Latest news with #US-origin
The Advertiser
6 days ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
'Biosecurity is not a bargaining chip': industry reacts to US beef backflip
A leading Australian beef industry analyst has said the lifting of import restrictions on US beef imports will have a virtually imperceptible impact on the day-to-day running of the Australian meat sector. Matt Dalgleish, Episode 3, said that while the news of US re-entry into the market, in the wake of the Australian government lifting biosecurity restrictions, sounded significant, the reality was far more circumspect. "US beef prices are sitting far above Australian values, there is no way commercially US producers would commercially look to send large volumes of beef to Australia," Mr Dalgleish said. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) today published its final review for expanded markets for fresh beef imports from the US. It said while the US has been able to export US-origin beef to Australia since 2019, this expanded access will now include products sourced from cattle born in Canada or Mexico, which are legally imported and slaughtered in the US. A DAFF spokesperson said a key factor in allowing the changes to import rules was the US introduction of more robust movement controls over the past 12 months which means that all cattle, from Canada and Mexico, can be identified and traced to the farm and through the supply chain. Mr Dalgleish said given current global markets and currency exchange rates at present he expected US beef exports to Australia would likely be limited to specialist lines. "Something like buffalo, which is classed as beef for export purpose, or maybe a pre-processed product like a brisket or ribs that a particular restaurant wants to bring in for an authentic American experience, this could be where you see some product coming here, but it is not going to be a competitor in the volume market" he said. "It is not going to be economically viable to do anything like the volumes required to create competition for the local market for Australian growers." To put it in context, Mr Dalgleish said the record for US beef exports to Australia peaked at just 290 tonnes, back in 1994-1995. This is just 0.07 per cent of what can flow the other way, with over 400,000 tonnes heading from Australia to the US last year. And Mr Dalgleish said logistically, there had already been exports going through. US beef that producers guaranteed had not been exposed to Canadian or Mexican supply chains has been allowed into Australia since 2019. Mr Dalgleish said data showed 270 tonnes came from the US to Australia in the 2024-25 financial year. "That is pretty close to the record already, and we haven't seen a big impact." "For me biosecurity is far and away the biggest issue and if the government is confident that is under control then there will be no negative impact for the industry, it's largely symbolic." Others within the industry had a similar train of thought. Guyra livestock producer and vet, James Jackson, was relatively sanguine about the announcement. Mr Jackson pointed out the 2019 rule change and said he was confident AQIS (the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) would have assessed all risks in making the decision to fully open access. He also said the exchange rate of the Aussie dollar compared to the US greenback would also stymie the progress of US beef here. "At the moment, there is a foot and mouth disease outbreak in Venezuela. We don't want that beef coming into the US by way of grey channels, being rebranded and then exported," Mr Jackson said. NSW Farmers biosecurity committee chair Tony Hegarty also said Australian farmers were happy to compete on an open global market, but was firm on biosecurity concerns needing to be factored in, saying he did not want to see it compromised in order to placate the Trump administration. "This deal must not comprise our agricultural industry or our nation's biosecurity, particularly with beef coming from Canada and Mexico," Mr Hegarty said. "Biosecurity is not a bargaining chip." Angus Australia's president Sinclair Munro also said he wanted assurance biosecurity would not be compromised. He said his organisation's expectations of the Australian government, on news of it lifting restrictions to US beef imports, were that the decision was backed with the utmost scientific studies and rigour. Cattle Australia branded the Albanese government's announcement that long-banned US beef will be allowed into Australia as a "little disappointing". A leading Australian beef industry analyst has said the lifting of import restrictions on US beef imports will have a virtually imperceptible impact on the day-to-day running of the Australian meat sector. Matt Dalgleish, Episode 3, said that while the news of US re-entry into the market, in the wake of the Australian government lifting biosecurity restrictions, sounded significant, the reality was far more circumspect. "US beef prices are sitting far above Australian values, there is no way commercially US producers would commercially look to send large volumes of beef to Australia," Mr Dalgleish said. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) today published its final review for expanded markets for fresh beef imports from the US. It said while the US has been able to export US-origin beef to Australia since 2019, this expanded access will now include products sourced from cattle born in Canada or Mexico, which are legally imported and slaughtered in the US. A DAFF spokesperson said a key factor in allowing the changes to import rules was the US introduction of more robust movement controls over the past 12 months which means that all cattle, from Canada and Mexico, can be identified and traced to the farm and through the supply chain. Mr Dalgleish said given current global markets and currency exchange rates at present he expected US beef exports to Australia would likely be limited to specialist lines. "Something like buffalo, which is classed as beef for export purpose, or maybe a pre-processed product like a brisket or ribs that a particular restaurant wants to bring in for an authentic American experience, this could be where you see some product coming here, but it is not going to be a competitor in the volume market" he said. "It is not going to be economically viable to do anything like the volumes required to create competition for the local market for Australian growers." To put it in context, Mr Dalgleish said the record for US beef exports to Australia peaked at just 290 tonnes, back in 1994-1995. This is just 0.07 per cent of what can flow the other way, with over 400,000 tonnes heading from Australia to the US last year. And Mr Dalgleish said logistically, there had already been exports going through. US beef that producers guaranteed had not been exposed to Canadian or Mexican supply chains has been allowed into Australia since 2019. Mr Dalgleish said data showed 270 tonnes came from the US to Australia in the 2024-25 financial year. "That is pretty close to the record already, and we haven't seen a big impact." "For me biosecurity is far and away the biggest issue and if the government is confident that is under control then there will be no negative impact for the industry, it's largely symbolic." Others within the industry had a similar train of thought. Guyra livestock producer and vet, James Jackson, was relatively sanguine about the announcement. Mr Jackson pointed out the 2019 rule change and said he was confident AQIS (the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) would have assessed all risks in making the decision to fully open access. He also said the exchange rate of the Aussie dollar compared to the US greenback would also stymie the progress of US beef here. "At the moment, there is a foot and mouth disease outbreak in Venezuela. We don't want that beef coming into the US by way of grey channels, being rebranded and then exported," Mr Jackson said. NSW Farmers biosecurity committee chair Tony Hegarty also said Australian farmers were happy to compete on an open global market, but was firm on biosecurity concerns needing to be factored in, saying he did not want to see it compromised in order to placate the Trump administration. "This deal must not comprise our agricultural industry or our nation's biosecurity, particularly with beef coming from Canada and Mexico," Mr Hegarty said. "Biosecurity is not a bargaining chip." Angus Australia's president Sinclair Munro also said he wanted assurance biosecurity would not be compromised. He said his organisation's expectations of the Australian government, on news of it lifting restrictions to US beef imports, were that the decision was backed with the utmost scientific studies and rigour. Cattle Australia branded the Albanese government's announcement that long-banned US beef will be allowed into Australia as a "little disappointing". A leading Australian beef industry analyst has said the lifting of import restrictions on US beef imports will have a virtually imperceptible impact on the day-to-day running of the Australian meat sector. Matt Dalgleish, Episode 3, said that while the news of US re-entry into the market, in the wake of the Australian government lifting biosecurity restrictions, sounded significant, the reality was far more circumspect. "US beef prices are sitting far above Australian values, there is no way commercially US producers would commercially look to send large volumes of beef to Australia," Mr Dalgleish said. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) today published its final review for expanded markets for fresh beef imports from the US. It said while the US has been able to export US-origin beef to Australia since 2019, this expanded access will now include products sourced from cattle born in Canada or Mexico, which are legally imported and slaughtered in the US. A DAFF spokesperson said a key factor in allowing the changes to import rules was the US introduction of more robust movement controls over the past 12 months which means that all cattle, from Canada and Mexico, can be identified and traced to the farm and through the supply chain. Mr Dalgleish said given current global markets and currency exchange rates at present he expected US beef exports to Australia would likely be limited to specialist lines. "Something like buffalo, which is classed as beef for export purpose, or maybe a pre-processed product like a brisket or ribs that a particular restaurant wants to bring in for an authentic American experience, this could be where you see some product coming here, but it is not going to be a competitor in the volume market" he said. "It is not going to be economically viable to do anything like the volumes required to create competition for the local market for Australian growers." To put it in context, Mr Dalgleish said the record for US beef exports to Australia peaked at just 290 tonnes, back in 1994-1995. This is just 0.07 per cent of what can flow the other way, with over 400,000 tonnes heading from Australia to the US last year. And Mr Dalgleish said logistically, there had already been exports going through. US beef that producers guaranteed had not been exposed to Canadian or Mexican supply chains has been allowed into Australia since 2019. Mr Dalgleish said data showed 270 tonnes came from the US to Australia in the 2024-25 financial year. "That is pretty close to the record already, and we haven't seen a big impact." "For me biosecurity is far and away the biggest issue and if the government is confident that is under control then there will be no negative impact for the industry, it's largely symbolic." Others within the industry had a similar train of thought. Guyra livestock producer and vet, James Jackson, was relatively sanguine about the announcement. Mr Jackson pointed out the 2019 rule change and said he was confident AQIS (the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) would have assessed all risks in making the decision to fully open access. He also said the exchange rate of the Aussie dollar compared to the US greenback would also stymie the progress of US beef here. "At the moment, there is a foot and mouth disease outbreak in Venezuela. We don't want that beef coming into the US by way of grey channels, being rebranded and then exported," Mr Jackson said. NSW Farmers biosecurity committee chair Tony Hegarty also said Australian farmers were happy to compete on an open global market, but was firm on biosecurity concerns needing to be factored in, saying he did not want to see it compromised in order to placate the Trump administration. "This deal must not comprise our agricultural industry or our nation's biosecurity, particularly with beef coming from Canada and Mexico," Mr Hegarty said. "Biosecurity is not a bargaining chip." Angus Australia's president Sinclair Munro also said he wanted assurance biosecurity would not be compromised. He said his organisation's expectations of the Australian government, on news of it lifting restrictions to US beef imports, were that the decision was backed with the utmost scientific studies and rigour. Cattle Australia branded the Albanese government's announcement that long-banned US beef will be allowed into Australia as a "little disappointing". A leading Australian beef industry analyst has said the lifting of import restrictions on US beef imports will have a virtually imperceptible impact on the day-to-day running of the Australian meat sector. Matt Dalgleish, Episode 3, said that while the news of US re-entry into the market, in the wake of the Australian government lifting biosecurity restrictions, sounded significant, the reality was far more circumspect. "US beef prices are sitting far above Australian values, there is no way commercially US producers would commercially look to send large volumes of beef to Australia," Mr Dalgleish said. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) today published its final review for expanded markets for fresh beef imports from the US. It said while the US has been able to export US-origin beef to Australia since 2019, this expanded access will now include products sourced from cattle born in Canada or Mexico, which are legally imported and slaughtered in the US. A DAFF spokesperson said a key factor in allowing the changes to import rules was the US introduction of more robust movement controls over the past 12 months which means that all cattle, from Canada and Mexico, can be identified and traced to the farm and through the supply chain. Mr Dalgleish said given current global markets and currency exchange rates at present he expected US beef exports to Australia would likely be limited to specialist lines. "Something like buffalo, which is classed as beef for export purpose, or maybe a pre-processed product like a brisket or ribs that a particular restaurant wants to bring in for an authentic American experience, this could be where you see some product coming here, but it is not going to be a competitor in the volume market" he said. "It is not going to be economically viable to do anything like the volumes required to create competition for the local market for Australian growers." To put it in context, Mr Dalgleish said the record for US beef exports to Australia peaked at just 290 tonnes, back in 1994-1995. This is just 0.07 per cent of what can flow the other way, with over 400,000 tonnes heading from Australia to the US last year. And Mr Dalgleish said logistically, there had already been exports going through. US beef that producers guaranteed had not been exposed to Canadian or Mexican supply chains has been allowed into Australia since 2019. Mr Dalgleish said data showed 270 tonnes came from the US to Australia in the 2024-25 financial year. "That is pretty close to the record already, and we haven't seen a big impact." "For me biosecurity is far and away the biggest issue and if the government is confident that is under control then there will be no negative impact for the industry, it's largely symbolic." Others within the industry had a similar train of thought. Guyra livestock producer and vet, James Jackson, was relatively sanguine about the announcement. Mr Jackson pointed out the 2019 rule change and said he was confident AQIS (the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) would have assessed all risks in making the decision to fully open access. He also said the exchange rate of the Aussie dollar compared to the US greenback would also stymie the progress of US beef here. "At the moment, there is a foot and mouth disease outbreak in Venezuela. We don't want that beef coming into the US by way of grey channels, being rebranded and then exported," Mr Jackson said. NSW Farmers biosecurity committee chair Tony Hegarty also said Australian farmers were happy to compete on an open global market, but was firm on biosecurity concerns needing to be factored in, saying he did not want to see it compromised in order to placate the Trump administration. "This deal must not comprise our agricultural industry or our nation's biosecurity, particularly with beef coming from Canada and Mexico," Mr Hegarty said. "Biosecurity is not a bargaining chip." Angus Australia's president Sinclair Munro also said he wanted assurance biosecurity would not be compromised. He said his organisation's expectations of the Australian government, on news of it lifting restrictions to US beef imports, were that the decision was backed with the utmost scientific studies and rigour. Cattle Australia branded the Albanese government's announcement that long-banned US beef will be allowed into Australia as a "little disappointing".
Indian Express
22-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Who is US Senator Lindsey Graham, and why has he threatened 100% tariffs on India?
In continuation of the Trump administration's increasingly critical stance on Russia of late, Senator Lindsey Graham of the Republican Party criticised countries that continue to trade with Russia. 'Trump is going to impose tariffs on people that buy Russian oil – China, India, and Brazil,' Graham told Fox News in an interview. These three countries account for around 80 per cent of Russia's crude exports, which Graham argued is helping in funding the war in Ukraine. These remarks follow similar remarks by US President Donald Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte, who promised tough sanctions on Russia in retaliation for its continued war with Ukraine. Graham is sponsoring a tough sanctions bill on Russia, which, if passed by Congress, would impose 500% tariffs on countries that purchase Russian oil, like China and India. Here is what to know about the Senator and the bill he is sponsoring. Graham is a former US Air Force officer and attorney who has served as the US Senator from South Carolina's 3rd Congressional District since 2003. He is presently the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, and previously chaired the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary between 2019 and 2021. Notably, Graham served as a member of the USAF Reserve while in Congress, and held the rank of colonel when he retired in 2015. Not too long ago, Graham was a presidential hopeful and sought the Republican nomination in 2016, earning the endorsement of former Republican presidential candidate John McCain. While Graham had criticised Trump's candidacy at the time, he changed tack after Trump entered the White House. He is known for his endorsement of aggressive interventionist foreign policy and sweeping immigration reform. In the past, he has been open to bipartisan consensus on issues ranging from climate change and gun control legislation, while also pushing for increased national security spending and a ban on abortion at 20 weeks. Sponsored by Graham, the sweeping bill was introduced in the US Senate on April 1 and threatens penalties on all parties working with Russia, particularly if Trump determines that Russia is: The bill authorises the president to impose sanctions, including blocking visas and properties as applicable on top members of the Kremlin, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as Russian and Russian-origin financial institutions. It authorises economic sanctions to the tune of 500% tariffs on all imports from Russia into the US, as well as up to 500% tariffs on countries trading with the US while importing Russian-origin uranium and petroleum products. The bill also prohibits rerouting the trade of US-origin energy products to Russia. India has maintained a 'Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership' with Russia since 2010, with strong bilateral ties in several areas of interest, including political, security, trade and economy, defence, science and technology and culture. Sanctions targeting Russia, if realised, would invariably impact India given the extent of trade, and force it to consider other importers. In FY 2024-25, bilateral trade between the two nations peaked at $68.7 billion, about 5.8 times the pre-pandemic trade of $10.1 billion. India maintains a trade deficit with Russia, with Russian imports, dominated by petro-oil products and fertilisers, valued at $63.84 billion, and Indian exports valued at $4.88 billion for this period. India and Russia aim to achieve $100 billion in trade by 2030. In May 2025, India imported Russian crude oil at about 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd), its highest value in 10 months, according to a Reuters report. A significant share of this order can be credited to the $13 billion megadeal between Reliance Industries and Russia's state oil firm Rosneft last December, which would supply nearly 500,000 bpd of crude oil. The two nations also committed to increasing bilateral investment to $50 billion by 2025. In December 2024, Russian investments in India, primarily in sectors like oil and gas, petrochemicals, steel and banking, were valued at $20 billion. Indian investments in Russia were valued at $16 billion in October 2023. China is Russia's largest trading partner, with trade valued at $237 billion in 2024, according to Chinese customs data cited in a Reuters report. Brazil also counts Russia as one of its 15 top trading partners, with bilateral trade in 2022 valued at $9.8 billion. How the bill is progressing The momentum on the bill picked up earlier this month, even as President Trump expressed his frustration with the perceived non-compliance of Russia in ending its three-year-long war with Ukraine. Until about a month ago, Trump had described Putin as a 'nice gentleman', while calling his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy a 'dictator' who was toying with World War III. However, he took a step back from this position last week, saying he was 'disappointed' with Putin, even as he was 'not done with him'. Trump also said he planned to send weapons to Ukraine, after halting American military supplies to the country after entering the White House in January. Putin has long expressed his interest in retaining control of the Ukrainian territories currently occupied by Russia, barring Ukrainian entry to NATO (seen as a threat to Russian sovereignty), and replacing Zelenskyy with a Russia-friendly president. For Trump, the failure to end the war dents his image as a dealmaker, who can bring countries to the table for negotiations that seemingly favour his America First agenda. The rhetoric from Graham aside, it may be a while before the bill sees the light of day. According to Politico reporting, the bill in its current form would require layers of congressional approval for the US President to introduce sanctions. However, Trump has often favoured an autocratic style of governance that bypasses congressional approval. The report suggested that Team Trump would favour revising the bill accordingly.
Business Recorder
22-07-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
FDI – little and still late
Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Pakistan edged up in FY25, reaching $2.46 billion—just a 4.67 percent increase from $2.35 billion in FY24. While this modest rise may appear encouraging, it falls short of signalling a strong investment revival. Instead, it reflects a patchy and uneven recovery, with gains in a few sectors and countries offset by ongoing weaknesses elsewhere. Beneath the surface, the numbers reveal a deeper story—one of selective investor interest, persistent volatility, and structural challenges that continue to weigh on Pakistan's long-term investment appeal. Much of the headline growth was driven by a surge in power sector investments, which more than doubled from $649 million to $1.17 billion in FY25. This was led by capital inflows into coal and hydropower projects. The financial sector also posted growth with FDI rising from $642 million to $703 million in FY25, highlighting increased interest in Pakistan's banking and fintech ecosystem. Similarly, investments in electrical machinery and mining suggested growing attention toward the country's industrial and extractive potential. Yet, this momentum was uneven. Sectors such as telecommunications experienced a net outflow of $131 million in FY25, up from $44 million the previous year. Construction also saw a decline, signalling waning investor confidence in real estate and infrastructure development. These outflows likely reflect divestments and exit by foreign firms, underscoring the lingering risks perceived by multinational players. Country-wise, China emerged as the dominant investor, nearly doubling its net FDI to $1.22 billion in FY25, reaffirming its long-standing economic partnership with Pakistan. The UAE and Hong Kong also increased their investments. In contrast, US-origin FDI plummeted from $110 million to just $30 million—highlighting alignment with regional capital but a continuing reluctance from Western investors. Monthly trends further highlighted volatility: FDI peaked in September and November 2024, followed by inconsistent flows for the remainder of the year. This choppiness reflects an uncertain investment climate where structural concerns undercut temporary optimism. These structural issues are not new. Over the past five years, Pakistan has witnessed a steady decline in the presence of global giants. Oil majors like Shell and TotalEnergies have exited; tech firms such as Uber, Careem, and Microsoft have scaled back or withdrawn altogether; and pharmaceutical multinationals, including Pfizer, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Bayer, have divested their operations. The reasons are familiar: unpredictable tax regimes, foreign exchange controls, difficulty repatriating profits, and an overregulated formal sector that struggles to compete with the informal economy. Even in FY25, despite achieving a rare combination of a $2.1 billion current account surplus and a second consecutive primary fiscal surplus, investor hesitation remained. These macroeconomic wins were primarily attributed to increased remittance inflows and the State Bank's aggressive dollar buying, which helped stabilize reserves. But while macro indicators improved, they did little to restore trust in Pakistan's investment climate. Structural weaknesses partly explain the cautious mood among foreign investors. Portfolio investments stayed negative despite a booming stock market, and investor concerns about inconsistent tax policies, regulatory overreach, and a high burden on formal sector businesses persisted. Even Sectors like information technology and exports continue to show promise, but their scale remains insufficient. FDI in FY25, though slightly higher at $2.4 billion, still fell short of what is needed. If Pakistan wants to maintain a stable external position while promoting growth, it needs steady inflows—not just from remittances, but also from foreign investors. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Fibre2Fashion
17-07-2025
- Business
- Fibre2Fashion
Brazil cotton prices ease in early July amid record harvest hopes
While global cotton prices strengthened in mid-July due to firm demand for US-origin fibre, Brazil saw domestic quotations retreat, driven by the progress of what may be a record-breaking harvest. Despite prices in Brazil remaining above international levels, the gap has narrowed, diminishing the domestic market's pricing advantage, as per the Center for Advanced Studies on Applied Economics (CEPEA). According to the CEPEA/ESALQ Index, Brazilian cotton prices dipped by 0.32 per cent between June 30 and July 15, settling at BRL 4.1324 (~$0.74) per pound on July 15, CEPEA said in its latest fortnightly report on the Brazilian cotton market. Brazilian cotton prices fell 0.32 per cent between June 30 and July 15 despite firm global demand, as the 2024â€'25 harvest progresses towards a potential record 3.938 million tons. The price gap with global markets narrowed. As of July 12, 13.6 per cent of the area was harvested. USDA forecasts 2025â€'26 global production at 25.783 million tons, closely matching consumption. The decline coincides with updated projections from National Supply Company (CONAB) (July 10), which now pegs Brazil's 2024-25 cotton output at 3.938 million tons—an increase of 0.65 per cent from June's estimate and 6.4 per cent above the 2023-24 season. The planted area is projected at 2.084 million hectares, up 0.11 per cent month-on-month and 7.2 per cent year-on-year. Productivity is forecast at 1,890 kg/ha, 0.7 per cent lower than last season, but 0.53 per cent higher than June's forecast. As of July 12, harvest progress reached 13.6 per cent of the planted area, below the five-year average of 19.2 per cent for the same period. Globally, USDA's July 11 report forecasts 2025-26 world cotton production at 25.783 million tons—up 1.2 per cent from the previous month but 1.2 per cent lower than 2024-25 levels. Global consumption is expected to reach 25.718 million tons, reflecting increases of 1.2 per cent month-on-month and 0.3 per cent year-on-year. This would leave global consumption just 0.3 per cent short of overall supply in the 2025-26 season, signalling a near-balanced market. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (KD)
The Star
15-07-2025
- Business
- The Star
Miti's AI chip export rule to have no impact on data centres
KUALA LUMPUR: MIDF Amanah Investment Bank Bhd believes that data centres will not be affected by the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry's (MITI) latest directive on artificial intelligence (AI) chips. The ministry has issued a directive which requires all exports, transshipments and transits of high-performance AI chips of United States (US) origin in Malaysia to obtain a Strategic Trade Permit (STP). In a research note today, the investment bank said the import of US-made advanced AI chips for use in domestic servers does not fall under the scope of the new rules unless the data centre operators intend to move the chips out of Malaysia. "There is zero impact from this directive in our opinion, as far as data centres in Malaysia are concerned. This is not an additional red tape that could delay the process of setting up a data centre in Malaysia,' it said. MIDF noted that since the beginning of the year, it has consistently reiterated that most new data centres are AI-ready, though some may eventually be used for non-AI purposes. The investment bank said the directive primarily addresses the movement of AI chips out of Malaysia, which it views as a prudent move by MITI to prevent suspected smuggling of chips into China through intermediaries. "This shows Malaysia's willingness to take responsibility for the movement of US-origin AI chips out of the country by stepping up its enforcement,' it added. MIDF said negotiations between Malaysia and the US will likely focus on regulatory enforcement, end-user monitoring, and the seriousness in addressing violations of the control measures. "MITI's latest directive covers all these. It is hoped that this will be able to placate the US when negotiating the restrictions of AI chip exports under Trump's refashioned AI Diffusion Rule,' it said. It added that speculation is growing around a possible shift from the current three-tiered country system to a licensing regime based on government-to-government agreements. This could mean that firms headquartered in the US or its close allies may no longer be restricted by the current seven per cent AI computing power limit for countries outside Tier 1, which allows for more AI capacities to be planned in countries such as Malaysia. "Regardless of the changes from Biden's rescinded Framework of AI Diffusion to the new rule being rewritten by the Trump administration, MIDF believes the essence remains, which is to contain China's AI advancement and ensure that US AI chips are not used to train Chinese AI models,' noted MIDF. - Bernama
