Easy

Three deals across three key regions : Mercosur, India and Australia.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

While the Commission hailed the Australia agreement as a new geostrategic win, EU farmers continue to express deep discontent stemming from the Mercosur deal.

In practice, the backlash around the agreement with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay has done little to shift the Commission’s dual approach in its negotiating line. On the one hand, the commission kept making concessions on entry-level or mid-range farm goods such as beef, while on the other hand, it pushed for market access for high value-added exports —like wine, Geographical Indications (GI) and cars— with mixed results.

“The EU has all the assets to be an agri-food power,” Luc Vernet, from the export-focused brussels think tank Farm Europe, told Euronews, adding: “We should develop a broader strategy beyond high value-added products, covering all sectors and all levels of quality, because the European model delivers exceptional quality not just in luxury products.”

Yet the opposition to the Latin America deal — which triggered a legal challenge suspending its ratification — crystallised among EU farmers over fears of unfair competition from meat imports.

The Mercosur agreement granted quotas of 99,000 tonnes of beef per year, 25,000 tonnes of pork and 188,000 tonnes of poultry. Despite conditions added to new quotas in the Australia deal, EU farmers complain of imports piling up across successive agreements.

Concessions made on beef

Over eight years of talks with Canberra—the world’s second-largest beef exporter—Australia pushed hard for greater access for beef and sheep meat. Tensions intensified in 2023, when negotiations broke down after the EU rejected Australia’s demand for 40,000 tonnes of beef per year, offering no more than 30,000 tonnes instead.

The final deal agreed Tuesday allows 30,600 tonnes of beef annually into the EU. For sheep and goat meat, Brussels accepted a 25,000-tonne duty-free quota, while sugar was limited to 35,000 tonnes of raw cane for refining and rice to 8,500 tonnes a year.

However, perhaps drawing lessons from Mercosur, Brussels imposed multiple conditions on the quotas. Beef imports, which will have to be from grass-fed cattle, will be phased in over 10 years, sheep meat over 7 years, and rice over 5 years. Sugar will also be subject to certification under a private sustainability scheme.

Safeguard clauses, allowing both sides to react to market disruption, will apply for seven years – but are extended for sensitive farm goods : 15 years for beef, 12 for sheep and 10 for rice.

But a farmers’ representative told Euronews there were serious doubts about the effectiveness of the safeguard mechanisms: “Our experience in general with safeguards is that they are extremely difficult to activate because the burden of the proof is on us, farmers.”

The offensive agenda of the Commission

By contrast, agriculture was far less contentious in the India negotiations, where New Delhi itself resisted opening its market due to domestic farm sensitivities, particularly in dairy. EU sensitive products were largely excluded.

But wine featured prominently on Brussels’ offensive agenda, with Indian tariffs cut from 150% to 20% for premium wines and 30% for mid-range products over seven years. Tariffs for cars will also fall from 110% to 10% but under a quota of 250,000 vehicles a year after a decade – by which point Chinese manufacturers have great chances to have strengthened their position.

In negotiations with Australia, the EU again sought greater access for its wine but encountered strong opposition from domestic producers. In the end, the deal protects more than 1,600 EU wine GIs, plus over 50 new ones from 12 member states.

On Prosecco, Australian producers will still be allowed to use the term domestically to designate a grey grape variety, provided it is linked to Australian GI, with Canberra agreeing to stop exporting such wines after 10 years.

The EU also secured protection for 165 agri-food GIs and 231 spirit drink GIs. But it failed to remove Australia’s luxury car tax, securing instead preferential treatment for EU electric vehicles. But Brussels won improved access to critical raw materials – a key EU demand, that may have lead to more concessions on meat.

SACRAMENTO — Every two years, elite athletes compete in the Olympics, biennial plants — like carrots and onions — produce seeds and people across America look on with consternation and mounting impatience as California counts its election ballots.

The prolonged tally has become as much a part of electioneering in the Golden State as wall-to-wall advertising, high-flown promises and overstuffed mailboxes groaning beneath the weight of endless campaign fliers.

The tabulation — which can last weeks past election day — is the product, in large part, of a commendable objective: Encouraging as many people as possible to vote.

California, which mails a ballot to every eligible voter, ranks near the top of states in the ease of its elections. That’s something to be celebrated. Voting is a way to help steer the direction of our state and nation and invest, as an active participant, in its future.

Yay, participatory democracy!

Unfortunately, the lag time between election day and the final results has led to all sorts of wild, unfounded claims, peddled mainly by Republicans seeking to curry favor with the sore-losing President Trump by parroting his conspiratorial gabbling.

“They hold the elections open for weeks after election day,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said recently, falsely suggesting that chicanery cost the GOP three House seats in California in 2024. “It looks on its face to be fraudulent.”

That’s a lot of, um, hooey.

There is no rampant cheating or election fraud in California. Period. Full stop.

Still, those sorts of phony statements have deeply diminished faith in our elections and our increasingly rickety democracy.

So — what if it were possible to preserve California’s friendly voting system while, at the same time, speeding up the tabulation of its many millions of ballots?

Kim Alexander believes it’s possible to do both.

“We need to stop explaining why it’s taking so long and start figuring out how to [produce election results] in a more satisfying way,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we could do better and do differently. It just takes some creative thinking and some will.”

Simply put, “The longer it takes to count ballots, the more voter confidence erodes.”

Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, has spent more than three decades working to make the state’s elections more efficient, more transparent and more accountable.

Her interest in politics and election mechanics came about while growing up in Culver City, where her father served as a councilman and mayor.

As a 7-year-old, stationed in the garage, it was Alexander’s job to track the returns in her dad’s first campaign, toting up the numbers at an election night party while her mom, posted in the kitchen, called the city clerk for updates. Even at that young age, Alexander learned the importance of a fair and efficient tabulation process.

Over the years, she watched as her father’s political career was stymied by a Democratic gerrymander, which blocked any hopes he had of being elected to Congress or the Legislature as a moderate Republican. She saw firsthand the influence of money in politics. (Her father told her of turning away donations that came with strings attached.) That helped turn her into a political reformer.

After working as a legislative staffer and serving a stint at Common Cause, the good-government lobbying group, Alexander took over the California Voter Foundation in 1994.

As a political noncombatant, Alexander won’t say how it feels, and whether these days she’s more or less optimistic, watching as reckless attacks on our elections come from inside the White House. “I like to describe myself as a realist with high goals,” is all she’d allow.

There are good reasons why it takes California so long to count its ballots.

First off, there are a lot of them; more than 16 million residents voted in the last presidential election, more than the population of all but 10 states. Voting by mail has exploded in popularity and it takes longer to count those ballots, as many don’t arrive until after election day. Also, there are a number of safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure an accurate count. “We’re checking all the signatures,” Alexander said. “We’re making sure nobody votes twice.”

Simply explaining those facts can help build trust, she said. However, that won’t speed up the state’s vote counting. Here, Alexander suggested, are some things that can:

— Increase funding for California’s 58 counties to expand equipment, staff and the space needed to process ballots. In recent years, the state has been asking local election officials to do more and more without reimbursing their costs.

— Educate voters and encourage them to turn their ballots in earlier. Along those lines, a system called “sign, scan and go” allows voters to return their mail ballots in person at a designated polling place. A pilot program in Placer County found that that shaved three to four days off processing time. The system could be implemented statewide.

— Better manage California’s voter database, doing so from the top down in Sacramento, rather than having counties oversee their data and feed it into the system. That bottom-up approach creates delays and a lag time in processing ballots.

— Create “ballot swap” days to speed delivery of out-of-county ballots where they belong, also saving time. (Under California law, voters can return their ballot anywhere in the state, but it must be routed to their home county to be tabulated. That process can now take more than a week.)

The problem, apart from perennial budget pressures, is that interest in election mechanics — a technical and arcane subject if ever there was one — is episodic and fleeting. It’s like worrying about a leaky roof when the temperature is 95 degrees outside and the sun is blazing.

But even without voters clamoring to address California’s slow-poke vote count, lawmakers should act.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently rose to defend the state’s “safe and secure elections” against one of Trump’s many unwarranted attacks. If he wants to burnish his credentials for a 2028 presidential run — which Newsom very much does — one way would be to speed up delivery of its election results.

That way the rest of the country won’t be asking again in November: What the heck’s with California?

As part of its seemingly never-ending search for new fighters, the Indian Ministry of Defense says it wants to team up with one of the two rival European next-generation combat aircraft programs. Faced by the twin challenges of China and Pakistan’s modernizing air arms, Indian defense officials are now looking at sixth-generation fighters, although buying into either of these programs would be fraught with difficulties.

The development was revealed in a report on 2026 defense budget plans tabled in India’s parliament yesterday. Such a move would provide an alternative to India’s domestically developed next-generation fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), which looks entirely unlikely to meet its timeline.

The two European efforts identified by the IAF are the British-led Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), the centerpiece of which is the Tempest next-generation stealth fighter, and the pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program, at the heart of which will be the crewed New Generation Fighter (NGF). Both are expected to be in service by 2035, although that target is questionable in both cases.

As well as the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan have joined the GCAP program, and other potential partners have been mentioned. Meanwhile, the pan-European FCAS program is led by France and Germany, with Belgium and Spain on board as junior partners. This may well change, however, with the program riddled by infighting.

The budget report states that the Indian Ministry of Defense has told the parliament’s Standing Committee on Defense that the Indian Air Force (IAF) wants to join one of these programs “right away.”

The result of such a partnership, the defense ministry contends, would help the IAF “ensure that they do not lag behind in achieving the target for advanced aircraft.”

First of all, it’s worth noting that the IAF badly needs new fighter equipment and has for some time. Multiple efforts to procure interim combat aircraft have either collapsed entirely or failed to deliver in terms of the required numbers.

As we described at the end of last year, the Indian government has said that the IAF needs at least 42 squadrons of combat aircraft. Currently, it has just 29, meaning the service is operating its smallest combat force since it went to war with China in 1962. This problem has been exacerbated by the retirement of the veteran MiG-21 Fishbed.

Meanwhile, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft program, which should have provided a successor to the MiG-21, has been mired by delays.

In the background, India faces the dual threats of China and Pakistan.

On the one hand, China is ramping up its military development programs to a breathtaking degree, with combat aircraft at the forefront. Most spectacular has been the emergence of the tailless J-XDS and J-36 tactical jets, and ever sub-variations of them, as well as a navalized stealth fighter for its new carrier. Already well established are the J-20 stealth fighter, while development of the land-based J-35A continues.

The question of how the IAF shapes up against the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has long underpinned its status and planning. After the brief conflict last year, both services claimed success with contradictory reports from official channels and rampant speculation across social media.

More importantly, the PAF continues to develop its homegrown JF-17 Thunder fighter and appears to be lining up more advanced Chinese-made combat aircraft, specifically the stealthy FC-31, alongside acquiring highly capable air-launched weapons from the same source.

All of this piles on the pressure to modernize the IAF’s aging combat fleet.

At one point, the IAF appeared set on a fifth-generation fighter.

The twin-engine AMCA is planned to feature low-observable characteristics and — in later versions — a supercruise capability, among other advanced features. Bearing in mind that construction is yet to begin, the possibility of putting this aircraft production by 2035, as has been suggested, seems entirely far-fetched. The saga of the Tejas program, in particular, must cast doubt on the future of the AMCA, at least in terms of meeting schedules.

In the meantime, both the United States and Russia have pitched alternative fifth-generation fighters to India.

Last year, in something of a surprise announcement, U.S. President Donald Trump offered the F-35 to India, while Russia has long sought India as a customer for its Su-57 Felon. As long ago as 2003, the Prospective Multirole Fighter (PMF) was planned as an India-specific version of the Su-57, before New Delhi exited the program, as you can read about here.

The budget report indicates that the Indian Ministry of Defense would like to at least have the option of leapfrogging fifth-generation fighters like the AMCA, F-35, and Su-57, and move directly to the sixth generation.

In terms of keeping pace with China and Pakistan, that is an understandable aspiration.

On the other hand, joining either GCAP or the FCAS program would bring challenges of its own.

At this point, GCAP — involving the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan — might look more promising. Compared to FCAS, the relationship between the three partners is relatively peaceful. There has been talk of Saudi Arabia possibly joining in some capacity, and, more recently, Poland has been reported as being interested in buying the aircraft, too.

But the possibility of India participating more directly in GCAP/Tempest is somewhat remote, since workshare arrangements have already been agreed between the three partners. The IAF would likely be forced to buy the aircraft off the shelf.

And that is if the British-led program survives the considerable challenges, both technical and political, that lie ahead.

After all, the process of creating an all-new fighter, especially one incorporating stealth technologies, brings very lengthy development times and high costs. The prospect of the Tempest entering service long after 2035 is likely, and the IAF needs new fighters sooner rather than later.

The same goes for the FCAS program, of course.

With FCAS, however, the chances of the program actually making it as far as operational hardware currently seem much slimmer.

For months now, there have been reports of significant rifts between France and Germany on the course that FCAS should take, especially when it comes to workshare, which has yet to be resolved.

French and German officials have repeatedly tried to get the program back on track, in the face of a bitter standoff between the two primes, France’s Dassault Aviation and Germany’s Airbus Defense and Space.

Most recently, it has been reported that France and Germany will have one more go at finding common ground on the program in April.

In the meantime, Germany has raised the possibility of taking its own path to developing a future combat aircraft, something it hasn’t done for decades, and which France has campaigned against.

Whatever happens next month, India’s joining FCAS would be a big risk. Some Indian media reports have suggested that, as a Dassault customer (for the Rafale multirole fighter), India might be able to take Germany’s place in the FCAS program, although it’s equally unclear whether it would be able to negotiate the kind of workshare deal it might want.

In the best-case scenario, it might be able to buy a much-delayed aircraft that is not necessarily tailored to its own requirements. In the worst case, the program may fall apart entirely and force the various partners to start again from scratch or look for alternatives.

If there is a way for India to enter GCAP or FCAS, that could bring a huge financial windfall for either program. This is what each program needs more than anything else, while increased production rates would mean lower unit costs, preventing the program from entering a death spiral should it mature.

Then there is the future of the AMCA to consider. If India genuinely wants to push ahead with a fifth-generation fighter, which can be developed according to its own particular needs, and over which it retains sovereignty, this program will need to be urgently kick-started. It seems unlikely that it would be possible if India had one foot in either the GCAP or FCAS camps.

There is also the wild card of how an advanced uncrewed aircraft could affect these developments. India is already starting to work on such programs, and drones could make up some of the Indian fighter shortfall. This is especially the case for high-end Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs) and uncrewed combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), to achieve a higher combat mass.

Finally, it needs to be acknowledged that it is the Indian Ministry of Defense — acting upon the IAF’s wishes — that wants to join GCAP or FCAS, not necessarily a reflection of what the government wants. As one long-standing Indian defense observer told TWZ, “the standing committee has no teeth.” Until the government signs off on it, the Indian Air Force joining an existing sixth-generation fighter program remains just an aspiration.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com