Global

President Trump’s tariff strategy has been thrown into turmoil after a U.S. court issued a rare rebuke blocking many of the import taxes he has threatened and imposed on other countries.

In a ruling issued late Wednesday, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade declared that the Trump administration had wrongly invoked a 1977 law in imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs on dozens of countries and they were therefore illegal. It also extended that ruling to previous tariffs levied on Canada, Mexico and China over the security of the U.S. border and trafficking in fentanyl.

The Trump administration immediately said it would appeal, putting the fate of the tariffs in the hands of an appellate court and potentially the Supreme Court. The ruling doesn’t affect Trump’s first-term levies on many imports from China or sectoral duties planned or already imposed on goods including steel, which are based on a different legal foundation that the Trump administration may now be forced to make more use of to pursue its tariff campaign.

It’s unclear just how fast Wednesday’s ruling will go into effect, with the court giving the government up to 10 days to carry out the necessary administrative moves to remove the tariffs. But if the decision holds, it would in a matter of days eliminate new 30% U.S. tariffs on imports from China, 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico and 10% duties on most other goods entering the U.S.

Those tariffs and the prospect of retaliatory ones have been seen as a significant drag on U.S. and global growth and eliminating them — even temporarily — would improve prospects for the world’s major economies.

There is uncertainty over whether the ruling represents a permanent setback to Trump’s push to reshape global trade or a mere impediment. Trump and his supporters have attacked judges as biased and his administration has been accused of failing to fully comply with other court orders, raising questions over whether it will do so this time.

A White House spokesperson dismissed the ruling as one made by “unelected judges” who should not have the power “to decide how to properly address a national emergency.” Trump has invoked national emergencies ranging from the U.S. trade deficit to overdose deaths to justify many of his tariffs.

“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the Unites States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”

If the ruling isn’t reversed or ignored, one of the consequences could be greater fiscal concerns at a time when bond markets are questioning the trajectory of the U.S.’s mounting debt load. The Trump administration has been citing increased tariff revenues as a way to offset tax cuts in his “one big, beautiful bill” now before Congress, which is estimated to cost $3.8 trillion over the next decade.

U.S. importers paid a record $16.5 billion in tariffs in April and Trump’s aides have said they expected that to rise in the coming months.

Major trading partners including China, the European Union, India, and Japan that are in negotiations with the Trump’s administration must now decide whether to press ahead in efforts to secure deals or slow walk talks on the bet they now have a stronger hand.

Deal doubts

Also thrown into doubt would be the outlines for a trade deal that Trump reached with the UK earlier in May. That potential pact calls for the imposition of a 10% U.S. tariff on all imports from the UK that would be null and void if Wednesday’s decision endures.

“I don’t know why any country would want to engage in negotiations to get out of tariffs that have now been declared illegal,” said Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown Law School professor and former WTO judge and general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative. “It’s a very definitive decision that the reciprocal worldwide tariffs are simply illegal.”

Hillman and other legal experts pointed out that Trump has other legal authorities he can draw on. But none would give him as broad powers as those he invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

A provision of the 1974 trade act gives presidents the power to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days, though only in the event a balance of payments crisis, which Trump may not want to declare given the current nervous state of bond markets, Hillman said.

Trump could also invoke other authorities to impose tariffs on individual sectors or countries, as he did in his first term. In recent months, he has already used national security powers to impose duties on imported steel, aluminum and cars and launched seven other investigations pertaining to things like pharmaceuticals, lumber and critical minerals.

“The Trump administration’s toolbox won’t be completely empty,” Dmitry Grozoubinski, director of ExplainTrade and author of the book “Why Politicians Lie About Trade” said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. But as for IEEPA, “if they comply with this ruling that takes that toy out of the toy box.”

More uncertainty

Wednesday’s ruling came in two parallel cases brought by a conservative group on behalf of a small business and U.S. states controlled by Democrats.

“This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the conservative Liberty Justice Center, which brought one of the cases.

For many other businesses, it brought the prospect of yet another sharp turn in U.S. tariff policies and more short-term questions and headaches.

Southern California-based Freight Right Global Logistics has several shipments on the water now for clients all over the U.S., carrying goods largely from China. Those containers are filled with everything from toys to robots, and it’s very uncertain what the tariff burden will be for those shipments when they land, said Freight Right Chief Executive Robert Khachatryan.

Khachatryan fielded questions Wednesday evening from his clients on potential refunds, which tariffs will be removed, and what would be the effective dates.

“We are working hard to answer customers questions but the reality is that there is not enough information out there yet,” he said. “Tomorrow we’re going to be all over the place figuring out what this means in practice.”

Donnan, Larson and Curtis write for Bloomberg News.

Panel of judges finds the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from trading partners.

A United States trade court has ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed blanket tariffs on imports from US trading partners, issuing a permanent injunction that immediately halts the tariffs and demands a government response within 10 days.

The Court of International Trade, based in New York, said the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president’s emergency powers to safeguard the US economy.

“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” a three-judge panel wrote on Wednesday. “That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.”

The ruling, if it stands, could derail Trump’s global trade strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners. It creates deep uncertainty around multiple simultaneous negotiations with the European Union, China and many other countries.

The court struck down Trump’s tariff orders issued since January under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute meant for addressing rare and extraordinary national emergencies. Tariffs introduced under other laws, such as those targeting specific industries like steel, autos and aluminium, were not addressed in this ruling.

The Trump administration swiftly filed an appeal, disputing the court’s jurisdiction. A White House spokesperson insisted trade imbalances posed a national crisis. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” said Kush Desai, the White House deputy press secretary, defending Trump’s executive actions as necessary to protect US industry and security.

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, noted the court’s impartiality. “This particular court cannot be accused of being an activist one, as Trump and his followers have accused other courts that have ruled against him,” Hanna said. “One of the judges was appointed by Trump himself, another by former President Barack Obama and the third by the former Republican President Ronald Reagan.”

The Court of International Trade handles matters relating to customs and trade law. Its rulings can be challenged in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and eventually taken to the Supreme Court.

Financial analyst Robert Scott told Al Jazeera the tariffs failed to deliver tangible results even in Trump’s first term. “Most of those tariffs did not see the US trade position improve,” he said. “US trade deficits continued to grow and China’s exports to the world kept rising. They simply rerouted goods through other countries.”

The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties, and the other by 12 US states.

The companies, which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, have said the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business.

“There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all,” the judges wrote in their decision.

At least five other legal challenges to the tariffs are pending.

May 28 (UPI) — Global warming is expected to send temperatures soaring at or near record levels over the next five years, according to a Wednesday report from the World Meteorological Organization.

The WMO report said there’s an 86% chance that at least one of the next five years will exceed the Paris Climate Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Farenheit, above the 1850-1900 global temperature average.

There’s an 80% chance that at least one of the next five years will surpass 2024 as warmest on record.

The WMO report said global temperatures “are expected to continue at or near record levels in the next five years, increasing climate risks and impacts on societies, economies and sustainable development.”

“We have just experienced the ten warmest years on record. Unfortunately, this WMO report provides no sign of respite over the coming years, and this means that there will be a growing negative impact on our economies, our daily lives, our ecosystems and our planet,” WMO Deputy Secretary-General Ko Barrett said in a statement.

The report forecast a 70% chance that the 2025-2029 five-year-average warming will be more than the 2.7 degrees Farenheit threshold.

That’s up from the 47% chance forecast in last year’s report for the 2024-2028 period. In the 2023 report it was 32%.

The report’s data indicates a higher risk of climate-change intensified storms, wildfires, floods and drought.

“Every additional fraction of a degree of warming drives more harmful heatwaves, extreme rainfall events, intense droughts, melting of ice sheets, sea ice, and glaciers, heating of the ocean, and rising sea levels,” the WMO said.

The WMO report follows the hottest 10 years ever on Earth.

The rapid warming of the Earth includes Arctic warming over the next five extended winters, which is expected to be more than three and a half times the global average.

The chance of seeing a global temperature rise of 3.6 degrees Fearenheit before 2030 is about 1%, but it was previously considered impossible.

“It is shocking that 2C is plausible,” Adam Scaife of the Met Office, which played a leading role in compiling the data, said it was “shocking” that reaching that temperature was plausible.

“It has come out as only 1% in the next five years but the probability will increase as the climate warms,” he said.

The group said it would call for analysis on international supply chain resilience.

Finance ministers and central bank governors from the Group of Seven (G7) democracies have pledged to address “excessive imbalances” in the global economy and said they could increase sanctions on Russia.

The G7 announced the plan on Thursday as the officials, who met in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, said there was a need for a common understanding of how “non-market policies and practices” undermine international economic security.

The document did not name China, but references by the United States and other G7 economies to non-market policies and practices often are targeted at China’s state subsidies and export-driven economic model.

The final communique called for an analysis of market concentration and international supply chain resilience.

“We agree on the importance of a level playing field and taking a broadly coordinated approach to address the harm caused by those who do not abide by the same rules and lack transparency,” it said.

Lowering Russian oil price cap

European Commission Executive Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis said the G7 ministers discussed proposals for further sanctions on Russia to try to end its war in Ukraine. They included lowering the G7-led $60-per-barrel price cap on Russian oil, given that Russian crude is now selling under that level, he said.

The G7 participants condemned what they called Russia’s “continued brutal war” against Ukraine and said that if efforts to achieve a ceasefire failed, they would explore all possible options, including “further ramping up sanctions”.

Russia’s sovereign assets in G7 jurisdictions would remain immobilised until Moscow ended the war and paid for the damage it has caused to Ukraine, the communique said. It did not mention a price cap.

Brent crude currently trades at around $64 per barrel.

A European official said the US is “not convinced” about lowering the Russian oil price cap.

Earlier this week, the US Treasury said Secretary Scott Bessent intended to press G7 allies to focus on rebalancing the global economy to protect workers and companies from China’s “unfair practices”.

The communique also recognised an increase in low-value international “de minimis” package shipments that can overwhelm customs and tax collection systems and be used for smuggling drugs and other illicit goods.

The duty-free de minimis exemption for packages valued below $800 has been exploited by Chinese e-commerce companies including Shein and Temu.

May 21 (UPI) — Activists, officials and defectors highlighted North Korean human rights violations at a high-level meeting of the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday, with many directly tying Pyongyang’s systemic abuses to its growing nuclear weapons and missile programs.

The meeting on the North’s human rights violations, the first of its kind held at the General Assembly, featured testimonies by two escapees who shared harrowing stories of oppression and implored the world to hold North Korean leader Kim Jong Un accountable.

“Silence is complicity,” said Kim Eun-joo, who was 11 years old when she fled with her mother and sister in 1999 to escape starvation in rural North Korea.

After crossing the Tumen River into China, Kim and her family faced years of human trafficking before finally making it to South Korea.

She pointed to North Korea’s military cooperation with Russia, particularly its deployment of troops to aid Moscow in its war against Ukraine, as a “new kind of modern-day slavery.”

“[The soldiers] have no idea where they are, whom they are fighting against or why,” she said. “Their lives have become a means for the Kim Jong Un regime to make money.”

Pyongyang has deployed around 15,000 troops to Russia, Seoul’s spy agency said last month. Some 600 of the soldiers have been killed and another 4,100 injured, the National Intelligence Service told lawmakers in a briefing.

Seoul and Washington also accused North Korea of supplying artillery and missiles to Russia. In exchange, Pyongyang is believed to be receiving much-needed financial support and advanced military technology for its own weapons programs.

Participants in the U.N. meeting highlighted the close link between North Korea’s human rights abuses and the regime’s growing arsenal.

“The regime preserves itself through producing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles,” Greg Scarlatoiu, president and CEO of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, said.

“North Korea is no longer just a Korean Peninsula threat. The DPRK is no longer just a Northeast Asian threat,” Scarlatoiu said.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

“The DPRK is exporting instability to the Middle East and to Europe,” Scarlatoiu said. “And the root cause of this is the human rights violations that the DPRK perpetrates.”

North Korean Ambassador to the United Nations Kim Song condemned the meeting, calling it a “burlesque of intrigue and fabrication” staged by “hostile forces” including the United States.

Kim also slammed the invitation of the North Korean escapees, calling them “the scum of the earth who don’t even care about their parents and families.”

Elizabeth Salmon, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in North Korea, told the General Assembly that North Korea has diverted resources toward militarization at the expense of human rights and basic necessities such as food, healthcare and sanitation.

“As the DPRK expands its extreme militarization policies, it exacerbates the extensive reliance on forced labor and quota systems, showing how peace, security and human rights are strongly interrelated,” Salmon said.

She added that North Korea’s border closures at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020 worsened its human rights situation, as Pyongyang used the isolation to enact brutal new laws restricting access to information from the outside world.

A 2014 landmark U.N. Commission of Inquiry report documented North Korean crimes against humanity, including torture, rape, execution, deliberate starvation and forced labor, that were “without parallel in the contemporary world.”

South Korean Ambassador to the United Nations Hwang Joon-kook echoed calls to more closely tie North Korea’s human rights violations to its nuclear ambitions, which he said were “deeply interconnected.”

“For far too long the DPRK’s human rights violations have been overshadowed by its nuclear threats,” he said. “Their nuclear program is sustained by systemic repression, forced labor, diverted national resources and total control of its people.”

Hwang called North Korea “a real-life version of George Orwell‘s novel 1984.”

“However, the DPRK’s horrendous crimes do not stop at the border,” he said. “If human rights violations are stopped, nuclear weapons development will also stop.”

At a major United Nations conference focused on international criminal law, world experts came together to raise a powerful warning: children are facing growing threats in the digital world. The 34th Session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) brought attention to how modern technologies, while often beneficial, are also being used to harm and exploit the most vulnerable members of society—our children.

The International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES), an organization in special consultative status with the UN (EcoSoc) that works on international policy issues, shared its recent findings during the session. Their presentation focused on how online platforms, digital tools, and artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly being used by criminals to target and exploit minors around the world. The institute’s “Global Mini Study on Technology and Abuse,” postulated and supervised by its mission head, Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, highlighted how widespread and serious this issue has become.

According to IFIMES, digital child exploitation is not just a distant or rare problem. It is happening now, in real-time, on the same apps and platforms that children use for learning, playing, and socializing. From social media and messaging apps to online games and video platforms, digital spaces have become hunting grounds for people who wish to do harm.

Having all this in mind, the institute decided to conduct its own global, interdisciplinary, cross-sectional, and multi-spatial program on ‘Understanding AI and Robotics.’ With the consortium of its global partners and under the supervision of Philipe Reinisch, Dr. Ing. (SR4.0 CEO), IFIMES starts its first 8-week course on 22 May. 

A Worrying Trend

The Global Mini Study presented by IFIMES shows how technology is playing a double role in today’s world. On one hand, it unites both individuals and communities, supports education, and provides endless opportunities to learn. On the other hand, it can be used in harmful ways—especially when it comes to children and those most vulnerable.

The study compiled research from many parts of the world, including Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and diaspora communities. It found that criminals are using advanced digital tools to reach and recruit children. One of the most disturbing developments is the use of AI-generated images and videos, also known as “deepfakes.” These can make it look like a child is involved in something they were never a part of and have become a tactic to scare, control, and exploit children into doing things against their will.

Encrypted messaging apps and hidden online communities—sometimes called the “dark web”—are also being used to carry out these crimes in secret. This makes it harder for law enforcement and child protection agencies to track and stop the abuse.

Why It Matters:

During the UN session, IFIMES highlighted astonishing estimates that 55 million people are trafficked each year worldwide. While trafficking is not a new phenomenon, the internet has added new ways for it to expand and develop. While children from all backgrounds are at risk, those who are already vulnerable—such as kids who have been displaced by war, natural disasters, or poverty—face even greater danger. Without strong social supports, digital literacy, or parental guidance, they can become easy targets and increasingly vulnerable.

These crimes are not just happening in hidden corners of the internet. They are taking place in the everyday digital lives of millions of children, often without the knowledge of parents, teachers, or caregivers. Predators can strike through something as common as a chat message or a friend request.

Gaps in Protection

Although there are international agreements in place—such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—IFIMES argues that real-world protections still lack proper checks and balances. Many countries have signed important treaties that say they will protect children, but implementation often falls short.

Some countries have well-elaborated legislation and also its enforcement to keep minors safe online, but others lack the resources or political will to enforce these protections. In many cases, laws are outdated and don’t consider newer technologies like generative AI, encrypted messaging, or the borderless nature of these crimes. This leaves children exposed and governments playing catch-up.

Four Key Global Challenges

IFIMES identified four major trends that explain why digital child exploitation is such a growing problem:

1. Technology as a Double-Edged Sword: The same tools that help educate and connect children are also being used to harm them. Algorithms that keep people engaged can also expose them to traffickers looking to enact harm.
2. Legal and Policy Gaps: Despite efforts, many legal systems are not ready to handle the complexity of online crimes. International cooperation is limited, and the international community lacks proper checks and balances to monitor, evaluate, and protect children from exploitation online.
3. Vulnerable Children at Greater Risk: Children who are displaced by war or disasters often lack adult supervision or stable environments. Without access to safety nets or digital education, they become easy targets online.
4. Need for Global Partnerships: Governments cannot solve this issue alone. IFIMES stresses the need for collaboration among tech companies, schools, civil society, and international organizations to create safer online environments.

What Needs to Be Done

To respond to these challenges, IFIMES Director Prof. Zijad Becirovic is calling for stronger global cooperation and new ideas to better protect everyone (particularly minors) in the digital world. The organization recommends

• Clear Rules for Data Use: Children’s personal data must be handled carefully. Governments and companies should follow rules about how they collect and use this information.
• Holding Platforms Accountable: Social media and major tech companies should take responsibility for what happens on their platforms. There must be accountability for gaps in protection.
• AI That Respects Children’s Rights: As AI becomes more common, it’s important to set rules and regulations that protect children from misuse, such as fake images and online threats.
• Cross-Sector Collaboration: Solutions should involve everyone and be horizontal—from government agencies and police to tech developers, teachers, parents, and youth themselves. Long-lasting solutions will come from a global response.

A Call for Urgent Action

“This is a global emergency,” said Jenna Ellis, IFIMES Information Officer, speaking on behalf of the institute’s director, Prof. Zijad Becirovic. “We must take immediate steps to make the digital world safer for children. This means new laws, better education, stronger partnerships, and a shared sense of responsibility.”

The session at the UN ended with a clear message: online child exploitation is not just a legal issue; it’s a moral and generational issue, and it is everyone’s responsibility to find a solution. Children everywhere deserve to be safe—not just in their homes and schools in the digital spaces they use every day, and we must commit to monitoring, evaluation, and capacity building at all levels. The global response must be uniform and supported by all sectors and states—public, private, individual, or corporate. Collaboration is not an option when it comes to finding universal and lasting solutions.

IFIMES is committed to sharing its findings with countries and organizations around the world and is offering support to any group that wants to act. The institute hopes that this global effort will grow into a powerful movement that protects children and ensures that technology becomes a force for good—not harm—and is there to support all sectors and individuals involved in resolution along the way.

The world is dangerously off course, comes the stark warning from the United Nations after it found that more than 295 million people faced acute hunger in 2024.

Fears are growing for the future as major donor countries are set to reduce funding this year.

Climate change and economic crises are affecting 96 million people in 18 countries, including Syria and Yemen.

Conflict and violence are the leading causes of the world’s largest humanitarian crisis in Sudan, after two years of civil war.

In Gaza, Israel’s blockade of all food, water and medicine has entered a third month, creating a manufactured crisis.

So is global food hunger a failure of systems – or a failure of humanity?

Presenter:

Guests:

Chris Gunness – Former director of communications at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

Elise Nalbandian – Regional advocacy and campaign manager for Oxfam in Africa

Sara Hayat – Specialist in climate change law and policy

May 18 (UPI) — The United States may impose regional tariffs rather than issue blanket ones as a deadline approaches for racing a global plan, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday.

The Trump administration originally said it would impose 90 deals in 90 days, but has backed down recently, acknowledging the complexities of negotiating trade pacts with dozens of countries on a compressed timeline, despite stepped-up efforts, President Donald Trump said during his recent trip to the Middle East.

“But it’s not possible to meet the number of people that want to see us,” Trump explained.

Trump said while in the Middle East that he and Commerce Secretary Scott Lutnick would begin advising some countries on U.S. plans for tariffs in the next two to three weeks.

During an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Bessent said the United States will focus on a short list of countries in its initial round of tariffs.

“My other sense is that we will do a lot of regional deals,” Bessent said. “This is the rate for Central America, this is the rate for this part of Africa, but what we are focused on right now is the 18 important trading relationships.”

Following a move by Moody’s Ratings last week to downgrade the United States’ credit rating, Bessent called the service a “lagging indicator” during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I think that’s what everyone thinks of credit agencies,” he said, and asserted that the credit downgrade was in response to Biden fiscal policies.

In response to concerns about tariff costs being passed on to consumers, Trump has said large merchants like WalMart, which imports a significant amount of its merchandise from China, should instead absorb the price increases.

Bessent said Sunday that WalMart CEO Doug McMillion told him that the retail giant would “eat some of the tariffs” as it had done in previous years.

Bessent did not offer a specific date for the tariff imposition.

In the context of emerging new world, key global powers are thumbing up their strategic agendas, seriously evaluating their approaches in taking positions on diverse issues including security, trade and economics with implications for and impact on developing countries. Notwithstanding, Africa has seemingly become the center of the geopolitics, and the United States tariffs China’s trade while Russia attempts to assert its control over Ukraine’s ambitions to join North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO].

In early May 2025, MD Africa editor Kester Kenn Klomegah had the chance to talk with Professor Arnold Boateng over a number questions connecting evolutionary geopolitical process and its implications and likely impact on shaping world’s landscape. Professor Arnold Boateng is an Entrepreneur, Consultant, Speaker and Author. [Books: Dreams of Our Youth: The African Youth Question: Ananse Verses: Foundations for Life…Available from Amazon & Kindle Store].  Here are the interview excerpts:

Which global power is emerging and could, in the near future, be recognized as the super power?

Professor Arnold Boateng: In terms of Security Russia is already a superpower. It has a much [official records] ICBMs and nuclear weapons as the United States. On the economic front, China is more likely to take over. It has the ambition and intent. By purchasing power parity, it surpassed the United States a year ago or two ago.

Russia on the other seems to be more interested in dethroning the United States to put an end to America’s unilateralism, exceptionalism and the chaos in Eastern Europe, the Pacific and Latin America. Recently, Robert Gates was quoted as saying; “The United States is  the most destabilizing force on earth.”

China has a long way though. The final chip for a really superpower is to have your currency as “reserve currency.” China is a long way from that but within reach in a couple of years.

Would China want to be a superpower having seen what unchecked power has altered American foreign policy and excesses?

AB: Global majority is seriously betting on China. And my bet is on China too. But this does not rule out Russia if it could have the ambition. China should learn from the errors of the United States. It should acknowledge that one leader may sit on the throne but he does not rule alone. If Beijing is willing to have a multipolar world, then as they say;” China would have the Mandate of Heaven to lead and NOT rule.

Does it mean power is steadily moving from the northern hemisphere to South-South coalition?

AB: Power has already shifted. It did when Russia and China won Eurasia. We are merely waiting to see the reality play out in the open. Europe is deindustrialising. Their manufacturing sector has slowed due to high energy cost among other factors.

On security front, its benefactor has been the United States through NATO. With Trump’s policy of America first Europe has seen the writing on the wall. Resources for Europe’s industrial drive have largely come from the south. Nigerien uranium power 70% of France’s energy needs. Cobalt, gold, and other minerals driving their tech and general industrial push have come from the south.

The South-South coalition is on the rose. First, they have the raw materials and energy resources. They have a Highly educated and skill workforce in STEM. They have a youthful population and fast moving economies.

Apparently is it rather West vs. East?

AB: It should be the East. The world, especially Africa, has seen the enough to choose the East over the West. The West’s colonial project set Africa back for more than a century. We have endured their economic hitmen, wars and falsification of African history. Everywhere they have been, had been destabilized. In India, during the colonial project, opium wars in China; Libya, Iraq and regime change in Latin America and all over the world.

In a context of this inevitable evolutionary process, how can describe Africa’s position in the shifting power dynamics?

AB: For now Africa is divided. Africa looks either confuse or has failed to read the shifting power centres.

Africa is central to China’s rise and maintaining their position. Without DRC cobalt, the electronic industry and new tech economies could  not be sustained.

Africa is the King who does not know who he is. 

Can we conclude that China is the leading economic power? What makes Africa’s economic position uncertain in sharing global power?

AB: China controls more 85% of global supply chain. It is in the lead but it cannot get to the top alone. It lacked historical prestige. Much of its 5,000 year history it has been a closed system especially after the Ming took over from the Yuan Dynasty. It opened up under British Imperial project and closed again until President Nixon opened it up. Then Tiananmen happened.

The world is not seeking for another Superpower again considering the excesses of the United States around the globe when the Soviet Union declined in the 1990s. We are looking for a round table leadership. Africa is divided. We lack a coherent continent wide vision. Clearly, without sounding disrespectful, it looks like Africa does not know what is going on. We are oblivious to the shifting centres of power. African must stand together. We must have a common BRICS policy. A common China policy and assert good governance; regional industrial policy; common resource extraction and contracts policy. Common intelligence and security infrastructure among other critical systems necessary for being part of the shapers of the emerging global order.

Indonesia, as the world’s largest archipelagic state, holds a highly strategic geographic position, located between two continents and two oceans. This location makes Indonesia a crucial maritime hub in the Indo-Pacific region. In the era of Prabowo Subianto’s administration that began in 2024, Indonesia’s foreign policy has garnered significant attention, given the increasingly complex and multipolar global dynamics. This article aims to analyze how Indonesia, under Prabowo’s leadership, positions itself between its regional commitment to ASEAN and engagement with new global power alignments such as the Indo-Pacific.

1. Indonesia’s Geopolitical Context in the New Global Era
The current global order is undergoing a significant transformation. Tensions between the United States and China are one of the primary drivers of this shift. Amid global geopolitical polarization, the Indo-Pacific region has received heightened attention from various global actors. Indonesia, as a major democracy in Southeast Asia and a G20 member, holds a unique position.

In this context, Indonesia is expected to play a more active role in maintaining regional stability. The Prabowo administration faces significant challenges in upholding the principles of a free and active foreign policy while also safeguarding national interests closely tied to economic, defense, and domestic stability. Therefore, Indonesia’s geopolitical strategy today is shaped not only by bilateral relations but also by its ability to engage in multilateral frameworks and international forums.

2. Indonesia’s Role in ASEAN during the Prabowo Era
ASEAN remains a central pillar of Indonesia’s foreign policy. As a founding and leading member of ASEAN, Indonesia bears both a moral and political responsibility to maintain the cohesion of this regional organization. In the Prabowo era, Indonesia’s approach to ASEAN appears pragmatic yet still committed to regional collective values.

The Prabowo administration has demonstrated its commitment to ASEAN by participating in high-level meetings and voicing regional concerns, such as the peaceful resolution of the Myanmar crisis and the development of a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. However, with increasing external pressures from powers like the United States and China influencing ASEAN dynamics, Indonesia must enhance its regional diplomatic capacity to keep ASEAN relevant and unified.

Another challenge within ASEAN is the growing divergence of interests among member states. Prabowo faces the task of maintaining Indonesia’s leadership in ASEAN without appearing dominant. A collective diplomatic approach and strengthened intra-ASEAN cooperation, especially in defense and food security, are key to preserving regional solidarity.

3. Emerging Global Powers and the Challenge of Neutrality
With the growing influence of emerging global powers such as China, Russia, and India, as well as the rise of cooperation blocs like BRICS, Indonesia faces a foreign policy dilemma. On one hand, Indonesia maintains strong economic ties with China, particularly in infrastructure and trade. On the other hand, Indonesia also maintains robust relations with Western countries, including the United States and the European Union, especially on issues of democracy, human rights, and regional security.

Prabowo, with his military background and experience in defense, is expected to balance these global relationships effectively. One of Prabowo’s strengths lies in his ability to establish strategic communication with various international actors. Indonesia’s active neutrality must be manifested through flexible diplomacy that is not merely symbolic but also substantive in safeguarding national interests.

Amid competition among major powers, Indonesia can play the role of a mediator or ‘bridge builder’ that facilitates dialogue and cooperation across blocs. This capability would strengthen Indonesia’s position as a respected middle power on the global stage.

4. Indonesia’s Strategic Opportunities
Indonesia has numerous strategic opportunities to seize in the new global era. As a maritime nation, Indonesia possesses vast potential in maritime security, international trade, and global logistics. The Prabowo administration must strengthen maritime infrastructure, enhance naval military capacity, and develop strategic port areas as part of its foreign policy agenda.

Initiatives such as the “Global Maritime Fulcrum” can be revived with a more pragmatic and realistic approach, focusing on improving regional connectivity and engaging in economic forums like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Additionally, Indonesia has the opportunity to expand its economic diplomacy. The Prabowo administration can synergize foreign policy with trade policy to attract foreign investment and expand export markets. In the defense sector, Indonesia can also strengthen cooperation with strategic partners for military technology development and increased domestic production capacity.

Conclusion
The Prabowo Subianto administration faces considerable challenges in navigating an increasingly complex global geopolitical map. Amid ongoing shifts in global power dynamics, Indonesia must maintain a balance between its involvement in emerging global power structures and its commitment to ASEAN. Flexible, strategic, and interest-based diplomacy is essential to the success of Indonesia’s foreign policy.

As the largest democracy in Southeast Asia and an emerging economy, Indonesia holds significant potential to play a more prominent role in the global order. Prabowo must ensure that every foreign policy decision aligns with the nation’s long-term interests, preserves regional stability, and enhances Indonesia’s position as a strategic actor in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

The world’s two biggest economies have stepped back from the brink.

After imposing retaliatory tariff hikes at rates never seen before, the United States and China have agreed to a truce.

US taxes on Chinese goods will now fall from 145 percent to 30 percent, and China will cut theirs on US items from 125 percent to 10 percent.

Some of the levies have been scrapped altogether while others have been put on hold.

After weeks of considerable strain, many people are looking to see how global supply chains will be affected.

Is it the end of the global trade war, triggered last month by US President Donald Trump?

And what does it mean for those countries who had been anticipating big investments due to the steep duties on China?

Presenter: Elizabeth Puranam

Guests:

William Lee, chief economist, Milken Institute

Huiyao Wang, founder, Center for China and Globalization

Jayant Menon, former lead economist, Asian Development Bank