exports

China’s Commerce Ministry says the move against Japanese firms will prevent the remilitarisation of Japan.

Japan has strongly protested China’s move to restrict the export of “dual-use” items to 20 Japanese business entities that Beijing says could be used for military purposes, in the latest twist in a months-long diplomatic row between the two countries.

Japanese Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Sato Kei said at a news conference that the move by China’s Ministry of Commerce on Tuesday was “deplorable” and would “not be tolerated” by Tokyo.

Companies affected by China’s export ban on dual-use items, or items that can be used for civilian or military purposes, include Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ shipbuilding group, aerospace and marine machinery subsidiaries, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Japan’s National Defense Academy, and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.

Beijing said restricting the export of dual-use items to the Japanese firms was necessary to “safeguard national security and interests and fulfil international obligations such as non-proliferation”, adding that the companies were involved in “enhancing Japan’s military strength”.

China’s Commerce Ministry said on Tuesday that it would also add another 20 entities to its export restrictions watchlist, including Japanese automaker Subaru, petroleum company ENEOS Corporation, and Mitsubishi Materials Corporation.

Chinese exporters must submit a risk assessment report for each company to ensure “dual-use items will not be used for any purpose that would enhance Japan’s military strength”, according to a statement on the Commerce Ministry’s website.

China has imposed similar restrictions on the US and Taiwan as a form of political protest, particularly over Washington’s ongoing unofficial support for the self-governed island. Beijing claims democratic Taiwan as its territory and has not ruled out using force for “reunification”.

Tokyo and Beijing have a historically acrimonious relationship, but diplomatic ties took a turn for the worse in November, when Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi told legislators that a Chinese attack on Taiwan would constitute a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, which could necessitate military action.

Japan has had a pacifist constitution which restricts its use of force, but an attack on Taiwan could legally allow Tokyo to activate its army, the Self-Defence Forces, Takaichi said.

Takaichi’s remarks were some of the most explicit regarding whether Japan could become involved in a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, and have been accompanied by a push to expand Japan’s military capability.

Beijing reacted with fury to Takaichi’s remarks, discouraging Chinese citizens from visiting Japan, leading to a major drop in tourism revenue from Chinese visitors.

In January, Beijing also imposed Japanese export restrictions on rare earths like gallium, germanium, graphite and rare earth magnets that could be used for defence purposes, according to the US-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank.

The CSIS said at the time that “these retaliatory measures underscore rising tensions between Beijing and Tokyo and serve as a pointed warning from China to countries that take explicit positions on cross-strait relations”.

Tokyo does not have official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but several of its outlying islands, including Okinawa, are geographically closer to Taiwan than mainland Japan. Taiwan is also enormously popular with the Japanese public.

Feb. 23 (UPI) — Nearly $273 million in annual Ecuadorian exports are at stake if a reciprocal 30% tariff announced by Ecuador and Colombia takes effect, according to the Ecuadorian Federation of Exporters, Fedexpor.

The trade group said 580 Ecuadorian companies export to Colombia and warned that for several of them, the impact of new tariffs could be devastating, as up to half of their revenue depends on that market.

Although the tariff has not been implemented, Fedexpor said uncertainty is already affecting business decisions. Colombian buyers are reluctant to close deals amid the possibility that the measure could made formal in the short term, local newspaper Primicias reported.

The government of President Daniel Noboa announced Jan. 21 that Ecuador would impose a 30% tariff, described as a “security fee,” on imports from Colombia. Quito said the move responds to what it considers a lack of commitment by the government of President Gustavo Petro to border security.

Colombia responded the following day by announcing a reciprocal 30% tariff on 20 products imported from Ecuador. It also decided to cut off electricity supplies to Ecuador.

The 30% tariffs were scheduled to take effect Feb. 1, but were not implemented.

Xavier Rosero, president of Fedexpor, said there remains a “window of time” for both governments to reach an agreement on security and trade matters.

Industrial products such as fats, vegetable oils, canned tuna, plastics and rubber face high uncertainty. Orders for these goods, which are key in bilateral trade, are currently on hold, Rosero told digital outlet El Oriente.

He added that Colombian buyers are already seeking alternative suppliers in China, Brazil and Mexico to replace Ecuadorian products, a shift that could result in market losses that are difficult to recover.

Ecuadorian palm oil is among the most affected products, valued at roughly $96 million annually.

The palm oil sector generates 110,000 jobs across 14 provinces, mainly in border areas. It exports between 6,000 and 8,000 metric tons per month to the Colombian market — volumes that could be redirected to other destinations, though that would not be easy, according to Ecuavisa.

Fedexpor estimates about 40,000 jobs are tied to Ecuadorian companies with significant sales to Colombia. Once the tariff is applied, it could affect more than 50 Ecuadorian products.

Rosero acknowledged as “legitimate” the Noboa government’s concern over security conditions along the shared border with Colombia, describing it as “a key space for trade, but also one that has been vulnerable to illicit activities.”

The dispute is now under review by the Andean Community’s courts after complaints filed by Colombia and counterclaims from Ecuador, in a process that could prolong commercial uncertainty.

Feb. 20 (Asia Today) — Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party has approved a draft proposal calling for a significant expansion of lethal weapons exports, including scrapping existing limits that restrict overseas transfers to non-combat equipment.

The draft, endorsed Wednesday by the party’s Security Affairs Committee, seeks to revise operational guidelines under Japan’s Three Principles on Defense Equipment Transfer.

At the center of the proposal is the abolition of the so-called “five categories” rule, which currently limits arms exports to non-combat purposes such as rescue, transport, surveillance and mine clearance.

Under the draft, exports of weapons with lethal capability would in principle be permitted.

Kojiro Onodera, head of the committee, told reporters after the meeting that Japan’s security environment is “growing increasingly severe” and said expanding defense exports is necessary to strengthen coordination with allies and like-minded countries.

The party plans to finalize its recommendations next week and submit them to the government in early March.

Exports would be limited to countries that have signed defense equipment and technology transfer agreements with Japan. Media reports have cited between 10 and 17 partner countries, including the United States and Australia.

Decisions on lethal weapons exports would be subject to review by the prime minister and relevant Cabinet ministers at the National Security Council. Non-lethal items such as body armor and helmets would be handled at the working level within the government, with possible post-reporting to the Diet rather than requiring formal Cabinet approval in each case.

The draft also calls for allowing finished products developed through international joint programs to be exported to third countries beyond the original partner nations. Current rules restrict such transfers largely to the next-generation fighter program jointly pursued by Japan, Britain and Italy.

Another sensitive issue is exports to countries involved in armed conflict. The existing principles prohibit transfers to parties engaged in conflict, allowing only limited non-lethal support to countries such as Ukraine.

The draft would maintain a general ban on exports to countries actively engaged in combat but allow exceptions in “special circumstances” when Japan’s security interests are at stake.

Japanese media outlets including Asahi, Mainichi and Sankei described the move as accelerating Japan’s shift toward a more active defense export policy.

The push reflects efforts to revitalize Japan’s defense industry and deepen security ties with partner nations. Critics, however, have raised concerns that easing restrictions could weaken parliamentary oversight and increase the risk of arms proliferation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260220010005980

Published on 20/02/2026 – 12:34 GMT+1•Updated
12:35

European steel shipments to the US declined 30% between June and December 2025 compared with the same period a year earlier, according to recent Eurostat data compiled by Eurofer, the Brussels-based industry group.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The decline underscores the impact of the US’s 50% tariffs on EU steel, even after the EU and US signed a trade agreement in July 2025 agreeing a blanket 15% US tariff on EU goods. Steel was carved out of that deal and talks to ease duties remain stuck.

“A 30% drop in steel exports to the US within just six months is a clear signal that the blunt 50% tariffs imposed by the US government on EU steel are damaging our industry,” Eurofer Director general Axel Eggert said.

“The US decision to include EU downstream steel products, such as machinery, will have another huge negative impact on us and our European customers,” he added.

Washington imposed 50% tariffs on EU steel and aluminium in June 2025 and extended the measures to more than 400 steel and aluminium products in August.

Steel talks tied to EU-US trade deal enforcement

The US has framed the tariffs as a shield against Chinese overcapacity flooding global markets, including Europe.

With Chinese exports increasingly redirected from the US to the EU, the European Commission proposed on 7 October 2025 to halve the volume of steel allowed into the bloc duty-free and to levy a 50% tariff on imports exceeding a quota of 18.3 million tons a year.

The proposal steel needs to be adopted by the EU legislator. Meanwhile Brussels itself hopes to reopen talks with the White House to secure lower duties on EU steel.

But US negotiators have linked any resumption of discussions to the implementation of last summer’s EU-US trade deal, struck by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and President Donald Trump. Under that pact, the EU agreed to cut its tariffs on US goods to zero while accepting 15% duties on its exports to the US.

With the EU legislative process still requiring approval from lawmakers and member states, Washington’s patience is wearing thin. Tensions could rise further after EU lawmakers introduced amendments that may complicate talks with capitals.

The European Parliament is expected to vote on the deal in March, paving the way for negotiations with member states.

The talks stalled on the European side after the US threatened to annex Greenland militarily from Denmark in January. Although the US has softened its language, it led to delays. The administration’s continuous lobbying for less stringent rules when it comes to digital legislation in Europe has also added obstacles to the talks.

The Federal Constitutional Court, the highest Court in Germany, has spoken. That sentence is the centre of gravity. It signals judicial restraint. It confirms that the Federal Government retains broad discretion in determining how it complies with its constitutional duty to protect fundamental human rights, including in the sensitive area of arms exports contributing to a warfare that is deemed genocidal by the United Nations.

This assessment is embedded in the legal framework governing German arms exports, including the relevant provisions of the War Weapons Control Act and the Foreign Trade and Payments Act, which define the procedural and substantive prerequisites for export authorizations and directly inform the court’s evaluation of the complainant’s standing. Beneath the formalism in its decision lies an act with profound political weight. The Court states: “However, how the state authorities fulfil their general duty of protection and any specific duties of protection is, in principle, their own responsibility to decide.”

The case concerns German-made transmission components for Israeli Merkava and Namer tanks, widely deployed by Israeli forces in Gaza and reportedly used repeatedly in violations of international law. Germany is one of the largest arms suppliers to Israel.

The Court notes that “[t]he specialist courts have determined – in a manner that is not objectionable under constitutional law – that the legislature and the executive have not remained inactive, but have created a general protection regime to effectively counter the risks of arms exports with regard to the protection of human rights and compliance with international humanitarian law, and that they have also taken concrete measures with regard to the Israeli military offensive and the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.”

In concrete terms, this means the judiciary will not substitute its own assessment for that of the executive. It does not examine battlefield realities in Gaza – on the contrary, it states that it is unclear whether, when, and how the exported goods would be used in a way that directly affects the complainant, and therefore the complainant lacks a sufficiently concrete legal interest to claim constitutional protection. It will not determine whether particular weapons systems might contribute to violations of international humanitarian law. As long as the government can demonstrate that it has established a system to “effectively counter the risks” and has taken “concrete measures”, the constitutional threshold for intervention is not met. It remains unclear how the government counters risks. Just yesterday, Julia Klöckner, President of the German Bundestag, emphasised the friendship between Israel and Germany.

This evidently shows that the protection system referred to by the Federal Constitutional Court is ineffective in legal practice. When arms exports continue despite numerous indications of serious violations of international law, and affected parties are unable to challenge these decisions in court, the protection regime fails to provide meaningful legal safeguards.

“The Court acknowledges the duty to protect but only in the abstract and refuses to ensure its practical enforcement. For people whose lives are endangered by the consequences of German arms exports, access to justice remains effectively closed,” says Dr. Alexander Schwarz, Co-Director of the International Crimes and Accountability Program at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.“Especially when life and death are at stake, the rule of law must allow for judicial oversight. Instead, this decision largely removes state action in this sensitive area from review. This is not persuasive.”

If courts do not intervene unless the state has entirely abdicated its duty of protection, then the decisive arena becomes merely political. This represents a discourse in Germany that constantly places Palestinian matters and rights in a political frame, even when they concern fundamental human rights.

The ECCHR is supporting the complainant together with Palestinian human rights organizations Al-Haq, Al Mezan, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). Shawan Jabarin, General Director of Al-Haq, commented:

“Germany remains bound by international law, including the Genocide Convention, and must not export weapons where there is a clear risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law or contribute to genocide. Israel’s conduct throughout Palestine clearly violates international humanitarian law and the Genocide Convention. Germany’s continued adherence to a policy of ‘reason of state’ that defends Israeli crimes regardless of their scale and impact and trivializes the cost in Palestinian lives must be challenged. We will continue to pursue justice for the Palestinian people.”

Neither the legal landscape nor politics are abstract or neutral. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of crimes against humanity. The International Court of Justice, in proceedings concerning Gaza, has indicated that states have obligations to prevent genocide where there is a plausible risk and to ensure that their conduct does not contribute to such acts. In addition, proceedings have been brought before the International Court of Justice against Germany itself, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in connection with its support and arms exports — directly linking Germany’s conduct to the duty to prevent genocide under international law.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling does not negate these developments. Nor does it declare German exports compliant with international law. It simply affirms that the assessment of risk lies “in principle” with the political branches.

If the government alone decides whether its general protection regime is sufficient in light of allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, then accountability becomes a matter of parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny rather than constitutional adjudication.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Caracas, February 6, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez held meetings with oil executives from Repsol (Spain) and Maurel & Prom (France) on Wednesday as part of ongoing efforts to secure energy investments amid US pressure and unilateral sanctions.

“We discussed the models established in the reformed Hydrocarbon Law to strengthen production and build solid alliances toward economic growth,” Rodríguez wrote on social media.

State oil company PDVSA, represented at the meetings by its president, Héctor Obregón, touted the prospects of establishing “strategic alliances” and “win-win cooperation” with the foreign multinational corporations. 

The Rodríguez administration recently pushed a sweeping reform of Venezuela’s Hydrocarbon Law. Corporations are set to have increased control over crude extraction and exports, while the Venezuelan executive can discretionally reduce taxes and royalties and lease out oil projects in exchange for a cut of production.

Venezuelan leaders have defended the pro-business reform as a step forward to attract investment for a key industry that has been hard hit by US coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, since 2017, as part of efforts to strangle the Venezuelan economy and bring about regime change.

Former President Hugo Chávez had overhauled oil legislation in 2001 to reestablish the state’s primacy over the sector with mandatory majority stakes in joint ventures, increased fiscal contributions, and a leading PDVSA operational role. Increased revenues financed the Bolivarian government’s aggressive social programs of the 2000s, which dramatically reduced poverty and expanded access to healthcare, housing, and education for the popular classes. 

Repsol and Maurel & Prom currently hold stakes in several oil and natural gas joint ventures in the South American country. The two firms, as well as Italy’s Eni, have operated in a stop-start fashion in recent years as a result of US sanctions. 

The European companies have consistently lobbied for increased control and benefits in their projects in the molds now established in the reformed energy legislation.

Since launching military attacks and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil sector and impose favorable conditions for US corporations. Senior US officials have praised Caracas’ oil reform.

According to reports, the White House has dictated that proceeds from Venezuelan crude sales be deposited in US-run accounts in Qatar, with an initial agreement comprising 30-50 million barrels of oil that had built up in Venezuelan storage as a result of a US naval blockade since December.

On Tuesday, the US Treasury Department issued a license allowing Venezuelan imports of US diluents required to upgrade extra-heavy crude into exportable blends. On January 27, Washington issued a sanctions waiver allowing US companies to purchase and market Venezuelan crude. The exemption requires payments to be made to US-controlled accounts and bars dealings with firms from Russia, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea.

The US Treasury is additionally preparing a license to allow US companies to extract Venezuelan oil, according to Bloomberg.

The White House has urged US corporations to invest in the Venezuelan oil sector and promised favorable conditions. However, executives have expressed reservations over significant new investments. According to Reuters, US refiners have likewise not been able to absorb the sudden surge of Venezuelan heavy crude supplies, while Canadian WCS crude remains a competitive alternative. 

Vitol and Trafigura, two commodities traders picked by the White House to lift Venezuelan oil, have offered cargoes to European and Asian customers as well. India’s Reliance Industries is reportedly set to purchase 2 million barrels. In recent years, the refining giant has looked to Venezuela as a potential crude supplier but seen imports repeatedly curtailed by US threats of secondary sanctions.

US authorities have reportedly delivered US $500 million from an initial sale to Venezuelan private banks, which are offering the foreign currency in auctions that are said to prioritize private sector food and healthcare importers. Nevertheless, Venezuelan and US officials have not disclosed details about the remaining funds in a deal estimated at $1.2-2 billion.

Besides controlling crude sales, the Trump administration has also sought to impose conditions on the Venezuelan government’s spending of oil revenues. On Tuesday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told House Representatives that the flow of oil funds will be subject to outside audits. 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had told a Senate committee last week that US authorities would scrutinize Caracas’ public expenditure and claimed that Venezuelan leaders needed to submit a “budget request” in order to access the country’s oil proceeds.

Washington’s attempted takeover of the Venezuelan oil industry also has an expressed goal of reducing the presence of Russian and Chinese companies. On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told media that the country’s enterprises are being “openly forced out” of the Caribbean nation at the behest of the US.

In mid-January, the US’ naval blockade drove away Chinese-flagged tankers on their way to Venezuela. With crude shipments partly used to offset longterm oil-for-loan agreements, Beijing has reportedly sought assurances of the repayment of debts estimated at $10-20 billion. For their part, independent Chinese refiners have moved to replace Venezuelan supplies with Iranian heavy crude.

Feb. 6 (UPI) — The Mexican state of Michoacán increased its avocado shipments to the United States by nearly 20%, projecting about 130,000 tons of fruit for consumption during Super Bowl LX this Sunday, the export sector reported.

Exports were concentrated during December 2025 and January 2026 to meet demand linked to the event, considered one of the largest avocado consumption spikes in the United States.

Salvador Bustos, commercial director of packing and exporting company Boka Foods, said Michoacán avocados once again broke records.

“This year there was an increase of up to 130,000 tons, 20% more than last year. In terms of quality and sizes, Michoacán avocados are always a standout at the Super Bowl,” he said.

Bustos noted that despite strict U.S. sanitary regulations for avocado imports, all requirements have been met to ensure the timely arrival of the fruit in the North American country.

“The increase in tonnage compared with last year implies that there are favorable conditions to continue exporting in the same way and increasingly better,” he added.

At a press conference on Feb. 2, Michoacán Secretary of Economic Development Claudio Méndez Fernández described the Super Bowl as one of the most important marketing windows for the state’s fruit.

Michoacán authorities said that nearly 90% of the avocados consumed in the United States are imported from Mexico, and the product’s commercial value grew by 23% between 2023 and 2024.

Governor Alfredo Ramírez Bedolla said the United States is one of the most important markets for Michoacán avocados and that the adoption of environmental certifications such as ProForest Avocado is strengthening the position of the exported product.