09/27 – International News Update

The Israeli military reported that it hit Hezbollah’s central headquarters in Beirut. The Friday evening explosions marked the most intense strikes witnessed in the Lebanese capital over the past year.

According to Israeli army spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, the strikes targeted Hezbollah’s main headquarters, which was located underneath residential buildings. Airstrikes on Hezbollah sites continued into early Saturday after the military had warned residents to evacuate from three targeted buildings.

Lebanon’s health ministry reports that over 720 people have been killed in the country this week. Israel has significantly intensified its strikes, stating that its focus is on Hezbollah’s military assets and high-ranking commanders. [AP News]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cut short his trip to the United States and decided to return to Israel ahead of the end of the Sabbath on Saturday evening, according to his office. Just hours earlier, Netanyahu had addressed the United Nations, promising that Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah would persist, diminishing hopes for a cease-fire supported by the international community.

President Joe Biden expressed to confidantes and allies this week that he did not believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was interested in ending the conflict with Hezbollah, voicing growing frustration as a proposed cease-fire plan unraveled, according to two sources familiar with the discussions. [Politico]

One individual who spoke with Biden mentioned that the president felt Netanyahu had embarrassed both Secretary Antony Blinken and himself with his indecisiveness regarding the cease-fire proposal with Hezbollah.

Netanyahu at first told U.S. officials he supported a pause in fighting with the Lebanon-based militant group, then roundly rejected the cease-fire proposal once it was made public.

The revelation comes amid intensifying Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, culminating Friday with a strike on the militant group’s headquarters in Beirut. The target of that attack was Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, according to a U.S. official, two Israeli officials and two other people informed of the strike. [Politico]

It has just been confirmed that Nasrallah was killed in the attack — which came just after Netanyhu delivered a fiery address to the United Nations — dramatically escalates the conflict in Lebanon and could undermine the Biden administration’s effort to clinch a cease-fire and head-off a full-scale war.

Nasrallah’s death from Friday’s attack, represents one of the most consequential Israeli strikes against Hezbollah in decades. Nasrallah has led the Iran-backed militant organization since 1992, following Israel’s assassination of his predecessor.

According to two U.S. administration officials, this latest strike could further strain the relationship between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Biden administration has repeatedly been caught off guard by Israel’s bold actions during delicate cease-fire negotiations, including recent incidents where Israel detonated pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah, which reportedly led to civilian casualties.

Firas Maksad, a Lebanon expert at the Middle East Institute, remarked, “Whether or not Israel was successful in killing Nasrallah today, this will no doubt be a marked escalation in the conflict that will put us beyond the threshold of an all-out war.” He added that the situation is particularly concerning as Israeli ground troops seem to be gearing up for an invasion of southern Lebanon. [Politico]

Opinion:

Since Hezbollah began launching missiles at Israel on October 8th last year, the threat of escalation has loomed over Israelis, Lebanese, and the international community. That escalation now seems to be materializing. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is intensifying. Over 500 people died in a single day of Israeli airstrikes targeting Hezbollah leaders and its arsenal.

100,000 Lebanese civilians have been displaced, fleeing from southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah retaliates. On September 25th, Israel intercepted a ballistic missile aimed at Tel Aviv—the first time Hezbollah targeted Israel’s commercial hub.

Despite how dire things seem, the situation could deteriorate even further. Israel has massed more troops in the north than at any time in the past nine months. Still, a full-scale ground invasion would require even more forces, stationed near the border. There is growing fear that both sides are heading towards a devastating escalation. Yet, both have reasons to pull back. An all-out war would only result in a high death toll and a return to the previous deadlock that existed before October 7th.

Israel claims to have wiped out up to 50% of Hezbollah’s arsenal, but the militia has over 120,000 rockets and missiles remaining, which could inflict significant damage. Even with Israel’s military strength, a clear victory is not guaranteed, as previous conflicts in Lebanon have demonstrated. A ground invasion would pit Israel’s fatigued troops, following months of operations in Gaza, against a well-armed, battle-hardened foe in familiar territory. Moreover, a second major conflict would seriously damage Israel’s economy, while Israeli strikes on Lebanon’s infrastructure would worsen an already catastrophic economic situation, with Lebanon’s GDP less than half of what it was in 2019 due to poor governance.

Iran, Hezbollah’s key backer, also seems cautious about a broader conflict. Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, told the UN this week that Iran would not allow Israel to provoke a regional war. It’s possible that Iran prefers to keep Hezbollah’s resources intact as a deterrent against a direct Israeli attack on Iranian soil.

Israel has its own reasons for de-escalation. It cannot fully eliminate Hezbollah, only weaken it. After causing substantial damage to the militia since July, Israel may soon find itself running out of viable targets. Once it has exhausted Hezbollah’s stock of medium-range rockets and taken out key leaders, the risk of killing the group’s main political figures, like Hassan Nasrallah, could push Hezbollah—and by extension, Iran—into using its remaining arsenal. That’s a red line Israel would prefer not to cross.

The most promising exit from this conflict might lie to the south. Nasrallah had indicated he would cease fire on Israel if a truce were reached in Gaza.

Unfortunately, a truce in Gaza seems elusive, largely due to the stubbornness of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. A cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, as called for by the U.S., much of Europe, and several Arab nations, seems more attainable. With pressure from Iran, Hezbollah might be convinced to back down, and Israel might feel it has done enough, at least for now. Even an unofficial truce would bring some much-needed relief.

Such a pause would at least allow displaced Israelis in the north and Lebanese in the south to return to their homes. While Israel would still face the looming threat of a heavily armed adversary near its border, one truce is better than none at all. Though it wouldn’t guarantee lasting peace, a cease-fire would certainly buy some time before the next inevitable conflict arises.

9/25 – International News Update

On Monday, Israel’s military launched airstrikes against Hezbollah sites in Lebanon, with Lebanese officials reporting that 492 people had been killed, marking the deadliest day in the country in decades and forcing tens of thousands to flee. 

Following one of the heaviest cross-border firefights since the outbreak of hostilities in October, Israel issued a warning to the Lebanese population to leave areas where Hezbollah was allegedly storing weapons. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a brief video to the Lebanese, stating: “Israel’s war is not with you, it’s with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has used you as human shields for far too long.” [Reuters 1]  

Families in southern Lebanon packed their cars, vans, and trucks with belongings, with entire generations of families crammed into single vehicles. As airstrikes fell around them, children sat on their parents’ laps, and belongings were tied to car roofs. Highways heading north were severely congested. 

After nearly a year of conflict against Hamas in Gaza, Israel is now turning its attention to the northern front, where Hezbollah, backed by Iran, has been launching rockets into Israel in support of Hamas, also an Iranian ally. Israel’s military stated it hit Hezbollah targets in southern, eastern, and northern Lebanon, striking “launchers, command posts, and terrorist infrastructure,” totaling about 1,600 strikes in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.

Lebanon’s health ministry reported that at least 492 people, including 35 children, had been killed and 1,645 wounded. According to one Lebanese official, this was the highest daily death toll since the 1975-1990 civil war.

On Tuesday, Israel and Hezbollah exchanged fire again, with Israel launching an airstrike on Beirut causing thousands of residents from southern Lebanon to flee as tensions between the two parties neared the verge of full-scale war. 

Lebanese authorities reported that 558 people were killed in airstrikes on Monday, including 50 children and 94 women. Additionally, 1,835 individuals were wounded, and tens of thousands have fled their homes seeking safety. [Reuters 2] 

Concerns are mounting that the U.S., a close ally of Israel, and Iran could be drawn into a larger regional conflict. Saudi Arabia expressed grave concern on Monday, urging restraint from all parties, as reported by the state news agency SPA.

A senior U.S. State Department official reiterated that Washington did not support a cross-border escalation between Israel and Hezbollah, and that discussions with allies and partners were underway to explore “concrete ideas” to prevent the conflict from expanding. Israeli officials have suggested that the increased airstrikes against Hezbollah are intended to pressure the group into accepting a diplomatic resolution

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, speaking in New York, accused Israel of attempting to drag the Middle East into a larger war by provoking Iran to intervene in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. “It is Israel that seeks to create this all-out conflict,” Pezeshkian told reporters, warning of the irreversible consequences of such instability. [Reuters 1]  

According to an Israeli military spokesperson, Israeli jets targeted 1,300 Hezbollah sites on Monday, reportedly destroying a significant number of the group’s rockets. Lebanon’s Health Minister mentioned that some of the strikes affected hospitals, medical facilities, and ambulances. Israeli military spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari stated that Israel will take “whatever is necessary” to remove Hezbollah from Lebanon’s border but did not specify a timeline. 

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared that Monday marked a “significant peak” in the conflict, which has now lasted nearly a year. “On this day, we have neutralized tens of thousands of rockets and precision weapons. What Hezbollah has built over 20 years since the second Lebanon War is now being destroyed by the IDF,” Gallant said in a statement. [Reuters 1] 

Displaced families found shelter in makeshift spaces set up in schools in both Beirut and Sidon. Meanwhile, heavy traffic clogged the border with Syria as many fled Lebanon for safety. The IDF’s chief of staff announced that the military is preparing for a potential ground offensive in Lebanon.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken urged both Israel and Hezbollah to step back from their escalating conflict, warning that an all-out war would be devastating for the region and its people.

In New York for the UN General Assembly, Blinken revealed on Wednesday that the U.S. is working on a plan to reduce tensions and enable the return of tens of thousands of Israelis and Lebanese who have been displaced from their homes near the border.

“The best way to achieve that is not through war or escalation,” Blinken said in an interview with CBS news. “It would be through a diplomatic agreement that has forces pulled back from the border, creates a secure environment, and allows people to return home.”

U.S. officials mentioned that they are exploring various ideas to ease the situation, but did not provide specific details.

Some of these ideas may be discussed during a special UN Security Council meeting on Lebanon that France requested for later Wednesday.

“We are focused on de-escalation right now, working with many partners here in New York at the UN General Assembly, the Arab world, Europeans, and others,” Blinken said. “A full-scale war, which we don’t currently have and are working to prevent, wouldn’t resolve the issue.”

While addressing troops on Israel’s northern border, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi said: “You can hear the jets flying overhead; we’ve been striking all day. This is both to prepare the ground for your potential entry and to continue weakening Hezbollah.”

He continued: “Today, Hezbollah increased its range of fire, and they will receive a strong response later today. Be ready.”

Halevi further noted that in order to facilitate the return of displaced citizens in northern Israel to their homes, “we are preparing for the possibility of a maneuver.” 

Hezbollah fired dozens of missiles at an Israeli military base in northern Israel. Sirens warning of rocket fire sounded across northern Israel, including Haifa and parts of the northern occupied West Bank. 

Approximately 60,000 people have been evacuated from northern Israel as the cross-border clashes continue. Gallant stated that the military campaign would persist until residents could safely return to their homes, while Hezbollah vowed to fight until there was a ceasefire in Gaza.

An Israeli airstrike on Beirut on Tuesday resulted in the death of a senior Hezbollah commander, escalating concerns of an all-out war in the Middle East as cross-border rocket attacks intensified. According to Israel’s military, the strike targeted and killed Ibrahim Qubaisi, identified as the commander of Hezbollah’s missile and rocket forces. Two security sources in Lebanon confirmed that Qubaisi held a prominent role in the Iran-backed group’s rocket division. [Reuters 2] 

On Wednesday, Israel expanded its airstrikes across Lebanon and intercepted a missile that Hezbollah claimed to have fired at the Mossad intelligence agency near Tel Aviv, intensifying the conflict between the two adversaries. 

Lebanon’s Health Minister reported that at least 51 people were killed and 223 wounded in Israeli airstrikes on Wednesday at five different locations across the country. [Reuters 3] 

The Iran-backed Hezbollah stated that it launched a ballistic missile targeting Mossad headquarters—marking the first time in nearly a year of conflict that Tel Aviv, located in central Israel, faced such a direct threat. 

The Wednesday missile launch by Hezbollah was the first sighting of one of its missiles over Tel Aviv since the war began last October. Israeli authorities confirmed that the missile aimed at Tel Aviv was intercepted by a David’s Sling missile, a defense system designed to neutralize ballistic missiles at low altitude. [Reuters 3] 

White House national security spokesperson John Kirby expressed deep concern over the missile attack on Mossad, yet emphasized that the U.S. continues to believe a diplomatic resolution is possible to reduce the violence.

Lebanon has stated that only U.S. intervention could potentially halt the ongoing conflict. Health Minister Firass Abiad told the BBC that Israel’s actions have caused widespread “carnage,” severely impacting civilians, including women and children.

Hezbollah holds Mossad responsible for the assassinations of its leaders and has also accused the spy agency of an operation last week in which explosive-laden pagers and radios of Hezbollah members were detonated, killing 39 and injuring nearly 3,000. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in this incident.

Exploding Pagers Attack

The operation in reference was a Mossad-orchestrated attack which caused hundreds of pagers and walkie-talkie radio transmitters that Hezbollah used for communications, to all explode simultaneously. 

On Tuesday September 17, pagers carried by hundreds of Hezbollah members detonated almost simultaneously in various parts of Lebanon and Syria, killing at least 12 people, including two children, and injuring thousands. An anonymous U.S. official confirmed that Israel had briefed the U.S. on the operation, revealing that small amounts of explosives had been hidden in the pagers. While the Lebanese government and Hezbollah blamed Israel for the attack, the Israeli military, known for its sophisticated covert operations, declined to comment.

The following day, additional detonations occurred in Beirut and other parts of Lebanon, including several explosions heard at a funeral for Hezbollah members killed in Tuesday’s attacks. According to the Health Ministry, at least 25 people were killed and more than 600 were wounded in this second wave of explosions.  [AP News]

After the coordinated attacks, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, did not address the device explosions but praised the efforts of Israel’s military and security agencies, stating, “We are at the start of a new phase in the war.” 

Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah condemned the attacks, calling them a “severe blow” and accusing Israel of crossing a “red line.” He vowed that Hezbollah would continue its daily strikes on northern Israel as long as the Gaza conflict persists and indicated that an investigation was underway into how the bombings were carried out. [AP News]

Hezbollah has long relied on pagers for communication, as they operate on a different wireless network from mobile phones, making them more resilient during emergencies. This technology had allowed the group to bypass Israeli electronic surveillance on mobile networks, which is believed to be extensive in Lebanon. 

However, recent explosions suggest that even these older communication devices were not immune to Israeli tactics. According to Elijah J. Magnier, a veteran political risk analyst, the pagers involved in Tuesday’s explosions were acquired more than six months ago, though it remains unclear how they were brought into Lebanon.

09-18 International News Story & Updates

Last week, President Vladimir Putin warned that the West would be engaging in direct conflict with Russia if it permitted Ukraine to target Russian territory using Western-supplied long-range missiles. Putin emphasized that such a move would significantly alter the conflict’s nature and scope.

For months, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been urging Kyiv’s allies to allow Ukraine to use Western missiles, such as the U.S. ATACMS and British Storm Shadows, to strike deep into Russian territory. The goal is to disrupt Moscow’s capacity to carry out attacks. In some of his most assertive statements yet, Putin suggested that providing these missiles to Ukraine would involve the supplier countries directly in the war. He explained that the necessary satellite targeting data and missile programming would require NATO military personnel, as Kyiv lacks the capability to carry out these tasks independently.

“So this is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is a question of deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict,” Putin told Russian state TV. [Reuters] 

“If this decision is taken, it will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries, the United States and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.”

Putin stated that Russia would be compelled to respond with “appropriate decisions” in light of new threats, although he did not specify what those responses might entail. In the past, he has alluded to the possibility of arming the West’s adversaries with Russian weapons for attacks on Western targets and has mentioned the potential deployment of conventional missiles within range of the U.S. and European allies.

Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power, is also in the process of updating its nuclear doctrine, which outlines the conditions under which Moscow would deploy nuclear weapons. Putin is facing pressure from a prominent foreign policy figure to modify this doctrine to include a willingness to use nuclear arms against countries that “support NATO aggression in Ukraine.” Meanwhile, Russia is conducting significant naval drills with China and contemplating restrictions on key commodity exports.

Western discussions about whether to allow Kyiv to strike Russian territory with long-range weapons are framed as a response to what they perceive as Moscow’s escalation of the war. This follows reports that Russia has received ballistic missiles from Iran, which Tehran has dismissed as “ugly propaganda.”

These concerns for Putin come amidst a sense that the U.S. and Britain are on the verge of making a significant decision in the Ukraine conflict. A pivotal White House meeting took place  on Friday where they discussed allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied missiles to strike within Russian territory, but ultimately no concrete decision on the matter was made. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a stern warning on Thursday evening, declaring that such a move would equate to NATO entering the conflict directly. “This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are fighting Russia,” Putin said.

The U.S. has long been reluctant to authorize Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russian forces, fearing that such an escalation could lead to Russian retaliation against a NATO country, such as the weapons supply hub in Rzeszów, Poland. However, the dynamics have shifted, partly due to a significant shipment of Iranian missiles to Russia. British intelligence believes these weapons could give Putin’s forces a decisive advantage as they continue to make gains in eastern Ukraine, particularly around the strategic city of Pokrovsk.

Last week’s  summit is the culmination of a week of intense diplomatic negotiations among Western allies. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken held talks with his British and Ukrainian counterparts earlier in the week, with a U.K. official stating, “We’re really in the last hard yards of diplomatic negotiations now.” [Politico] 

Although formal announcements are not expected immediately, some U.K. officials expressed hope that a deal might be confirmed at the U.N. General Assembly later this month when Biden and Starmer will be in attendance.

Western officials have acknowledged that while the decision, if made, will not singlehandedly change the war’s outcome, it could help Ukraine counter Russia’s recent gains in the east. 

The British position has been more permissive, with former Prime Minister David Cameron previously stating that Ukraine “has that right” to target Russia. However, Washington has remained cautious, concerned about the risk of escalation. [Politico] 

According to a second U.K. official, the revelation that Iran has been supplying ballistic missiles to Russia has altered Western thinking. “Things have changed in light of Russia’s acquisition of ballistic missiles from Iran,” the official explained. Blinken’s confirmation that Iran is now supplying Russia was described as a “significant moment.”

Other European officials have echoed these concerns, with one defense advisor in the Baltic region noting that the shift in Washington’s stance was largely due to the Iranian missile shipments.

A U.S. administration official emphasized that while the Iranian missiles are troubling, this development has not been the primary factor in Washington’s decision-making regarding long-range missile support for Ukraine. “This has been in the works for a long time,” the official said. [Politico] 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently called for permission to use long-range missiles to target key military installations across the Russian border. Leaders from the Baltic states have supported these appeals, arguing that concerns about escalation are misplaced.

Despite this, any agreement is expected to maintain restrictions on the types of Russian targets Ukraine can engage. Starmer remarked, “We have been providing training and capability. And there are obviously further discussions to be had about the nature of that capability.”

Details of the discussions have been kept confidential, but sources suggest a small group of White House officials is finalizing plans to allow Ukraine to strike a broader range of targets inside Russia using American and British weapons. Zelenskyy has urged swift action, warning that delays could give Moscow time to relocate its military assets deeper into Russia.

Zelenskyy has made it clear that he expects any agreement to have real military significance, asserting that “removing restrictions means removing restrictions” and that he seeks a strategy aimed at Ukraine’s victory, not just political maneuvering. [Politico] 

Allowing Ukraine to use Storm Shadow missiles comes with several complications, including the high cost of the missiles and the fact that some systems used in conjunction with them are U.S.-made. More broadly, U.S. officials have long feared that the risks of escalation could outweigh the benefits.

U.S. President Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer seemed to dismiss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warnings during their meeting last Friday, where Ukraine’s request to use British-supplied missiles against Russian targets was discussed.

When asked about Putin’s assertion that such an action would draw NATO into the war, Biden responded, “I don’t think much about Vladimir Putin.” As for Ukraine’s potential use of missiles deeper into Russia, Biden remarked, “We’re going to discuss that now.” [Politico 2] 

After the meeting, Starmer clarified that no final decision on the Storm Shadow missiles had been reached and suggested that more developments could come during the upcoming U.N. General Assembly. He emphasized that the meeting was not focused on a specific capability but rather on broader strategic discussions, adding, “We’ve come to a strong position.” Starmer rejected suggestions that their timing was influenced by the upcoming U.S. presidential election and the possibility of Donald Trump, who once praised Putin as a “genius,” returning to power. He insisted the focus remained on pressing developments in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The two leaders held a private 20-minute discussion in the Oval Office, followed by a larger meeting with key aides, covering issues related to both Ukraine and the Middle East. Starmer had not ruled out allowing Ukraine to use Storm Shadow missiles, stating, “Russia started this conflict. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Russia can end this conflict straight away.”

Despite growing pressure from both Russia and Ukraine, officials stressed that no immediate decision on the use of Storm Shadow missiles was expected. White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby reiterated that there would be no announcement on long-range strike capabilities targeting Russia, adding, “There’s no change to our policy with respect to that.” [Politico 2] 

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed frustration at the delay, writing on X, “It’s difficult to repeatedly hear, ‘We are working on this,’ while Putin continues to burn down our cities and villages.” On the same day, Russia expelled six British diplomats, accusing them of espionage, a claim the U.K. denied as “baseless,” stating the diplomats had lost their status in August.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson met with Zelenskyy in Kyiv, urging the U.K. and U.S. to authorize the use of long-range missiles like Storm Shadow, SCALP, and ATACMS, warning that “every day that goes by means more pointless and tragic loss of Ukrainian lives.” [Politico 2] 

Grant Shapps, the U.K.’s former Defense Secretary, echoed this sentiment, saying the Biden-Starmer meeting “must deliver one outcome: Ukraine must be able to strike with Storm Shadows inside Russia if Russia continues to launch attacks on Ukraine from these locations.”

Although Biden’s approval is considered critical due to the U.S. technology involved in the Storm Shadow missiles, diplomatic alignment between the U.S. and U.K. was seen as paramount. Two U.K. officials noted that they aimed to avoid any perception of differing stances between the allies, despite skepticism that the use of Storm Shadow missiles alone would significantly alter the war’s course.

Reflecting on the situation, Starmer said, “I think the next few weeks and months could be crucial. It’s very important that we support Ukraine in this vital war of freedom.” 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, involving tens of thousands of troops, sparked the most significant confrontation between Russia and the West since the Cold War. Putin portrays the conflict as part of an existential struggle with a declining and morally corrupt West, which, in his view, has disrespected Russia since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 by expanding into areas he considers part of Moscow’s sphere of influence, including Ukraine.

In contrast, the West and Ukraine describe the invasion as an imperialist land grab, pledging to defeat Russia on the battlefield. Currently, Russia occupies more than 18% of Ukrainian territory.

09/11 – Internationl News Story and Update

Michel Barnier, the European Union’s former chief Brexit negotiator, was appointed as France’s prime minister on September 5th, marking the end of two months of political deadlock. 

President Emmanuel Macron made the announcement following a series of discussions with key political figures in an attempt to resolve the impasse created by the inconclusive parliamentary elections in July.

At 73 years old, Barnier is a seasoned politician from the center-right Republicans party, has held multiple positions in Gaullist governments, including foreign minister under President Jacques Chirac. As a former European commissioner, he is well known in Britain for his firm approach during the Brexit negotiations. [The Economist] 

Barnier is considered to hold a no-nonsense demeanor and a sharp sense of humor, Barnier is an experienced, traditional politician, and he is more than twice the age of Gabriel Attal, the centrist he replaced. 

Although Barnier’s name had been circulating for weeks, he was not Macron’s initial choice. No political group had a majority in the French parliament following the July elections, and Macron struggled to find someone who could garner enough support across party lines to withstand a no-confidence vote. Barnier was ultimately chosen after other contenders, like former Socialist Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve and center-right Xavier Bertrand, faced the risk of opposition from Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN), the third-largest parliamentary bloc.

Barnier will be quickly tasked with tackling the looming issue of France’s urgent need to address its public finances. Outgoing finance minister Bruno Le Maire revealed that the budget deficit could reach 5.6% of GDP this year, exceeding the 5.1% initially projected and well above the EU’s 3% limit. Le Maire has called for €16 billion in additional savings for this year alone. The new government must present next year’s budget to parliament by October 1st. [The Economist] 

In recent days, leaders of the National Rally have outlined their conditions for support, which include measures on purchasing power, security, and immigration, the introduction of proportional representation in parliament, and “respect” for far-right lawmakers. 

Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s far-right National Rally, gave her strongest indication yet of her willingness to cooperate with the new prime minister, Michel Barnier, in an interview with La Tribune on Sunday. Speaking about President Emmanuel Macron’s choice to replace Gabriel Attal after this summer’s election, Le Pen stated, “We don’t wish to cause obstructions.” [Politico 2] 

Centrist senator and Macron ally Hervé Marseille commented, “Marine Le Pen gives the kiss of death to this figure and then that one. The National Rally has 142 lawmakers, you can’t ignore them,” in an interview with Le Monde. [Politico] 

Although the National Rally failed to win the parliamentary election it had been expected to dominate, it has now emerged as a powerful influence. Le Pen played a pivotal role in the negotiations to select the next prime minister. Initially, conservative heavyweight Xavier Bertrand was a leading contender after meeting with center-right lawmakers who expressed support for a right-leaning prime minister. Macron even called Le Pen to discuss Bertrand and former Socialist Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, another early frontrunner whose chances diminished by Monday. 

While the far right still has the power to topple Barnier’s government, pollster Bruno Jeanbart suggested they may hold back from doing so too quickly. “They have the fate of the government in their hands, but I’m not sure it’s in their interest to topple the government too quickly,” Jeanbart said, adding that the National Rally may prefer to let events unfold in anticipation of the next presidential election, acknowledging that “it’s difficult to run a country without winning the presidential election.” [Politico] 

Macron’s cooperation with the National Rally has raised concerns within his own camp. After dissolving parliament following the far right’s strong performance in the June European election, Macron had campaigned to prevent extreme parties from gaining power in Paris. 

Many believe he has now effectively given the National Rally significant leverage over the future government. 

A centrist lawmaker commented that recent developments do not “correspond to the spirit of the Republican front,” referencing the tradition of mainstream parties uniting to keep the far right from power. The lawmaker emphasized that Barnier’s fate is now in the hands of the National Rally. [Politico] 

“It’s undeniable that Michel Barnier seems to have the same position as we do on migration,” Le Pen told the French daily. [Politico 2] 

Another parliamentarian from Macron’s party blamed the left for failing to come up with innovative solutions. After some internal disagreements, the New Popular Front nominated 37-year-old civil servant Lucie Castets as their candidate for prime minister, arguing that their first-place finish entitled them to make the choice. However, Macron rejected Castets’ bid, citing concerns about institutional stability and predicting she wouldn’t survive a no-confidence vote in the divided National Assembly.

Marine Tondelier, leader of the Greens, criticized Macron for moving further to the right to placate the National Rally and ensure they wouldn’t bring down the next government. “He’s been constantly cozying up to the far right,” Tondelier remarked. [Politico] 

Opinion: 

Barnier, who adopted a strong stance on immigration during the Republicans’ 2021 presidential primary, seems to be less divisive among the hard-right. After his appointment, Le Pen expressed satisfaction, stating Barnier would at least show her voters respect. 

However, Barnier is not expected to be a compliant subordinate to Macron, as he has previously criticized the president, calling his leadership “solitary and arrogant.” Nonetheless, Barnier’s pro-European stance and international reputation for seriousness may reassure neighbors, financial markets, and French businesses. At his age, Barnier is also unlikely to have ambitions for the next presidential election in 2027.

Following his appointment Barnier will be forced to face political challenges right off the bat. The first of which is the fact that the left is strongly opposed to him. The New Popular Front, a left-wing coalition, holds the largest bloc in parliament with 193 of 577 seats. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the radical-left Unsubmissive France, declared that the election was “stolen” and has called for Macron’s impeachment. Although Barnier might be able to pass legislation with the support of 47 Republicans and most centrists, provided the RN does not block him, the left will likely continue to challenge him both in parliament and through protests. Mélenchon has already called for mass demonstrations on September 7th. [The Economist] 

Barnier faces quite the formidable task as he attempts to form the “unifying government” Macron hopes for, while implementing budget cuts, pacifying the left, managing the hard right, and navigating Macron’s tendency to micromanage.

Many believe that  Macron’s decision to appoint Barnier has handed the far right a significant victory. The survival of Michel Barnier’s incoming government will depend on the support of the National Rally, Marine Le Pen’s far-right party, which came third in the recent snap election. 

His stance on immigration could be key in garnering at least passive support from the far right in parliament. A member of the right-wing Republicans party, Barnier has previously called for a temporary halt to non-European immigration for three to five years—a position that closely aligns with Le Pen’s. 

The left-wing New Popular Front, despite winning the most seats, did not secure a majority and has already pledged to back no-confidence motions against Barnier. With Macron’s coalition and the conservative Republican Right only holding 213 seats, far short of the 289 needed for a majority, Barnier will require backing from the far right to avoid an immediate collapse.

Now, Barnier must find a way to balance the interests of his center-right and centrist backers while also appeasing the far right, which opposes many of the proposed budget cuts aimed at addressing France’s growing debt.

09/06 – International News Story

Chinese President Xi Jinping has committed to generating “at least” one million jobs in Africa as part of China’s effort to strengthen its role as the preferred development partner for the Global South. [Al Jazeera]

For nearly 25 years, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has been a key diplomatic event for African leaders, serving as an indicator of the evolving relationship between Africa and its largest trading partner, China. Since its inception in 2000, analysts have looked to this triennial event to assess the state of these ties.

During the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation this week, Xi announced that China would offer African nations 360 billion yuan ($51 billion) in new financial support, along with backing for 30 infrastructure projects aimed at improving connectivity across the continent. This initiative highlights Beijing’s strategic focus on fostering development partnerships and deepening ties with Africa.

Addressing representatives from over 50 African nations in Beijing for the forum, President Xi Jinping announced that 210 billion yuan ($29.6 billion) of the pledged financing would be provided through credit lines, with at least 70 billion yuan ($9.9 billion) allocated for new investments by Chinese companies. [Al Jazeera]

Additional support would come through smaller amounts designated for military aid and other projects. Notably, the financial assistance will be given in yuan, a move likely aimed at promoting the international use of China’s currency.

Xi also advocated for the creation of a China-Africa network of land and sea routes, promoting coordinated development across the continent. He highlighted the achievements of China-Africa cooperation, mentioning joint efforts that have resulted in the construction of roads, railways, schools, hospitals, industrial parks, and special economic zones. According to Xi, these projects have significantly impacted the lives and futures of many people across Africa, as reported by the state news agency Xinhua.

President Xi Jinping expressed confidence that by working together, the Chinese and African people could achieve “new and even greater feats” and lead the “modernisation” of the Global South. 

Following the opening ceremony of the forum, delegates endorsed the Beijing Declaration, which focuses on building “a shared future in the new era.” They also adopted the Beijing Action Plan for 2025-27, outlining future cooperation initiatives, as reported by Xinhua. [Al Jazeera]

Opinion: 

China is aiming to increase its influence in Africa as it faces growing economic and diplomatic tensions with Western nations, particularly the United States. This push for greater engagement comes at a time when China’s economy is experiencing slower growth, grappling with issues such as a long-lasting property crisis and a shrinking population.

As Africa’s largest trade partner, China accounts for nearly a quarter of the continent’s exports, which primarily consist of minerals, fuels, and metals. This strong trade relationship underscores China’s strategic interest in securing resources and maintaining its foothold in the region.

As China’s economy slows and African governments face tighter budgets, few expected major financial commitments from Beijing this year. President Xi ultimately pledged $50 billion, an increase from 2021 but still below pre-pandemic levels. The relationship is less intense compared to the 2000s and 2010s, when China poured billions into African infrastructure as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). During that period, geopolitical competition in Africa was mostly seen as a contest between “China and the West.” 

China is not withdrawing from Africa, and African countries remain engaged. A senior official in Ethiopia noted that despite perceptions, China remains Africa’s largest economic partner, and maintaining good relations with Beijing is essential. 

China continues to be Africa’s biggest trade partner, with trade volumes reaching a record $282 billion in 2023, partly driven by demand for minerals crucial to green energy. This figure is more than double that of Africa’s second-largest trade partner, India. [The Economist] 

China also remains the top lender to sub-Saharan Africa. After years of declining lending, there was a resurgence in 2023, with new loans supporting both green projects, like solar farms, and large infrastructure, such as a $1 billion railway loan to Nigeria. Despite talk of a shift toward smaller, more sustainable projects, China remains involved in large-scale infrastructure development.

– P.T.

09/05 – International Economics Story

The Biden administration last weekend sent over a letter to Nippon Steel indicating that their attempted $15B purchase of U.S. Steel  poses a national security risk due to the possibility of offsetting and harming the American steel industry. 

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) expressed in the previously undisclosed letter that the deal would harm U.S. steel production and reduce the chances of U.S. Steel continuing to actively pursue trade remedies.

 “The committee has identified risks to the national security of the United States arising as a result of the transaction,” the letter stated, as per one of the sources. [Reuters]

Spokespeople for Japan’s Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel declined to comment on the letter, instead pointing Reuters to earlier statements asserting that the deal poses no national security risks and would bolster the U.S. steel industry. 

“We fully expect to pursue all possible legal avenues to ensure that this transaction, which represents the best future for Pennsylvania, American steelmaking, and all of our stakeholders, is completed,” the U.S. Steel spokesperson added. [Reuters]

Recent developments such as these show signs that the administration is preparing to block the deal from going through. The deal has received bipartisan opposition from many Democrats and Republicans. 

Donald Trump pledged to block the deal if elected and Vice President Kamala Harris stated this week that she also wishes to see U.S. Steel remain “American owned and operated”. [Reuters]

In a 100-page response letter sent on Tuesday, Nippon Steel outlined plans to invest billions of dollars to sustain and enhance U.S. Steel facilities that would otherwise be idled, stating this would “indisputably” allow it to “maintain and potentially increase domestic steelmaking capacity in the United States.” [Reuters]

Nippon also reiterated its commitment not to transfer any U.S. Steel production capacity or jobs overseas, while pledging not to interfere with U.S. Steel’s trade-related decisions, including actions against unfair trade practices under U.S. law.

The company emphasized that the deal would “create a stronger global competitor to China grounded in the close relationship between the U.S. and Japan.”

To address CFIUS concerns, Nippon proposed a national security agreement, including a pledge that a majority of U.S. Steel’s board of directors would be non-dual U.S. citizens, with three independent directors approved by CFIUS to ensure compliance with the agreement.

The share price of U.S. Steel fell by more than 17% Thursday in response to widespread anticipation that President Joe Biden is preparing to block the steelmaker’s takeover by the Japanese firm. 

08/28 – National News Update & Story

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. officially called an end to his campaign on Friday August 23. RFK Jr. followed up his announcement by formally  endorsing Donald Trump. 

Kennedy stated that he will  withdraw his name from ballots in 10 battleground states that are likely to determine the election outcome, while continuing to run as a candidate in other states.

Kennedy joined Trump onstage at a rally in Arizona just hours later. 

Kennedy mentioned in a news conference earlier that he had multiple meetings with Trump and his aides, during which he discovered they shared views on topics such as border security, free speech, and ending wars. 

“There are still many issues and approaches on which we continue to have very serious differences. But we are aligned on other key issues,” he told reporters. [Reuters]

He emphasized these points again when he appeared alongside Trump at the Arizona rally, where he reiterated his stance on key issues such as combating chronic illness and eliminating hazardous chemicals from the environment and food supply.

Kennedy also mentioned free speech, the war in Ukraine, and “a war on our children” as some of the reasons he would seek to withdraw his name from the ballot in key battleground states. [AP News] 

While Kennedy was on stage, the former president announced that if he were to return to the White House, he would establish a presidential commission on assassination attempts and release files related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

RFK Jr. described their partnership as “a unity party,” an agreement that would “allow us to disagree publicly and privately and seriously.” Kennedy hinted that Trump had offered him a position if he returned to the White House, but neither he nor Trump provided specifics. [AP News] 

Last week, Kennedy’s running mate, Nicole Shanahan, floated the possibility that Kennedy might join Trump’s administration as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Recent polls indicate Kennedy’s support is in the mid-single digits, with reasonable doubts about whether he could achieve even that in a general election.

There is some evidence that Kennedy remaining in the race could disadvantage Trump more than Harris. A July AP-NORC poll showed that Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to have a favorable opinion of Kennedy. Additionally, those who viewed Kennedy positively were significantly more likely to also have a favorable view of Trump (52%) compared to Harris (37%). [AP News] 

Opinion: 

Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and outspoken anti-vaccine advocate, entered the 2024 race as a challenger to President Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination. As the son and nephew of two of the Democratic party’s icons who were tragically assassinated in the 1960s, his candidacy naturally attracted initial attention. 

At the time, many voters were disillusioned with both the aging Biden and the scandal-ridden Trump, leading to a surge in Kennedy’s popularity. Eventually, he became more disillusioned by the Democratic party who seemed to be purposefully pushing him out, and chose to run as an independent. Then by November 2023, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed him with a significant 20% support in a three-way race with Biden and Trump. [Reuters]

For a while, it seemed both Biden and Trump’s campaigns were concerned that Kennedy could pull enough votes to influence the election’s outcome. 

But, the dynamics of the race shifted dramatically in the last two months, especially after Trump survived an assassination attempt and the withering 81-year-old Biden gave way to Kamala Harris. As a result, voter interest in Kennedy declined sharply. A recent Ipsos poll revealed his national support had plummeted to just 4%, a small but potentially significant number in a tight race between Trump and Harris

There’s something to be said about Kennedy’s unexpected relevance throughout this race. His campaign was chaotic, starting as a Democrat, shifting to an Independent, and now ending by throwing his support behind the Republican candidate. Yet, his candidacy shed light on the sliver of potential for third-party candidates to build a legitimate following and challenge the dominance of the two-party system.

Kennedy’s run also highlighted the rigid, brutally structured nature of the political system, which is heavily skewed against outsiders. In a democracy where anyone is supposed to have the opportunity to rise through the ranks, the reality is that those at the top set the rules, and if they don’t want you to play, you won’t.

There’s a legitimate “lawfare” weaponized by the powerful, especially within the upper echelons of political parties. It was always a long shot for RFK Jr. to win this election, even if he had been on every state’s ballot. But the fact that it’s so difficult for an independent candidate to even get on the ballot and give voters a choice is outrageous.

For the past half-decade, Americans have grown increasingly disillusioned with their options for presidential candidates and frustrated with the two-party system, and yet, the stakes of the two-horse race make it so legitimately considering a competitive third option comes too far fetched. 

For Trump it seems seeking this endorsement at this point of the race makes sense logically. Trump needed to consolidate his base, and it seems quite clear that RFK supporters would lean toward Trump rather than Harris. This became much more coherent after Kennedy and his running mate Shanahan placed much of the blame on the Democratic Party for pushing them out of this race, and his tendency to brand himself as an outsider to the establishment.  

Trump’s polling numbers have undoubtedly taken a hit and he is in a very vulnerable place heading into this election now that Kamala has entered the race. Making sure that he can at least snatch up those extra few percentages in key swing states comes as a no-brainer at his current position. 

Whether this endorsement will ultimately influence the outcome of who will be in the White House next might be a stretch, but there’s no way to know for certain until we watch the tumultuous next few months play out.  

08/25 – International News Update & Story

Lebanese militant group Hezbollah launched over hundreds of drones and rockets into Israel on Sunday. 

Israel reportedly preemptively  fired around one hundred jets into Lebanon to prevent a larger ongoing attack from Hezbollah. [Reuters]

So far three deaths have been confirmed in Lebanon and one in Israel. 

Both sides have apparently indicated they were happy to avoid further escalation for now, but warned that there could be more strikes to come.

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said the Iranian-backed proxy group’s barrage, which came as retaliation for the assassination of a senior commander last month, had been completed “as planned”.

Hezbollah claimed to have struck 11 Israeli bases in what it described as the “first phase” of its retaliatory response to the assassination of its military chief, Fuad Shukr, in Beirut by an Israeli air strike on July 30th. The group asserted “total success,” disregarded the Israeli attack, and hinted at the possibility of further retaliation. [The Economist]

However, the terror group would assess the impact of its strikes and “if the result is not enough, then we retain the right to respond another time”, he said.

Israel initiated air strikes before Hezbollah launched its barrage, according to Nasrallah. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed these “pre-emptive” strikes thwarted a significantly larger Hezbollah attack, but Nasrallah asserted that they had minimal effect. Hezbollah’s rocket and drone attacks were aimed at an intelligence base near Tel Aviv, Nasrallah stated. Netanyahu countered that all drones targeting what he described as a strategic site in central Israel were intercepted. [Reuters]

A security source in Lebanon reported that at least 40 Israeli strikes hit various towns in the south of the country, marking one of the heaviest bombardments since the hostilities began in October.

The White House stated that U.S. President Joe Biden was closely monitoring the situation. “We will continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself, and we will keep working towards regional stability,” said National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett. 

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was “deeply concerned” about the escalation between Israel and Hezbollah and urged both parties to immediately return to a ceasefire, according to his spokesperson. Egypt and Jordan also issued warnings against further escalation. 

Although the United States was not directly involved in Israel’s strikes on Sunday, it did provide some intelligence regarding incoming Hezbollah attacks, a U.S. official said. [Reuters]

Israel’s foreign minister emphasized that the country is not aiming for a full-scale war, though Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cautioned, “This is not the end of the story. We are determined to do everything we can to defend our country … whoever harms us – we harm him.”

Both sides have communicated their desire to avoid further escalation, with the overall sentiment being that the exchange was “done,” according to a couple diplomats. [Reuters] 

A Hezbollah official stated that the group had postponed its retaliation to allow time for ceasefire negotiations and had carefully calibrated its attack to avoid provoking a full-scale war.

Palestinian terror group Hamas announced on Sunday that it rejects the new conditions put forward by Israel in the Gaza ceasefire talks. [Reuters 2]

Months of intermittent talks have failed to reach an agreement to end Israel’s devastating military campaign in Gaza or to secure the release of the remaining hostages taken by Hamas during the militant group’s October 7 attack on Israel.

A key issue in the ongoing talks, mediated by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar, is the Israeli presence in the so-called Philadelphi Corridor, a narrow 14.5 km (nine-mile) strip of land along Gaza’s southern border with Egypt. 

Hamas has accused Israel of reneging on its commitment to withdraw troops from the Corridor and introducing new conditions, including the screening of displaced Palestinians as they return to the more densely populated northern areas of the enclave once the ceasefire begins.

“We will not accept discussions about retractions from what we agreed to on July 2 or any new conditions,” Hamas official Osama Hamdan stated on the group’s Al-Aqsa TV on Sunday. [Reuters 2]

Back in July, Hamas agreed to a U.S. proposal to initiate talks on releasing Israeli hostages, including soldiers and men, 16 days after the first phase of an agreement intended to end the Gaza war, a senior Hamas source informed Reuters.

Opinion: 

This latest rejection of the proposal adds further doubt that the recent U.S.-led breakthroughs in diplomatic talks will be able to actually achieve an end to the conflict in the Middle East. 

With the recent and largest exchanges of fire between Hezbollah and Israel on its northern border, coupled with the looming threat of a retaliatory strike from Iran, tensions in the broader conflict between Israel and its regional adversaries have flared up once again.

For about a month now, the entire region has been anticipating the promised retaliation by Hezbollah and Iran for the assassinations of Shukr and Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, who was killed while attending Iran’s presidential inauguration. 

The delay in this response partly highlights the challenging position Iran faces. While Iran could launch a direct retaliation, a similarly large missile and drone attack on Israel in April was mostly intercepted by Israel and its allies, showing more of Iran’s limitations than the threat it was intending to convey. Repeating such an attempt could further expose Iran’s weaknesses rather than demonstrate its strength. 

On the other hand, if Iran were to plan an even larger direct strike, it could provoke a full-scale war with severe consequences. To deter Iran, the United States has deployed two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Middle East.

Hezbollah’s rocket and drone strikes offer a somewhat safer alternative for Iran, which sponsors the Lebanese militant group. It’s also uncertain whether Hezbollah itself desires a full-scale war with Israel in Lebanon. Hezbollah likely knew that Israeli intelligence would detect its preparations and carry out pre-emptive strikes. 

Both Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, want to maintain their image by punishing Israel, but they, along with Israel, are trying to avoid military actions that could lead to a more significant conflict.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Israel’s strike was “not the end of the story,” but Israeli officials are keen to stress that they are not looking to escalate the situation further. After a failed direct attack in April, Iran may have reverted to its earlier strategy of using proxies like Hezbollah to fight Israel. If this is the case, it could signal a surprising win for the relatively moderate approach of Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, over the hardline generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who have been advocating for severe retaliation. [The Economist]

However, whether a ceasefire in Gaza will ease the broader conflict between Iran, its proxies, and Israel remains uncertain.

There are still many variables at play: the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, the ongoing struggle between reformers and hardliners in Iran, and how long Israel will be willing to endure rocket attacks on its northern border before it becomes fed up and decides to launch a more extensive campaign against Hezbollah to eliminate its massive missile arsenal supplied by Iran. 

The latest rejection of the proposal adds further doubt that the recent U.S.-led breakthroughs in diplomatic talks will be able to actually achieve an end to the conflict in the Middle East. 

With the recent and largest exchanges of fire between Hezbollah and Israel on its northern border, coupled with the looming threat of a retaliatory strike from Iran, tensions in the broader conflict between Israel and its regional adversaries have flared up once again. 

Even if the current uptick in hostilities subsides for now, the larger conflict in the region seems far from over.

08/23 – International Economics Piece

The European Commission announced on Tuesday its plan to implement five-year import duties of up to 36% on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), unless Beijing can offer an alternative solution to address concerns over state subsidies. 

Tesla EVs produced in China will be subject to a reduced duty of 9%, reflecting lower levels of Chinese subsidies compared to other manufacturers.

Last month, Brussels imposed provisional tariffs on Chinese EVs, in addition to the existing 10% duty, after determining they were unfairly competing with European counterparts. The Commission has now proposed making these tariffs permanent, with the rates open to review by interested parties until the end of August, and final approval expected from EU member states by October.

The proposed tariffs include 17% for BYD (adjusted from 17.4%), 19.3% for Geely (revised from 19.9%), and 36.3% for SAIC (down from 37.6%). Other Chinese producers that cooperate with Brussels will face a tariff of 21.3%, slightly up from 20.8%, while non-cooperative manufacturers would be hit with the maximum 36.3% duty. [Japan Today] 

Tesla, owned by U.S. billionaire Elon Musk, requested its own duty rate, which has been set at 9% after the Commission determined it benefited from fewer Chinese subsidies than domestic manufacturers. [Japan Today] 

China has strongly opposed these tariffs and has filed an appeal with the World Trade Organization, though Brussels believes its measures comply with WTO rules. The EU remains open to alternative solutions that align with WTO standards but emphasizes that it is up to China to propose them.

China has also hit back in response to these EU tariffs by launching a probe into some European dairy imports. China has used anti-dumping investigations into European agricultural products, most recently pork, as a tit-for-tat response in this prospective trade war. 

The provisional duties, in place since July 5, have been provided as bank guarantees but will be released once the final measures are established. This trade dispute is part of broader tensions between China and the EU concerning trade, technology, and national security.

China’s emergence as a leader in the electric vehicle (EV) industry, fueled by significant state investment, has given its manufacturers a competitive edge. In 2023, Chinese EV exports surged by 70%, reaching $34.1 billion, with nearly 40% of these exports going to the European Union, making it the largest recipient of Chinese EVs. [Japan Today] 

 The EU is now facing the challenge of protecting its automotive industry while managing its complex trade relationship with China.

Opinion: 

The next decade is critical for Europe’s automotive industry, which faces the dual challenge of decarbonizing and contending with strong competition from China.

Pedro Pacheco, vice president of automotive research at Gartner, warns that European automakers must launch competitive products to survive. The European Green Deal, initiated by the previous European Commission, aims to make the EU climate-neutral by 2050, with significant focus on reducing vehicle emissions. Initially, climate change was a top priority, but economic concerns are now generating political resistance. Despite this, the push for all-electric vehicles remains strong, though achieving zero emissions is becoming increasingly difficult. 

The European car industry is a major economic force, representing 7% of GDP and employing 13.8 million people. While Europe has long dominated internal combustion engine (ICE) technology, it lags in battery technology, a critical area for the future of electric vehicles (EVs). European carmakers like Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Renault, and Stellantis are struggling to adapt to the shift towards battery-powered vehicles, especially in the face of competition from China, which has become the world’s largest EV market. [Politico]

The EU’s Green Deal includes a law banning the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2035, with milestones to ensure compliance, such as a required 15% emissions reduction by 2025. Failure to meet these targets will result in fines, pushing automakers to sell more EVs. However, EV adoption is slow due to concerns over driving range, infrastructure, and cost. Meanwhile, Chinese automakers, benefiting from lower production costs and advanced technology, are making inroads into the European market.

The EU and U.S. have imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, but these measures may only slightly slow Chinese competition. Some Chinese companies are even setting up operations in Europe to avoid tariffs. In response, European automakers are diversifying their offerings, including hybrid models, which have seen an increase in market share.

Despite the 2035 ban on new ICE cars, existing ICE vehicles will continue to emit CO2 for years to come. Additionally, political opposition to the ban is growing, with calls for exceptions for synthetic and biofuels, potentially allowing new ICE cars to be sold after 2035. Hydrogen-powered vehicles, although discussed as an alternative, have not gained significant traction due to infrastructure challenges and low adoption rates.

Overall, Europe’s car industry faces a tough road ahead, with significant implications for the region’s economy and political landscape. Pacheco notes that European automakers could have performed better if they had prioritized EVs as much as their Chinese competitors.

– P.T.

08/22 – Political Opinion Piece

We are now less than 75 days away from the 2024 presidential election. Following a summer marked by historic political events, the stage is set for the nation to decide between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris as the 47th President of the United States.

At this moment, there is a growing likelihood that Donald Trump could face another defeat this November and here are several factors as to whyI think this could be what ultimately culminates the outcome of the presidential election to go against Trump: 

• Campaign Momentum: Trump’s campaign has lost significant momentum, particularly as Kamala Harris launched her campaign with a powerful surge, fueled by hundreds of millions in donations. This financial boost has given her a substantial advantage.

• MAGA’s Polarization: The “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement, once a rallying cry, has become increasingly isolating, characterized by a tone that is often perceived as attacking and negative. A sizable portion of voters neither like Trump nor see him as the most fit candidate for the presidency. However, these same voters might still be swayed to support him to prevent Kamala Harris from assuming office and continuing what they see as a declining direction for the United States.

• Rhetoric and Alienation: Trump’s harsh rhetoric, often laced with insults and attacks, alienates voters who are not die-hard MAGA supporters. To succeed, he needs to soften his approach and broaden his appeal beyond his base.

• Focus on Slander: Trump’s strategy has been heavily reliant on slandering his opponents rather than courting undecided voters. This approach could backfire if he fails to address the concerns of those who are still on the fence.

• Policy Opportunities: Policy issues, particularly those related to border security and national safety, are ripe for the taking. If Trump can address these concerns in a way that reassures single-issue voters, he may be able to regain lost ground.

• Impact of RFK: The loss of percentages to RFK could hurt Trump’s chances, as every vote siphoned away could be crucial in a tight race. As of right now Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has still not ended his election campaign and endorsed Donald Trump in exchange for a promised position in his administration, so this one will be an interesting development to keep an eye on. 

• Media Influence: The media landscape is overwhelmingly powerful, with significant backing for the Democratic campaign. This media advantage, characterized by effective priming, framing, and outreach, has so far worked in favor of Kamala Harris. 

• Polling Worries: Recent polls show troubling trends for Trump in critical battleground states. Even traditionally red states like Nevada and Arizona are now in question, adding to the campaign’s challenges.

• Unfortunate Timing: Trump’s favorability saw a boost following an assassination attempt, but this was quickly overshadowed by Biden stepping down and Kamala Harris stepping in as the Democratic nominee.

• VP Selection Issues: Trump’s choice of JD Vance as his running mate appears to be a misstep. Vance’s low favorability and inability to connect with undecided voters, particularly among younger demographics, have not helped the campaign. There’s a sense that even Trump himself regrets the pick, as Vance comes off as more conservative and, debatably, more eccentric.

With less than two months remaining, the Trump campaign must urgently address these issues if they hope to avoid an election loss that once seemed improbable. Above all, Trump needs to reignite his campaign with new energy, focus on holding rallies, and make a strong push in crucial Midwestern battleground states. The path to the Oval Office runs through these states, and without a renewed effort, the campaign may see its chances slip away.