Connect with us

International

China Retaliates With Tariffs on $60 Billion of U.S. Goods

Published

on

  • China announced that they will impose tariffs on $60 billion worth of U.S. goods just days after the U.S. announced it will impose tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.
  • After months of trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, the U.S. escalated tensions once more, claiming that China was backing out of key parts of the trade deal.
  • Many experts believe the increased U.S. tariffs will hurt U.S. consumers and the economy, despite President Trump’s claims that they will only hurt China.

China Bites Back

China announced Monday that they will raise tariffs on $60 billion worth of U.S. goods, a move that came as a response to the Trump administration’s decision Friday to impose tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.

The Trump administration’s efforts targets existing tariffs by raising taxes on those $200 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10 percent to 25 percent. Though it has not been formally announced, President Donald Trump also plans on placing new tariffs on essentially all goods imported from China, according to a statement from U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

“The President also ordered us to begin the process of raising tariffs on essentially all remaining imports from China,” Lighthizer’s statement said, “Which are valued at approximately $300 billion.”

China responded to this by announcing that starting June 1, they will raise their tariffs as high as 25 percent on U.S. goods that used to be taxed at 10 percent. The tariffs will apply to nearly 5,000 U.S. goods, and the steepest tariffs will apply to animal products, seasonings, live plants, a range of fruits and vegetables, and more.

While the new tariffs appear to be somewhat of a numbers game on the surface, it begs the question: What does this mean for the bigger picture?

There are two main implications here. First, what these new tariffs mean for the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China; And second, what impact the Chinee tariffs will have on the U.S. economy and U.S. consumers.

Trade War Implications

Trump has long accused the Chinese government of hurting off U.S. consumers and businesses by stealing intellectual property from the U.S, unfairly subsidizing domestic companies, and flooding international markets with cheap goods causing U.S. companies to go out of business.

Since January 2018, the two countries have seen an ongoing cycle of the U.S. imposing tariffs on Chinese goods, and China responding by doing the same. All of this has amounted to what is essentially a tit-for-tat trade war.

However, in December, the escalation seemed to slow when the two countries agreed to negotiate a trade deal. For months, it seemed like China and the U.S. could reach an agreement. Then, despite numerous claims from Trump and his administration that the talks were going well, Trump decided to raise the tariffs last week amid highly anticipated negotiations.

Trump has argued that U.S. and Chinese negotiators failed to reach a deal during trade talks last week because China had backed out of major parts of the deal. China denied these accusations, saying they just wanted to renegotiate parts of the deal that they believe infringe on Chinese sovereignty.

Despite the recent escalation, the deal is still not off the table. Neither the U.S. tariffs nor China’s go into effect immediately. As noted above, China’s tariffs go into place on June 1, and the Trump administration structured its tariff increase so that they will not go into effect for a few more weeks, giving both sides time to negotiate.

The question that remains then is whether or not they can reach an agreement. Numerous Chinese officials have said they wish to resume trade negotiations, a point that was reiterated in the Chinese Finance Ministry’s official statement announcing their retaliatory tariffs.

“The Chinese side hopes that the US will return to the correct track of bilateral economic and trade consultations and work together with China to move toward each other and strive to reach a mutually beneficial and win-win agreement on the basis of mutual respect,” the statement said.

Trump for his part expressed his desire to negotiate a deal, but also appeared to threaten China in a series of tweets Monday, writing “China will be hurt very badly if you don’t make a deal”

Impact on the U.S. Economy

Trump also tweeted Monday morning saying that there is “no reason for the U.S. Consumer to pay the Tariffs.”

“There will be nobody left in China to do business with. Very bad for China, very good for USA! […] China should not retaliate-will only get worse!” He continued in the same thread.

That brings us to the second implication these tariffs have, which is the impact on the U.S. economy. As he said in those tweets, Trump has repeatedly argued that the tariffs will hurt China and not U.S. consumers.

In the same thread of tweets, Trump said consumers could mitigate the financial hit caused by the tariffs by buying American-made products or products manufactured in countries that are not subject to the tariffs, like Vietnam.

However, both trade experts and business groups have said Trump often is wrong in his characterization of how tariffs work. Tariffs are taxes paid by U.S. companies to buy foreign products, which means those taxes are not paid by China, but companies like manufacturing firms and other producers that need Chinese products.

When taxes are imposed, it makes Chinese products more expensive. However, it does not lower demand for those products from U.S. companies that need those Chinese goods to operate, and now have to pay more.

This specifically includes U.S. agriculture companies, which have already been hit by the new penalties, prompting a $12 billion bailout from Trump last year. Trump has said he will seek an additional $15 billion in from U.S. taxpayers to give to farmers.

All of this to say that the tariffs imposed by the U.S, can end up hurting U.S. companies and economic growth in the U.S. as well as China. This was a point that was made by Trump’s National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, who contradicted Trump last night in an interview with Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday.

“It’s not China that pays tariffs,” Wallace said. “It’s the American importers, the American companies that pay what, in effect, is a tax increase and oftentimes passes it on to U.S. consumers.”

“Fair enough,” Kudlow responded. “In fact, both sides will pay. Both sides will pay in these things.”

U.S. investors are also worried about the impact of the tariffs.

“The costs of U.S. tariffs have fallen entirely on U.S. businesses and households, with no clear reduction in the prices charged by Chinese exporters,” Goldman Sachs analysts wrote a note to investors on Monday. “The effects of the tariffs have spilled over noticeably to the prices charged by U.S. producers competing with tariff-affected goods.”

Investors clearly responded Monday when U.S. stocks fell by triple digits. The S&P 500 and the Dow saw their worst day since Jan. 3, while the Nasdaq had its biggest drop this year. Stocks closed with major market averages falling by over two percent.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The Wall Street Journal) (Fox Business)

International

Ebola Outbreak in Congo Declared Global Health Emergency

Published

on

  • The World Health Organization declared the recent Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
  • Since the outbreak began in August 2018, over 1,600 people have died. 
  • WHO does not see Ebola as a current global threat, but wants to draw international attention to the outbreak to increase global engagement. 
  • This is the worst outbreak of the disease since the one between 2014-2016, which killed over 11,000 people.

Emergency Declared

The World Health Organization declared the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on Wednesday.

The outbreak began in August 2018 and has killed over 1,600 people, with over 2,500 confirmed cases. It is considered the worst outbreak since the one that began in 2014 and ended in 2016, which killed over 11,000 people. 

On Monday, the outbreak escalated when the city of Goma, which sits on the border of Rwanda, saw its first confirmed case. Goma is home to nearly 2 million people and has an international airport. This put pressure on the WHO to evaluate the situation.

“It is time for the world to take notice and redouble our efforts,” WHO’s Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement.

“We need to work together in solidarity with the DRC to end this outbreak and build a better health system. Extraordinary work has been done for almost a year under the most difficult circumstances. We all owe it to these responders — coming from not just WHO but also government, partners and communities — to shoulder more of the burden.”

By declaring it an emergency of international concern, the WHO is hoping to draw worldwide attention to the outbreak so that global efforts can help to stop it. 

The WHO also released recommendations for the DRC to follow during this emergency. This includes strengthening at-risk populations, conducting cross-border screenings and screenings at main internal roads, and using optimal vaccine strategies, among other practices.

They also listed recommendations for neighboring countries, which includes working urgently with partners to improve their preparedness, and mapping population movements and sociological patterns that can predict the risk of disease spread.

As of now, the WHO is not concerned about a global outbreak. 

“Risk remains very high at national and regional levels but still low at global level,” their statement continued.

Because the risk is not yet global, the organization wants to emphasize that countries should not restrict trade and other business with the DRC. In fact, they believe that if countries do so, the outbreak would only worsen.

“No country should close its borders or place any restrictions on travel and trade,” their statement encourages. “Such measures are usually implemented out of fear and have no basis in science. They push the movement of people and goods to informal border crossings that are not monitored, thus increasing the chances of the spread of disease,” WHO’s statement reads.

Setbacks in Treatment

The DRC has faced many challenges while dealing with this outbreak. Earlier this week, Dr. Tedros spoke about how attacks on Ebola responders have made things difficult. Since January there have been almost 200 attacks resulting in seven deaths. 

“We are dealing with one of the world’s most dangerous viruses in one of the world’s most dangerous areas,” he said in a statement. “Every attack sets us back. Every attack makes it more difficult to trace contacts, vaccinate and perform safe burials. Every attack gives Ebola an opportunity to spread.”

According to a New York Times report, some of this violence comes from mourners who are upset with responders after losing loved ones to the disease. One person who works in burials told the Times that mourners have threatened to throw workers into open graves. The report also said that in once instance, a mourner brandished a hand grenade, resulting in everyone scattering and a 3-year-old Ebola victim not being buried. 

Mourners are not the only ones believed to be behind the violence, however, the DRC is still looking into who else is participating in attacks and why.

The WHO has also criticized for being slow to respond to the outbreak. This was their fourth meeting discussing whether or not to declare an international emergency of this kind. Many believe they should have declared it at one of their earlier meetings. 

Still, progress has been made in treating the outbreak. Right now there is no complete cure for Ebola, however, research published earlier this month showed that two experimental treatments were found to be effective. 

Vaccines have also been effective during this outbreak. According to the WHO, over 161,000 people in the DRC have been vaccinated and over 10,000 people in three surrounding countries have been vaccinated as well. 

See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (The Atlantic) (USA Today)

Continue Reading

International

Amnesty International Condemns LGBTI Discrimination in South Korea Military

Published

on

  • A report by Amnesty International outlines the discrimination and abuse that gay men serving in South Korea’s military experience. 
  • Article 92-6 in South Korea’s Military Criminal Act criminalizes sex between two men in the military. 
  • Amnesty International says that this law opens the door for gay soldiers to be mistreated, which has included verbal taunting and sexual assault. 
  • Soldiers who spoke to Amnesty International said their experiences have been humiliating, have taken a toll on their mental health, and have even led to some attempting suicide. 

Amnesty International Releases Report

Amnesty International is calling on South Korea to appeal its law that bans same-sex relationships between men in the military after their report shows that soldiers experience abuse, assault, and humiliation as a result of it. 

In a report published Thursday titled “Serving in Silence: LGBTI People in South Korea’s Military,” Amnesty International speaks to several soldiers from South Korea’s military who detail personal experiences with discrimination. 

According to Article 92-6 of the South Korea Military Criminal Act, sexual relations between two men in the military, either on or off duty, fall under the “indecent acts” clause. This can be punishable by up to two years in prison.  

While it is still illegal for same-sex couples to marry and adopt in South Korea, homosexuality is not criminalized for all citizens. This article only applies to those serving in the military. 

Amnesty International says that by having this law, South Korea is opening the door to discrimination.

“Criminalization creates an environment where discrimination is tolerated, and even encouraged,” the report says.

“Homophobic and transphobic individuals can view this law as tacit permission to target LGBTI people inside and outside the military,” it continues. 

The report also said that the first step to ending this discrimination is removing the article.

Decriminalization does not solve the entire issue, but it is a crucial first step towards respecting, protecting and fulfilling the human rights of LGBTI people,” the report states. 

Charges Made Under Article 92-6

People have been charged under this article in the past. In 2017, authorities actively looked to identify soldiers who they believed were engaging in sexual acts with other men. They ended up charging over 20 soldiers as a result. 

One man who was charged in this, who the report identifies as “Yeo-jun Kim” told Amnesty International that investigators asked him personal questions throughout the process. 

“The investigators barraged me with outrageous questions, questions about what sex positions I used and where did I ejaculate,” he said. 

He also said that they looked through his phone and asked him to identify other LGBTI people. 

“The authorities came to me like peeping Toms,” he added. “They should have maintained confidentiality. I have lost faith and trust in people.”

Soldiers Face Abuse

In addition charges, gay soldiers are often subject to physical and verbal abuse.

The report outlines the story of one soldier they identify as “U” who served around a decade ago. 

“One night, I saw a soldier being sexually abused,” U told Amnesty International. “When he got angry, the person abusing him who was his senior started to beat him fiercely and forced him to drink from the toilet bowl. A few days later, the abused soldier made up his mind to report the incident and approached me for my help.”

When the superior learned about the possible report, he threatened to beat U. 

“I was then subjected to physical violence and humiliation for three hours,” U continued. “Which included being forced to have oral and anal sex with the original victim while the senior soldier made taunting remarks, such as: ‘Don’t you want to have sex with a woman-like man?’”

U added that this assault and humiliation drove him, and three others who experienced similar situations, to attempt suicide, which resulted in them being taken to a psychiatric hospital. Three of them were dishonorably discharged, while U was taken back to his squad and labeled as a “soldier of interest.”

Toll on Mental Health

Many soldiers say that the harassment and assault they are subject to takes a mental toll on them, resulting in many going to military health facilities. The report says that the facilities often have poor conditions, cramped spaces, and soldiers often question the qualifications of those working there. 

One soldier, identified as “Jeram” was regularly groped and assaulted. He was labeled as a soldier of interest when his unit learned he was gay. He told Amnesty International that he ended up in one of these facilities.  

The hospital deemed him “rebellious” after he did not comply with some of their requests, resulting in him losing the right to make phone calls or walk out in fresh air once a week. 

“The hospital tried to diagnose me as ‘unfit for service’ with staff members even instructing me how to act mentally incompetent so that I could get discharged,” Jeram said. “I refused to be labelled in this way. I felt I had lived my life well prior to the military and knew that I was not the source of the problem. This whole experience led me to attempt suicide because I lost the will to live.”

He then said that one panelist, who he did not think was a licensed medical professional, told him during one of his reviews, “You are so disobedient. Even if I shoot you here, it will simply get covered up as a suspicious death and that will be it. Then, the compensation your family would receive will be even lower than for a military dog.”

Amnesty International’s report is the latest in international organizations fighting for rights for gay soldiers in South Korea. In March, Human Rights Watch submitted an amicus brief urging the country to repeal Article 92-6.

“Article 92-6 violates the rights of LGBT persons in two distinct ways,” the brief said. “First, it violates the substance of fundamental rights. Second, it discriminates against service members based on their sexual orientation. The criminalization per se of consensual adult same-sex conduct is a violation of the right to privacy under international law.”

See what others are saying: (Reuters) (CNN) (New York Times)

Continue Reading

International

Sudan Military and Opposition Reach Power-Sharing Deal

Published

on

  • Sudanese opposition and military leaders agreed Friday to set up a joint military-civilian council that will rotate power between the two groups until elections are held in three years.
  • The agreement comes after weeks of stalled negotiations between a coalition of opposition groups and the Transitional Military Council that came to power after President Omar al-Bashir was overthrown by a military coup in April.
  • Mediators stepped up negotiation efforts earlier this week after tens of thousands of demonstrators staged the largest protest since the violence on June 3.
  • Thousands of people took to the streets to celebrate the agreement as leaders on both sides expressed optimism, but others called for continued protests over concerns that the military will not hold up its end of the deal.

Agreement Reached

Sudan’s military and opposition leaders reached an agreement to share power until elections can be held, mediators announced Friday.

The deal comes after weeks of stalled negotiations between civilian opposition leaders and the ruling Transitional Military Council (TMC), which took power after Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir was ousted in a military coup in April.

Al-Bashir’s removal followed months of protests dating back to December 2018. Those protests continued after the TMC installed itself, with demonstrators demanding that the military rulers hand over power to a civilian-led government.

The new power-sharing deal will establish a joint military-civilian sovereign council that will govern Sudan until elections are held in three years. 

Military and civilian leaders will rotate control of the council, with the military leading the council for the first 21 months, and the civilians leading the council for the remaining 18 months.

The council will be composed of five members of the military, five civilians, and an 11th seat that will be agreed on by both sides. The agreement also stipulates the appointment of a cabinet of ministers and the formation of a legislative council.

Leaders on both sides expressed optimism about the agreement. 

“This agreement opens the way for the formation of the institutions of the transitional authority,” said Omar al-Degair, a leader of the opposition coalition who negotiated with the military. “And we hope that this is the beginning of a new era.”

“This agreement is comprehensive and does not exclude anyone,” said General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, deputy head of the TMC.

Protests

Opposition leaders and the TMC also agreed to launch an independent investigation into the violence that began in early June, after a military crackdown on protesters left mass casualties.

On June 3, paramilitary forces attacked a long-standing protest camp outside military headquarters that had been the site of ongoing demonstrations against military rule since al-Bashir was toppled. 

Opposition medics said that more than 100 people were killed in the violence, while the government has said the death toll was 62.

General Dagalo, known as Hemeti, leads the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces that protest leaders have accused of perpetrating the crackdown.

Following the attack, the TMC said they would no longer negotiate with the protestors, and called for snap elections. They later went back on that decision and said they wanted negotiations, but were rebuked by the protest leaders, who refused to negotiate with them after the attack.

They later went back on that decision and said they wanted negotiations, but were rebuked by the protest leaders, who refused to negotiate with them after the attack.

However, the African Union and leaders in neighboring Ethiopia stepped in to lead mediation between the two. 

Those efforts ramped up earlier this week, after tens of thousands of demonstrators filled the streets of Sudanese cities, marking the biggest protests since the June 3 crackdown. Seven more were killed in Sunday’s protests, and more than 100 were injured.

Skeptical Hope for the Future

Thousands of people took to the streets of the Sudanese capital Khartoum to celebrate the agreement. 

However, many protestors called for continued demonstrations to put pressure on the military to follow through with the deal. 

“We would like to see many more guarantees from the TMC because they’ve made many promises on handing over power only to backtrack later on,” a protester named Mohamed Ismail told Al Jazeera.

Another protester named Lena al-Sheikh told BBC that the demonstrators “definitely wanted much more” from the deal, and added that many are a “little bit” skeptical regarding the details.

“The military council has shown that […] there was brutality against protesters,” she said. “People died, people were hurt and we were thinking maybe this is never going to happen, maybe we are never going to reach an agreement.”

Other experts say the deal falls short of opposition demands for a fully-civilian led council. Sudan-based journalist Yousra Elbagir pointed out in a tweet that many people in Sudan do not know the details of the deal, because of the ongoing internet blackout in the country. 

The internet has been shut off for a month now in Sudan, as military leaders have attempted to suppress communications and public gatherings.

Others, however, expressed excitement and optimism for the future.

“We have won a victory against injustice,” a protestor named Shihab Salah told Reuters. “Our goal is to achieve freedom and justice and to find jobs for young people. Civilian rule and democracy are the future of Sudan.”

See what others are saying: (Al Jazeera) (The New York Times) (BBC)

Continue Reading