 study found that the domination of agriculture by intensively farmed monoculture has put 40 percent of the country's soil at risk of depletion. The 2016 free trade agreement with the EU also encouraged low-cost exports. Due to the restrictive provisions of the agreement, Ukrainian business complained that domestic products were often unable to reach European markets while European producers flooded Ukraine. Ukraine had a 4-billion-euro ($4.7bn) trade deficit with the EU in 2021, exporting raw materials and importing processed goods and machinery. Meanwhile, Ukraine's industrial output collapsed under the blows of closed export markets, Western competition and neoliberal economic policies at home. According to the Ministry of Economy, by 2019, automobile production had shrunk to 31 percent of its 2012 level, train wagon production to 29.7 percent, machine tool production to 68.2 percent, metallurgical production to 70.8 percent and agricultural machinery production to 68.4 percent. In 2020, the government under the newly elected Zelenskyy tried to intervene. It proposed new legislation to protect Ukrainian industry, Bill 3739, which aimed to limit the amount of foreign goods purchased by Ukrainian state contracts. Member of parliament Dmytro Kiselevsky pointed to the fact that while only 5 to 8 percent of state contracts in the US and EU are fulfilled with imports, the same figures stood at 40 to 50 percent in Ukraine. But Bill 3739 was immediately criticised by the EU, the US and pro-Western NGOs in Ukraine. This was despite the fact that Western countries have a range of methods to protect their markets and state purchases from foreigners. Ultimately, Bill 3739 was passed with significant amendments that provided exceptions for companies from the US and the EU. The recent renewal of EU tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural exports, which had been lifted in 2022, is yet another confirmation that the West protects its own markets but wants unrestricted access to Ukraine's, to the detriment of the Ukrainian economy. Ukrainian officials worry that this move would cut economic growth this year from the projected 2.7 percent to 0.9 percent and cost the country $3.5bn in lost revenues. In light of all this, Trump's mineral deal reflects continuity in Western policy on Ukraine rather than a rupture. What the US president did differently was show to the public how Western leaders bully the Ukrainian government to get what they want – something that usually happens behind closed doors. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
New York Times
16-06-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Ukraine Takes First Step Toward Carrying Out Minerals Deal With U.S.
More than a month after Ukraine signed a landmark agreement granting the United States a stake in its mineral reserves, Kyiv is striving to show the Trump administration that the deal can deliver swift, tangible results. On Monday, Ukraine approved the first steps to allowing private investors to mine a major state-owned lithium deposit, two government officials said. Such a project would be the first to be greenlit under the deal. The government agreed to begin drafting recommendations for opening bidding by companies to mine the Dobra lithium field in central Ukraine, according to the two officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. It is one of Ukraine's largest fields of lithium, a mineral critical for producing electric batteries. Among the likely bidders is a consortium of investors that include TechMet, an energy investment firm partly owned by the U.S. government, and Ronald S. Lauder, a billionaire friend of President Trump's. The group has long expressed interest in the Dobra lithium deposit, urging President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in late 2023 to open bids. Under the broader deal, half the revenues the Ukrainian government earns from mineral extraction would go to a joint U.S.-Ukraine investment fund. Those revenues would then be reinvested in Ukraine's economy, though the United States would also claim a portion. Mr. Trump has portrayed that arrangement as repayment for past U.S. aid to the war-torn country. Drafting the recommendations is expected to take weeks, and the Ukrainian government could still decide against opening the bidding process. The Ukrainian government did not immediately publicly comment on Monday's decision. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Daily Mail
15-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Heir to billion-dollar beauty empire dies aged 92
Leonard Lauder, who for 17 years ran beauty behemoth Estée Lauder after his mother's death, has died aged 92. The American businessman was the eldest son of Estée Lauder, after whom the cosmetics brand she founded is named, and her husband Joseph. Lauder, along with his much-younger brother Ronald, 81, inherited control of the company from their parents. He was most recently estimated to be worth $32.3 billion, as of September 2021, making him at the time the 44th richest person in the world. Lauder died on Saturday, the company said without specifying a cause of death. More to come.
National Post
02-06-2025
- General
- National Post
FBI probing ‘improvised flame thrower' attack on Boulder Jews as hate crime
Article content 'Several individuals were brutally attacked while peacefully marching to draw attention to the plight of the hostages who have been held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza for 604 days,' he stated. 'I condemn this vicious act of terrorism and pray for the recovery of the victims.' Article content Leo Terrell, the head of the federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and a Department of Justice adviser, stated that 'this was not an isolated incident. This antisemitic terrorist attack is part of a horrific and escalating wave of violence targeting Jews and their supporters simply for being Jewish or standing up for Jewish lives. Article content Article content 'This latest antisemitic terrorist attack happened on the eve of a Jewish holiday, Shavuot, making it all the more chilling and cruel,' he said. 'This cannot continue. This must not be normalized.' Article content Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, stated that 'the attack in Boulder is another example of a wave of domestic terror aimed at the Jewish community,' a wave that 'must be the highest priority for the Trump administration and Congress.' Article content Article content Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, said that 'the firebombing of a peaceful march in Boulder, Colo.—organized to demand the release of hostages held by Hamas—is horrifying, but it should not come as a surprise. Article content Article content 'Since Oct. 7, we have been warning that antisemitism is not isolated to the margins. Supporters of Hamas are now emboldened and threatening towns and cities across America and the democratic world,' Lauder said. 'This attack, like the murders outside the Jewish museum in Washington, is part of a broader wave of hate that is being tolerated far too easily—from college campuses to government halls. Article content 'It is not just the Jewish community that suffers. This violence tears at the very fabric of our societies,' Lauder added. Article content The Anti-Defamation League said that it is 'closely monitoring' reports of a 'violent antisemitic attack during today's Run for Their Lives event in Boulder, Colo.,' which 'occurred at a weekly gathering where Jewish community members run and walk in solidarity with the hostages kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7.' Article content Article content The ADL Center on Extremism reviewed video footage of the suspect and believes he can be heard saying, 'How many children have you killed,' 'We have to end Zionists' and 'They are killers,' while gesturing 'toward what appears to be the victims of the attack.' Article content Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO and national director of the ADL, said that 'this is the second violent attack on the U.S. Jewish community in two weeks. Article content 'First, a young couple slaughtered in Washington, D.C. Now, a firebomb thrown at a group in Boulder, Colo., as they gathered to express solidarity with the 58 hostages still being held in Gaza by Hamas terrorists,' he stated. 'Two peaceful Jewish events that ended with rage-filled, violent attacks.' Article content Article content Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that '600-plus days of 'pro-Palestinian' protests in the U.S. have morphed into violent, antisemitic, pro-Hamas terrorism. Article content 'On May 21, a young Jewish woman and her Israeli embassy boyfriend gunned down in D.C.,' he wrote. 'Now American Jews targeted in Boulder. The FBI, and the Trump administration, know this foreign-fueled domestic terror must be stopped before more Americans are murdered.'
