Connect with us

Economy

US vs EU: A new transatlantic trade war looming?

Published

on

In an article, carried by the newspaper Handelsblatt, a group of German MPs from the Social Democratic party describe the possible new US sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project as a “threat to European sovereignty.” Earlier, Bloomberg reported that the German authorities are mulling retaliatory sanctions against the United States if Washington continues to dial up pressure on the participants in the project to bring Russian natural gas to consumers in Europe. Moreover, Berlin is reportedly willing to add a pan-European dimension to its possible pushback against Washington. Meanwhile, the US has withdrawn from OECD-held talks on digital tax. France, one of the main proponents of increased income taxation of US IT companies operating in Europe, slams Washington’s actions as “provocative,” and is all set to continue applying the digital tax. Many observers warn that worsening transatlantic trade relations could lead to a new trade war.

On the outside, the United States remains the EU’s main trading partner, with European exports to the US last year amounting to 384 billion euros. The United States is also the second biggest provider of goods and services to Europe, after China.  However, by the close of 2019, most EU countries were already balancing between stagnation and recession – not least due to Washington’s economic policies, as the Trump administration kept threatening to slap additional duties on European exports. In addition, Europeans feel the pinch of declining world trade caused by Washington’s trade war with Beijing.

Donald Trump won the presidency on the strength of his promise to maintain America’s leading position in the world, which he sees as the scene of tooth-and-claw competition between states. From this standpoint, all countries not ready to accept Washington’s terms, especially those pursuing an independent policy, are viewed as a “legitimate” target for pressure, primarily an economic one. Since 2018, Washington has been ramping up sanctions and trade restrictions against many leading world powers, including in Europe and, hating as the Europeans are to avoid a politicization of their trade relations with the US, almost each new trade dispute demonstrates geopolitical undertones that are hard to ignore.  

For example, Washington regularly threatens to impose a 25 percent tax on imported European cars and spare parts, above all German.   Amid Washington’s isolationist policy, Germany is now seen by many Europeans as a potential new leader of the Western community and apparently the primary target of Donald Trump’s attacks against Europeans. Indeed, it was Angela Merkel who, after the first NATO summit attended by Trump, said that Europe can no longer rely on America. Since then, Berlin has been increasingly vocal in pointing, more than anyone else in the EU, at cardinal changes in Washington’s interests in the Old World, above all its desire to undermine Europe’s global competitiveness. On July 1, Germany took over the EU Council’s rotating chair for the next six months, which is likely to further intensify these disagreements.

In October 2019, the United States imposed tariffs on a number of imported European goods, formally justifying this by a WTO ruling that the European Union had not complied with an order to end illegal subsidies for its plane-maker Airbus.

The Americans and Europeans have long been at loggerheads over who violates the WTO rules by providing state assistance to their aviation industry. However, now that Washington is trying hard to limit the supply of high-tech products to the “wrong” countries, transatlantic bickering over subsidized airplane exports is becoming extremely important in terms of foreign policy. And in light of the colossal damage the global aviation industry may suffer as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, this could put the entire technological future of the European Union on the line. 

A similar situation has been developing also around the idea, actively promoted by the EU leadership and a number of EU countries, to impose the so-called “digital tax” on services provided to European consumers by major US technology companies, above all Amazon, Facebook and Google. Meanwhile, in the United States, the geostrategic motives behind the European initiatives is becoming clear not only to observers, but to the White House as well.

Europe is lagging far behind the US and China when it comes to companies providing services in social platforms, e-commerce and cloud computing. Experts warn that the “alternative” to the general strategy is more than just a further reduction of the EU’s role in the development and implementation of advanced software and technical solutions. If the EU countries fail to adapt to the changing technological paradigm, they may be faced with rising unemployment and falling tax revenues across the board. 

According to experts interviewed by The Economist Intelligence Unit, any of the abovementioned topics may set off a destructive trade war on both sides of the Atlantic. Well, Germany will certainly not be the sole victim of jacked up US tariffs on European car imports, as the auto industry accounts for up to six percent of all EU jobs. In addition to the direct damage from falling exports to the United States and third countries, new US sanctions would seriously undermine the overall business climate in the European Union. Brussels would have to impose retaliatory sanctions, which, in turn, would set the stage for a global trade war that would not leave any country untouched. The costs of doing business will go up, while profits will go down. Due to a falling demand in domestic markets, caused by the coronavirus pandemic, companies will not be able to pass their losses to the consumers, and will suffer ever new losses.

It took Europeans quite a while to realize that growing transatlantic disagreements “constitute an essential debate” over the priorities and goals of “Western policy in the world in the wake of the late 20th – early 21st century globalization.” A sizeable portion of the American establishment is no longer interested in dominance per se, as US national interests are now realized “in confrontation with major rivals,” including Europe. 

The Trump administration insists that the situation can only be changed by America acting in such a way as to reap direct and immediate benefits measured in dollars. “Friendship” with America should pay off right away, providing economic concessions for Washington is just a way of monetizing one’s allied relations with the United States. While during the Cold War, tactical economic differences were smoothed out by shared strategic interests amid a bipolar confrontation, these days, if “there are no shared  fundamental interests between them” the United States and Europe “are simply competitors on many tracks” – something Trump never tires of repeating.

The outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic has led to a serious new discord between Europe and America, with the shock from the pandemic on both sides of the Atlantic proving strong enough to force the nominal allies to start fighting each other for resources. Everyone is on his own now. The situation with the pandemic and its socio-economic impact on the United States has been so bad that it now threatens to undermine Donald Trump’s chances for reelection. Meanwhile, trade policy is one of the political levers that the US president can use quickly and without having to ask for Congressional approval.

Previously, this approach often worked with the European Union, usually ready to give up some of its economic sovereignty. The Europeans’ reaction was restrained and “asymmetric” in nature. This is how they reacted to Trump’s increasingly aggressive attacks just a year of two ago. Experts from the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Europe and on the INF Treaty believe that although the EU’s domestic market and combined GDP are roughly similar in size to America’s, “Europe’s economic dependence on the US is much higher than America’s dependence on the European Union, which still makes Brussels extremely vulnerable to economic pressure from Washington.” 

That being said, the hard-hitting socioeconomic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing Europe to realize the need to protect and advance its economic interests. A pessimistic forecast is based on the notion that the pandemic will bring about a long-term economic downturn and even exacerbate it. The Eurozone economy is projected to post a seven to 10 percent drop this year – twice as much as during the crisis of 2009. Even the “hundreds of billions of euros” that European politicians are talking about may not be enough to overcome the consequences of the coronacrisis any time soon, largely due to the global nature of its impact on the entire system of global economic relations. This may prove a serious problem. As [French President] Emmanuel Macron often says, “If the crisis widens the split between the economies of the bloc, the European project could explode.”

Meanwhile, much now depends on the position of Germany where almost all parliamentary factions see the threat of new US sanctions as “a violation of international law and, above all, an infringement of European sovereignty.” Europe needs to push back against America’s “aggressive attacks.” Well, in the midst of a pandemic and a deep recession caused by it, “a trade war is the last thing that Americans and Europeans need. However, a positive partnership is possible only on an equal basis which, among other things, means respect for the sovereignty of each partner.”

Against the backcloth of extremely worrying forecasts for the European economy, Chancellor Angela Merkel told The Guardian that it is in the best interest of all EU countries to fully support the European domestic market and act as one in the international arena. Faced with “extraordinary” circumstances, Berlin expects all EU member states to focus on “what brings us together.” Moreover, “much” depends on the stability of the European economy. For example, a sharp spike in unemployment can have devastating political consequences, and even “increase the threat to democracy.”

“For Europe to survive, its economy must survive,” Merkel emphasized.

According to numerous forecasts, in the post-coronavirus world, almost all countries will focus on internal problems, on increasing their economic self-sufficiency and even autonomy. The world may become “poorer and more cost-effective,” and the process of globalization will, at best, come to a halt and stay so for several years. Right now, faced with multiple crises, Europe, may be tempted to take its time and wait, at least until after the November presidential elections in the US. By then, the scope of the economic damage from the pandemic will become clearer. What is obvious, however, is that only by resolutely standing up to America, especially if this resistance ultimately results in a “deal” more beneficial to Europeans, will the EU be able to restore its geopolitical weight in international affairs.

From our partner International Affairs

Economy

Can The Lessons of 2008 Spare Emerging Europe’s Financial Sector From The COVID-19 Cliff?

Published

on

The more we know about the past, the better we can prepare for the future. The 2008 financial crisis provides important lessons for policymakers planning the COVID-19 recovery in 2021.

Over 10 years ago, the world stumbled into a financial crisis that changed the very fabric of our societies.

A cocktail of lax financial regulation and casual attitudes toward debt and leverage led to a global fallout that few countries in the world escaped. Despite a decade of recovery, the scars of that era are still very visible. This was particularly true for many parts of Europe. And as is often the case in major disasters, both natural and man-made, the most vulnerable were hardest hit.

Striking parallels

Today, as countries grapple with the economic impacts of Covid-19, policymakers in emerging Europe must strive to remember the hard-learned lessons from 2008. In financial terms, the parallels between now and then are striking.

Back then, countries in Central and Southeastern Europe were among the worst hit. In the run-up to the crisis, big euro area banks bought up local subsidiaries. Backed by these parent banks, credit started expanding rapidly from a very low base. The credit boom was accompanied by climbing real estate prices and mounting personal and corporate debt. Aspirations to replicate the living standards of the EU’s wealthiest member states led to citizens and businesses shouldering more than they could handle.

Suddenly, the global crisis stopped capital flows in the region and turned the boom to bust. Credit growth went into reverse, real estate prices nosedived, economic growth stalled, and non-performing loans (NPLs) spiraled up. Over the next decade, much of the region would be caught between weak economic growth and lackluster financial sector performance.

Familiar feedback loop

Covid-19 is a strong contender for the worst economic shock in our lifetimes. In its aftermath, a familiar feedback loop is on the horizon: high leverage and depressed growth will amplify financial sector vulnerabilities in the months ahead.

True, banks in emerging Europe entered Covid-19 with stronger liquidity and capital buffers than before the global financial crisis, but they are far from immune. The longer the pandemic lasts, the more businesses and consumers are likely to struggle. Next come the debt defaults. Before the domino-chain of NPLs gains momentum and countries spiral into widespread financial crisis, policymakers must act. This means taking four overarching measures.

First, rising NPLs require a proactive and coordinated policy response. If banks resist writing down bad loans and continue to lend to zombie firms, the resulting credit crunch becomes longer and more severe. Policymakers were slow off the mark in 2008. Once they realised a coordinated response was needed, much of the damage was already done. In NPL resolution, the mere passage of time makes a bad situation worse, and policymakers and bankers need to respond early on to prevent the problem from spinning out of control.

Second, supervisors should engage with highly exposed banks and ensure that they fully provision for credit losses. An important lesson of the global financial crisis is that building bank’s capital is a requirement for resilient recovery. In this pandemic, banks have been asked to play an unprecedented role in absorbing the shock by supplying vital credit to the corporate and household sector. Policymakers should resist pressure to dilute existing rules. Soft-touch supervision doesn’t address the underlying issues and only kicks problems down the road. To credibly stick to the rules, regulators can conduct stress tests to identify undercapitalised banks.

Resolve, fairness, and transparency

Third, a timely and orderly exit strategy from debt relief and repayment moratoriums should be prioritised. Countries in Eastern and Southeastern Europe promptly introduced these plans when Covid-19 struck and to good effect. But prolonging such schemes comes with a hidden cost. It can weaken borrower repayment discipline, and give firms, that were already struggling before the pandemic, a fresh lease on life.

The question of when and how to phase out the measures does not have a simple answer. Nevertheless, the general principle should be to unwind them as soon as conditions permit. This could be done by gradually narrowing down the range of borrowers eligible for support so that only the viable enterprises are supported.

Fourth, distressed but potentially viable firms will need loan restructuring. To restore the commercial viability of ailing companies entails restructuring of their liabilities, matching payment schedules with expected income flows. Loan restructuring of non-viable borrowers, by contrast, will only lead to delaying inevitable losses.

There will be uncertainty about who can and cannot survive. An assessment will be needed to separate the lost cases and viable ones and everything in between. This will help release capital from underperforming sectors and propel more dynamic firms to drive renewed economic momentum.

We live in difficult times that require resolve, fairness, and transparency in policymaking. But these qualities are not easy to live up to in times of great uncertainty, heightened anxiety, and lack of access to relevant information. Fortunately, we can look to the past to glean lessons for the future. Now, it’s time we put them into practice.

Originally posted at Emerging Europe via World Bank

Continue Reading

Economy

The strategic thinking behind the EU-China investment deal

Published

on

Washington was understandably perplexed that a China-EU investment agreement was concluded a few weeks before the Biden administration, especially a  president who has been advocating for multilateralism and the restoration of trust and an alliance with the EU.

Some analysts argue the agreement is a big win for China by breaching the transatlantic partnership, while some scholars contend that Beijing has made historical concessions to Brussels, indicating the future lucrativeness of European business in China. Both are valid to some extent, but the strategic thinking of Beijing and Brussels behind the pact may have been overlooked.

Beijing’s strategic thinking

The EU has always been the favoured target for Beijing. Despite numerous rebrandings, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the admittedly core economic, infrastructure and diplomatic policy proposed by President Xi in 2013, was initially intended to connect with the EU, facilitating Eurasian economic integration. According to Hellenic Institute of Transport, there was no regular direct freight service between China and Europe in 2008, whereas in 2019, 59 Chinese cities and 49 European cities in 15 countries have been linked by the BRI.

Also, although the EU is situated within Western democratic thought, the views of EU members regarding China are diverse and relatively different from the US and other English-speaking countries. Germany and France, the key pillars of the EU, still allow the usage of Huawei, whereas the US, Australia, Canada and the UK have variably banned it. Italy is the only one to endorse the BRI in the G7, a group of major Western democracies. The summit of China and Central and Eastern European Countries, known as “17+1”, has been held since 2012, gaining certain support from some EU members, in spite of Brussels’ aversion.

Probably, in the Chinese diplomats’ perceptions, the post-Brexit EU may become much more approachable and pragmatic to China, a mysterious rising land from the East, in that European continent nations with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds have been living together for millennial generations, leading to a more diverse and pragmatic approach to Beijing.

As for compromises Beijing has made, some of them, such as various reforms of state-owned-enterprises, would have been the essential component of the Chinese economic agenda, but the intriguing point is the timing and astonishing scope of concessions. After seven years of drawn-out negotiation, Beijing suddenly started pushing this pact at the beginning of 2020, when the Covid-19 broke out globally, and the Sino-American trade war further exacerbated, leading to China’s reputation plummeting in the West.

Through Sino-American relations, I doubt that Beijing may have noticed, as Professor Susan Shirk, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State during the Clinton administration, pointed out, that even the American business community, benefitting enormously from the Chinese market, has not really “stepped forward to defend US-China relations, much less defend China”, which is rare in bilateral history.

Recently, President Xi Jinping even wrote a letter to encourage Starbucks’ former chairman Howard Schultz to repair Sino-American relations. Having observed this, Beijing thus decided to show a high level of sincerity and openness to European business elites, not only by economic reforms but also by promising to work on labour rights. The latter may not be a priority in Beijing, but Beijing conspicuously notes the ideological concerns of EU politicians in order to win the hearts and minds of Brussels.

Brussels’ strategic thinking

As for the EU, China has unquestionably been an attractive market. Calculated by purchasing power, China’s GDP has been de facto the largest economy for years. As the only positive-growth nation in 2020 among G20 members, China has the largest middle class, signifying potent consuming ability. Recent Chinese economic reforms primarily aim to promote consumption, which is the icing on the Chinese market’s cake, and this is also embedded in European views of China and the US.

The Pew Research Center has shown that more countries in Europe viewed China rather than the US as the world’s leading economy in 2019 and 2020. Also, more residents in Germany and France regarded US power and influence as threatening than China in 2018. Even with the new Biden administration, EU leaders anticipate a renewed trans-atlantic partnership but do not expect a sudden revolution of EU-American trade war, as bilateral trade disputes are structural and beyond Trump’s presidency.

More realistically, what is one of the major external concerns EU members face today? Back in the Cold War, the western expansion of the Soviet Union deeply disturbed European security, necessitating their consistent alliance with the US.

However, as Jonathan E. Hillman, a senior fellow at Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote: “Russia has nuclear weapons but also a one-trick economy focused on energy exports, a rusting military, and a declining population.” In particular, Russia has been increasingly challenged to maintain traditional influence in Ukraine, Belarus and Central Asia, not to mention any comprehensive aggression to EU.

Furthermore, geographically, China is distant, and the EU does not have fundamental military interests in South China Sea but rather seeks to maintain peace and freedom of navigation for their shipping and trade, notwithstanding Brussels’ political friction with Beijing. But the large-scale uncontrolled migration from Africa and the Middle East may well be the EU’s main worry. However, regardless of some Western media ostensibly branding China as a neocolonialist in Africa, China has essentially supported the African economy via the BRI investment, creating local employment and purportedly discouraging the flow of a certain amount of immigrants to Europe. So, realistically, by signing the pact, the EU may keep the door open to cooperate with China in Africa.

On the flip side, if the EU sides with the US to the exclusion of China, what will happen to the EU? Certainly, Brussels will be praised by Washington politically, while the business sphere may be a different story. The recent Sino-Australian trade disputes indicate that “in the world of international commerce, democratic and strategic friends are often the fiercest rivals”, argued Professor James Laurenceson from the University of Technology Sydney, as Chinese tariffs against Australian goods have brought opportunities to businesses in America and New Zealand. So, US corporations in China must be delighted to see business space left by the EU companies because of possible EU-China trade skirmishes.

Sensibly, the EU is adopting an independent foreign policy to maintain autonomy between China and the US. More notably, as a third party during the Sino-American power competition, having signed a deal with Beijing, Brussels may possibly request Washington to offer more, thus maximizing its geopolitical and commercial interests.

Conclusion

To conclude, both sides made pragmatic decisions to sign the pact. Professor John Mearsheimer, at the University of Chicago, argued a few years ago that liberal dreams are great delusion facing international realities. China has executed a realist foreign policy since Deng Xiaoping’s reform, and this time, the EU may have woken up, because this deal signifies that geopolitical calculation has overtaken ideological divergence.

Author’s note: First published in johnmenadue.com

Continue Reading

Economy

The Silk Road passes also by the sea

Published

on

On December 30, 2020, China and the European Union signed an agreement on mutual investment.

After seven years of negotiations, during a conference call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Ursula Von Der Leyen, President of the European Commission, with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Council President Charles Michel, the “Comprehensive Agreement on Investment” (CAI) was adopted.

This is a historic agreement that opens a new ‘Silk Road’ between Europe and the huge Chinese market, with particular regard to the manufacturing and services sectors.

In these fields, China undertakes to remove the rules that have so far strongly discriminated against European companies, by ensuring legal certainty for those who intend to produce in China, as well as aligning European and Chinese companies at regulatory level and encouraging the establishment of joint ventures and the signing of trade and production agreements.

The agreement also envisages guarantees that make it easier for European companies to fulfil all administrative procedures and obtain legal authorisations, thus removing the bureaucratic obstacles that have traditionally made it difficult for European companies to operate in China.

This is the first time in its history that China has opened up so widely to foreign companies and investment.

In order to attract them, China is committed to aligning itself with Europe in terms of labour costs and environmental protection, by progressively aligning its standards with the European ones in terms of fight against pollution and trade union rights.

With a view to making this commitment concrete and visible, China adheres to both the Paris Climate Agreement and the European Convention on Labour Organisation.

China’s adherence to the Paris Agreement on climate and on limiting CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is also the result of a commitment by China that is not only formal and propagandistic. In fact, one of the basic objectives of the last five-year plan – i.e. the 13th five-year plan for the 2016-2020 period – was to “replace unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable growth… also with innovative, coordinated and environmentally friendly measures…”.

In the five-year period covered by the 13th five-year plan, China reduced its CO2 emissions by 12% – a result not achieved over the same period by any other advanced industrial country, which shows that the policy of “going green”, so much vaunted by European institutions, has actually begun in China, to the point of making it realistic to achieve “zero emissions” of greenhouse gases by 2030, thanks to the decision to completely relinquish the use of fossil fuels in energy production.

President Xi Jinping has entrusted China’s policy of “turning green” to the Chinese government’s “rising star”, Lu Hao, i.e. the young Minister of Natural Resources aged 47, who has been chosen as the political decision-maker and operational driving force behind a major project to modernise the country.

Lu Hao has an impressive professional and political record: an economist by training, he was initially appointed First Secretary of the “Communist Youth League”, and later served as deputy mayor of Beijing from 2003 to 2008. Governor of the Hejlongjiang Province (where 37 million people live),he has been serving as Minister of Natural Resources since March 2018.

He is the youngest Minister in the Chinese government and the youngest member of the Party’s Central Committee.

While entrusting Lu Hao with his Ministerial tasks, President Xi Jinping stressed, “we want green waters and green mountains… we do not just want much GDP, but above all a strong and stable green GDP.”

A “green GDP” is also one of the objectives of the “Recovery Plan” drawn up by the European Union to help its Member States emerge from the economic crisis caused by the Covid 19 pandemic through measures and investment in the field of renewable energy.

“Going green” may represent the new centre of gravity of relations between Europe and China, according to the operational guidelines outlined in the “Comprehensive Agreement on Investment” signed on December 30 last.

China’s commitment to renewables is concrete and decisive: in 2020 solar energy production stood at five times the level of the United States while, thanks to Lu Hao’s activism, in 2019 China climbed up the U.N. ranking of nations proactively committed to controlling climate change, rising from the 41st to the 33rd place in world rankings.

On January 15, Minister Lu Hao published an article in the People’s Daily outlining his proposals for the upcoming 14th Five-Year Plan.

During the five-year period, China shall “promote and develop the harmonious coexistence between man and nature, through the all-round improvement of resource use efficiency…through a proper balance between protection and development”.

In Lu Hao’s strategy – approved by the entire Chinese government – this search for a balance between environmental protection and economic development can be found in the production of electricity from sea wave motion.

Generating electricity using wave motion can be a key asset in producing clean energy without any environmental impact.

Europe has been the first continent to develop marine energy production technologies, which have spread to the United States, Australia and, above all, China.

Currently 40% of world’s population lives within 100 kilometres of the sea, thus making marine energy easily accessible and transportable.

Using the mathematical model known as SWAN (Simulating Waves Nearshore), we can see that along the South Pacific coasts there are energy hotspots every five kilometres from the shore, at a depth of no more than 22 metres. In other words, thanks to currents, waves and tides, the Pacific has a stable surplus of energy that can be obtained from the sea motion.

Today, energy is mainly obtained from water using a device known as “Penguin”, which is about 30 metres long and, when placed in the sea at a maximum depth of 50 metres, produces energy without any negative impact on marine fauna and flora.

Another key technology is called ISWEC (Inertial Sea Waves Energy Converter). This is a device placed inside a 15-metre-long floating hull which, thanks to a system of gyroscopes and sensors, is able to produce 250 MWh of electricity per year. It occupies a marine area of just 150 square metres and hence it allows to reduce CO2 emissions by a total of 68 tonnes per year.

ISWEC is an Italian-made product, resulting from research by the Turin Polytechnic Institute and developed thanks to a synergy between ENI, CDP, Fincantieri and Terna.

Italy is at the forefront in the research and production of technology that can be used for converting wave motion into ‘green’ energy. This explains the attention with which Chinese Minister Lu Hao looks to our country as a source of renewable energy development in China, as well as the commitment that the young Minister, urged by President Xi Jinping, has made to promote an extremely important cooperation agreement in the field of renewable energy between the Rome-based International World Group (IWG) and the National Ocean Technology Centre (NOTC), a Chinese research and development centre that reports directly to the Ministry of Natural Resources in Beijing.

The cooperation agreement envisages, inter alia, the development of Euro-Chinese synergies in the research and development of essential technologies in the production of “clean” energy from sea water, as part of a broad Euro-Chinese cooperation strategy that can support not only the Chinese government’s concrete and verifiable efforts to seriously implement the strategic project to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution from fossil fuels, but also support Italy in the production of “green” energy according to the guidelines of the European Recovery Plan, which commits EU Member States to using its resources while giving priority to environmental protection.

The agreement between IWG and NOTC marks a significant step forward in scientific and productive cooperation between China and Europe and adds another mile in the construction of a new Silk Road, i.e. a sea mile.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Environment37 mins ago

Lao PDR Signs Agreement to Protect Forests and Reduce Carbon Emissions

The Lao PDR and the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) have signed an agreement to provide up to...

Americas2 hours ago

China-Brazil relations, the win-win strategy, and third-parties’ bad faith

In a previous article we focused on Argentina, but it is worth continuing to analyse the situation in Latin America....

Human Rights3 hours ago

UN rights experts urge Israel to respect international obligations

UN independent rights experts on Tuesday, described Israel’s conviction of human rights defender Issa Amro earlier this month, as showing disdain for the country’s international obligations.   The comments came after the 6...

Reports4 hours ago

Study Finds Ways To Boost Intra-African Trade and Build Resilience

On 1 January 2021, the African Union launched the Africa Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the world’s biggest free trade...

Environment6 hours ago

Climate change is a ‘global emergency’- Poll

Almost two-thirds of over 1.2 million people surveyed worldwide say that climate change is a global emergency, urging greater action...

Europe8 hours ago

China, Central and Eastern Europe in 2021: BRI and the 17+1 Initiative during vaccine times

When the worldwide outbreak of COVID-19 spread in March 2020, China played a crucial role in the global supply of...

News10 hours ago

Security Council reforms must reflect 21st century realities

The President of the General Assembly, on Monday, underscored the importance of effectiveness and efficiency for all bodies of the...

Trending