Aug. 21 (UPI) — Pope Leo XIV is expected to travel to Lebanon before the end of the year on his first international trip.
Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai, patriarch of the Maronite Catholic Church, said in an interview that Leo would visit Lebanon “sometime between now and December.”
“The visit will happen after a decision from the Vatican about when it will take place, so until now it’s not yet determined. But preparations for the visit are underway, though the exact timing is still unknown, waiting for the Vatican to announce it,” Rai said.
There has been no official announcement from the Vatican about the international trip yet
Archbishop Paul Sayah, deputy to Lebanon’s highest-ranking Catholic leader, told BBC that a trip to Lebanon would be an important visit for the pope.
“Lebanon is a multicultural, multi-religious country and is a place of dialogue,” Sayah said. “It’s one of the rare environments where Muslims and Christians are living together and respecting each other so it sends a message to the region.”
Throughout recent decades, popes have been conducting overseas travels to connect with Catholics worldwide.
Pope Francis during his 12 years, visited 68 countries on 47 foreign trips.
Francis had formerly expressed his desire to visit Lebanon, but the country’s political and economic crisis complicated the planning.
Lebanon is home to more than two million Catholics and has carried symbolic weight for the Church.
A Reuters/Ipsos survey shows 59 percent of US respondents say Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has been excessive.
Washington, DC – Most Americans believe that all countries should recognise Palestine as a state, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests, as public support for Israel in the United States continues to plunge amid the atrocities in Gaza.
A majority of respondents – 59 percent – also said that Israel’s military response in Gaza has been excessive.
The survey, released on Wednesday, quizzed 4,446 US adults between August 13 and 16.
Fifty-eight percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “Palestine should be recognised as a country by all UN members”. The number rose to 78 percent amongst Democrats, compared to 41 percent of Republicans.
Strikingly, fewer Democratic respondents, 77 percent, agreed that “Israel should be recognised as a country by all UN members”.
The study comes as global outrage grows against Israel’s campaign of destruction, starvation and displacement in Gaza, which leading rights groups have labelled as a genocide.
Several US allies, including France, the United Kingdom and Canada, have said that they intend to recognise Palestine as a state at the United Nations General Assembly next month.
The administration of US President Donald Trump has rejected international efforts to recognise a Palestinian state and dismissed the moves as meaningless.
The overwhelming majority of countries already recognise Palestine. It remains to be seen how further recognition by Western countries would impact Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank – the two territories that would form a Palestinian state.
Rights advocates have been calling on the international community to impose tangible consequences on Israel for abuses against Palestinians, including sanctions and an arms embargo.
Despite protests by European countries, Israel is pushing on with a campaign to seize Gaza City, an assault that risks displacing tens of thousands of people and destroying what remains of the area that was once the largest city in Palestine.
In the West Bank, Israel continues to step up military and settler attacks while building more settlements in violation of international law.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich celebrated a newly announced plan for 3,400 illegal Israeli housing units between occupied East Jerusalem and Palestinian communities in the West Bank as an effort to eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian state.
“The Palestinian state is being erased from the table not by slogans but by deeds,” Smotrich said, according to the Times of Israel. “Every settlement, every neighbourhood, every housing unit is another nail in the coffin of this dangerous idea.”
Last year, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories – Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem – is unlawful and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible”.
The Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, prohibits the occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
Successive US administrations have verbally supported the two-state solution, while continuing to provide Israel with billions of dollars in military aid as it further entrenches its occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Trump – a staunch supporter of Israel – has broken with traditional policy, refusing to explicitly back the two-state solution or criticise settlement expansion.
Still, US public opinion has continued to turn against Israel.
In a YouGov poll released on Tuesday, 43 percent of US respondents said they believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, compared to 28 percent who disagreed with the statement.
United States President Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of up to 300 percent on semiconductor imports, with exemptions for foreign companies that commit to manufacturing in the US.
Trump has cast the proposed tariff as a way to drive investment to the US, but experts say it could also disrupt global supply chains and even penalise companies already making chips in the US.
What are the details of Trump’s plan?
Few details have been released since Trump announced plans for a 100 percent tariff at a White House event on August 7.
The US president said exemptions would be given to companies that build research or manufacturing facilities in the US, but tariffs could be applied retroactively if they failed to follow through on their planned investments.
“If, for some reason, you say you’re building, and you don’t build, then we go back, and we add it up, it accumulates, and we charge you at a later date, you have to pay, and that’s a guarantee,” Trump told reporters.
On Friday, Trump told reporters on board Air Force One that more details would be announced soon and that the tariff could be much higher than previously suggested.
“I’ll be setting tariffs next week and the week after, on steel and on, I would say chips – chips and semiconductors, we’ll be setting sometime next week, week after,” Trump said en route to Alaska to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“I’m going to have a rate that is going to be 200 percent, 300 percent,” he added.
Why does Trump want to impose tariffs on chip imports?
Trump wants to impose a tariff on chips for several reasons, but the main one is to re-shore investment and manufacturing to the US, said G Dan Hutcheson, the vice chair of Canada’s TechInsights.
“The primary goal is to reverse the cost disadvantage of manufacturing in the US and turn it into an advantage. It’s mainly focused on companies that are not investing in the US,” Hutcheson told Al Jazeera.
“Exclusions are negotiable for entities that align with his goal of bringing manufacturing back to the US.”
More broadly, the tariff is also intended to address the US dependence on imported semiconductors and buttress Washington’s position in its ongoing rivalry with China, another chip-making powerhouse.
Both issues are bipartisan concerns in the US.
The Trump administration earlier this year launched a Section 301 investigation into alleged unfair trade practices in China’s semiconductor industry, and a Section 232 investigation into the national security implications of US reliance on chip imports and finished products that use foreign chips.
Who will be impacted by the tariff?
Foreign tech giants that have already invested in the US, including the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and South Korea’s Samsung, would likely not be affected by the tariff.
It is less clear how the measure could affect other companies, including chip makers in China, where companies face barriers to US investment from both US and Chinese regulators.
Yongwook Ryu, an assistant professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore, said the tariff could be used as leverage by the US as it negotiates the rate of its so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on China.
The US has imposed blanket tariffs of 10-40 percent on most trade partners since August 7, but negotiators are still hammering out a comprehensive trade deal with Beijing.
“My view is that while the reciprocal tariffs are generally aimed more at addressing the US trade deficit problem and re-shoring manufacturing back to the US, product-specific or sectoral tariffs [like semiconductors] are aimed at serving the strategic goal of strengthening US technological hegemony and containing China,” Ryu told Al Jazeera.
What is the value of US chip imports each year?
The US imported about $40bn in chips in 2024, according to a report by the American Enterprise Institute, citing United Nations trade data.
Imports mainly came from Taiwan, Malaysia, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Mexico and China, but experts say this data does not capture the full picture of chip flows in and out of the US.
Chips can cross borders multiple times as they are manufactured, packaged, or added to finished goods.
Chris Miller, the author of Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology, estimates that another $50bn worth of chips entered the US in 2024 via products like smartphones, auto parts and home appliances from countries like China and Vietnam.
Miller also estimates that a “substantial portion” of US chip imports are manufactured in the US before being sent overseas for packaging – a labour-intensive process – and then re-imported.
“Many of the chips imported from key trading partners like Mexico, Malaysia and Costa Rica are likely actually manufactured by US firms like Texas Instruments and Intel, which have manufacturing in the US but often have their test and assembly facilities abroad,” Miller told Al Jazeera.
Why is the tariff a concern for the global chip industry?
Trump’s tariff plans have injected further uncertainty into an industry already grappling with his administration’s sweeping efforts to reorder global trade.
“It’s unclear whether the US government has the capacity to effectively enforce this and… there’s not really any guidance in terms of what these tariffs are actually going to look like,” Nick Marro, the lead analyst for global trade at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told Al Jazeera.
The White House has yet to provide details on whether the tariff will apply to chips originally made in the US and chips contained in finished products.
If the latter were included in the tariff plans, the fallout would extend to industries like electronics, home appliances, automobiles and auto parts.
Miller said that it would be consumers in the US and elsewhere who would be among those most affected by the tariff.
“Initially, it appears that most costs would be paid by companies via lower profit margins, though in the long run, consumers will pay the majority of the cost,” he said.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian says in Yerevan that ‘governance in the Caucasus region must remain Caucasian’.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that a planned corridor linking Azerbaijan with its exclave would be under Armenian control, days after Iran said it would block the project included in a United States-brokered peace accord that puts a potential Washington presence on its doorstep.
“Roads passing through Armenia will be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Armenia, and security will be provided by Armenia, not by any third country,” Pashinyan said at a meeting with Pezeshkian in the Armenian capital Yerevan on Tuesday. He added that the corridor would open new economic perspectives between the two countries, and could offer a rail route from Iran to the Black Sea coast through Armenia.
The land corridor, dubbed the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), is part of a deal signed this month in Washington between former foes Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Under the agreement, the US will hold development rights for the proposed route, which would connect Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave bordering Iran and Turkey.
“Governance in the Caucasus region must remain Caucasian – outsourcing the resolution of Caucasus issues to extra-regional forces will complicate it,” Pezeshkian said during his visit on Tuesday. “Iran’s position has always been to reject any changes to international borders in the Caucasus region.”
Iran has long opposed the planned transit route, also known as the Zangezur corridor, fearing it would cut the country off from Armenia and the rest of the Caucasus while bringing potentially hostile foreign forces close to its borders.
Since the deal was signed on August 8, Iranian officials have stepped up warnings to Armenia, saying the project could be part of a US ploy “to pursue hegemonic goals in the Caucasus region”.
The proposed corridor has been hailed as beneficial by other countries in the region, including Russia, with which Iran has a strategic alliance alongside Armenia.
Armenia and Azerbaijan have fought a series of wars since the late 1980s when Nagorno-Karabakh, a region in Azerbaijan that had a mostly ethnic Armenian population at the time, broke away from Azerbaijan with support from Armenia. Azerbaijan Baku took control of the territory in a military operation in 2023, leading to an exodus of the ethnic Armenian population.
South African Army Chief General Rudzani Maphwanya is facing backlash in his home country following the release of alleged comments he made during an official visit to Iran, which analysts say could further complicate the already turbulent relations between South Africa and the United States.
The comments, which appeared to suggest that Iran and South Africa have common military goals, come at a time when Pretoria is attempting to mend strained relations with US President Donald Trump to stabilise trade.
Last week, a 30 percent trade tariff on South African goods entering the US kicked in, alarming business owners in the country. That’s despite President Cyril Ramaphosa’s attempts to appease Trump, including by leading a delegation to the White House in May.
Here’s what to know about what the army chief said and why there’s backlash for it:
What did the army chief say in Iran?
Meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Major-General Seyyed Abdolrahim Mousavi in Tehran on Tuesday, Maphwanya is reported to have stated that the two countries had close ties, according to Iran’s state news agency, Press TV and the Tehran Times.
“Commander Maphwanya, recalling Iran’s historical support for South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle, stated that these ties have forged a lasting bond between the two nations,” the Press TV article read.
According to Tehran Times, he went on to say: “The Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran have common goals. We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenceless people of the world.”
Maphwanya also reportedly condemned Israel’s “bombing of civilians standing in line for food” and its “ongoing aggression in the occupied West Bank”, Tehran Times reported.
His visit, the publication quoted Maphwanya as saying, “carries a political message”, and comes “at the best possible time to express our heartfelt sentiments to the peace-loving people of Iran”.
On the other hand, General Mousavi hailed South Africa’s genocide case against the “Zionist regime” at the International Court of Justice, and said that the effort was aligned with Iran’s policies, according to Press TV.
He also condemned the US and Israel’s military and economic actions against Iran as “violations of international laws and norms”. He added that Iran’s army is prepared to deliver “a more decisive response in the event of renewed aggression”, Press TV reported.
General Rudzani Maphwanya at Air Force Base Waterkloof on June 15, 2025, in Centurion, South Africa [Sharon Seretlo/Gallo Images via Getty Images]
How has the South African government reacted?
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s office on Thursday clarified that the president was not aware of General Maphwanya’s visit to Iran, although such a trip would normally be approved by the Ministry of Defence, not the president’s office.
Ramaphosa appointed Maphwanya as army chief in 2021. The general, in apartheid-era South Africa, served in the army wing of the African National Congress (ANC), which started as a liberation movement, and commanded a parliamentary majority until 2024.
Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya, at a press briefing, said the general’s decision to visit Iran was itself badly timed.
“At this period of heightened geopolitical tensions and conflict in the Middle East, one can say the visit was ill-advised, and more so, the general should have been a lot more circumspect with the comments he makes.”
He added, “We are in the delicate process of resetting political relations with the US, but more importantly, balancing the trade relationship in such a manner that the trade relationship is mutually beneficial.”
Similarly, the Ministry of International Relations and the Defence Ministry dissociated the government from the army chief’s alleged comments.
“It is unfortunate that political and policy statements were reportedly made…The minister of defence and military veterans [Matsie Angelina Motshekga] will be engaging with General Maphwanya on his return,” a statement by the Defence Ministry on Wednesday read.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Alliance (DA) party, one of the four parties that form the South African coalition government, is calling for the army chief to be tried in a military court on grounds of “gross misconduct and a flagrant breach of the SANDF [South African National Defence Force] Code of Conduct.”
“According to Iranian state media, General Maphwanya went far beyond his constitutional and professional mandate, pledging ‘common goals’ with Iran, endorsing its stance on Gaza, and calling for deeper strategic alignment,” the DA said in a statement on Thursday.
“Such political statements are explicitly prohibited for serving officers, violate the SANDF’s duty of political neutrality, and undermine the constitutional principle of civilian control over the military,” the party added.
The US and South Africa’s relations are at their lowest in decades, making this a particularly sensitive time, analysts say, as it follows June’s 12-day war between Iran and the US-Israel coalition.
President Trump slapped a 30 percent tariff on South African goods entering the US as part of his wide-ranging reciprocal tariff wars in April. The US is a major destination for South African goods such as cars, precious metals and wine.
Trump’s main gripes with Pretoria include South Africa instigating a genocide case against Israel, the US’s ally, at the International Court of Justice, amid the ongoing war in Gaza. He earlier accused South Africa of strengthening ties with Iran.
Trump has also wrongly claimed that white South Africans are being persecuted in the country under the majority Black leadership of the ANC, the country’s main political party to which President Ramaphosa belongs. He also claims South Africa is confiscating land belonging to whites.
White South Africans are a wealthy minority and largely descendants of Dutch settlers. Afrikaner governments controlled the country under the racist apartheid system until 1990.
South African wealth, particularly land, continues to be controlled disproportionately by the country’s white population. In recent times, fringe, extremist Afrikaner groups claiming that whites are being targeted by Black people have emerged, pointing to cases of white farmers being attacked by criminals on their farmland.
Elon Musk, Trump’s one-time adviser before their public fallout in June, had also made claims of white persecution and claimed that the South African government’s business laws were blocking his internet company from operating in the country.
He was referring to laws requiring that foreign businesses be partly owned by Blacks or other historically disadvantaged groups, such as people living with disabilities.
The South African government denied Musk’s accusations.
In early May, Trump’s government admitted 59 white “refugees” in a resettlement programme meant to protect them.
Previously, the US, under former President Joe Biden, was at loggerheads with South Africa over its close ties with Russia and its vocal criticism of Israel.
The latest incident echoes a 2022 scandal when a sanctioned Russian cargo ship called the Lady R docked at Simon’s Town Naval Base in the Western Cape, said analyst Chris Vandome of think tank Chatham House. The US alleged at the time that South African military supplies were loaded onto the ship and used in the Ukraine war, claims South Africa denied.
“It lies with South African foreign policy formation and the lack of clarity and consistency around it that has created this confusion whereby people think they are saying things in line with what the nation thinks,” he said.
US President Donald Trump meets South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2025 [Kevin Lamarque/Reuters]
How has South Africa tried to appease the US?
On May 21, President Ramaphosa led a delegation to the White House in a bid to “reset relations” with Trump and hopefully secure lower tariff deals.
At the heated meeting, however, Trump refused to back down from his claims of white persecution, despite Ramaphosa clarifying that South Africa was facing widespread crime in general, and that there was no evidence that whites in particular were being targeted.
South Africa, during the meeting, offered to buy US liquefied natural gas and invest $3.3bn in US industries in exchange for lower tariffs. The delegation also agreed to a review of the country’s business ownership laws.
However, Trump’s 30 percent tariffs went into effect last week. Analysts say it could put up to 30,000 South African jobs at risk, particularly in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors.
Meanwhile, Ramaphosa’s government promised to take further action to ease the burden on manufacturers and exporters. On Tuesday, Trade Minister Parks Tau told reporters that South Africa has submitted a revised proposal to Washington, without giving details.
General Maphwanya’s pronouncements this week, therefore, “couldn’t have come at a worse time” for South African diplomatic ties with the US, security analyst Jakkie Cilliers of the International Security Institute said, speaking to South African state TV, SABC.
“For the chief of the national defence force to pronounce so clearly and so unequivocally at this time is remarkably politically sensitive,” Cilliers said, adding that the general could be asked to resign upon his return.
What has General Maphwanya said?
Maphwanya, who the presidency said has returned to the country, has not put out public statements on the controversy. It is unclear how the government might sanction him. President Ramaphosa is set to meet with the army chief for briefings in the coming weeks, a presidency spokesperson said.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that he will move forward with the construction of 3,401 new settlement units in Area E1, located between Jerusalem and the Ma’ale Adumim settlement.
The decision comes despite international pressure against construction in the area beyond the Green Line and after a 20-year pause.
Smotrich’s plan aims to link Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem, cutting off Palestinian movement between Ramallah and Bethlehem. The area is considered strategic and could undermine any future political settlement.
Smotrich said: “Construction plans in the E1 area cancel the idea of a Palestinian state and continue the many steps we are taking on the ground as part of the de facto sovereignty plan we started with the formation of the government.”
He added: “After decades of international pressure and freezes, we are breaking agreements and linking Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem.”
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick forecasts the revenue increase even as Trump announces higher pharma and semiconductor chip levies, which have yet to kick in.
The United States expects to bring in at least $50bn a month from tariffs as higher levies on imports from dozens of countries begin to kick in.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Thursday outlined the forecasted revenue, an increase of $20bn from last month, when tariffs brought in $30bn.
“And then you’re going to get the semiconductors, you’re going to get pharmaceuticals, you’re going to get all sorts of additional tariff money coming in,” Lutnick said in an interview with Fox Business Network.
US President Donald Trump’s higher tariffs on imports from dozens of countries took effect on Thursday, raising the average US import duty to its highest in a century, with countries facing tariffs of 10 percent to 50 percent.
Details of those sectoral tariffs are expected in the coming weeks after the Commerce Department completes investigations into the impact of those imports on US national security.
Lutnick told Fox Business Network that companies could win exemptions from the expected semiconductor tariff if they filed plans to build plants in the US, and those plans were overseen by an auditor.
“[Trump’s] objective is to get semiconductor manufacturing done here,” he said, predicting that the initiative would result in some $1 trillion in investment to bolster domestic manufacturing.
Other exemptions have already been agreed, including with the European Union, which said its agreement to accept a 15 percent tariff on most EU exports includes chips, and with Japan, which has said the US agreed not to give it a worse rate than other countries.
The push to boost domestic chip manufacturing is not new.
The US Congress created a $52.7bn semiconductor manufacturing and research subsidy programme in 2022 under former President Joe Biden, and all five leading-edge semiconductor firms agreed last year to locate chip factories in the US.
Last year, the Commerce Department said the US produced about 12 percent of semiconductor chips globally, down from 40 percent in 1990.
Lutnick, asked about separate talks under way with China on extending a tariff truce that is due to end on August 12, said he felt an agreement was possible.
“I think we’re going to leave that to the trade team and to the president to make those decisions,” he said. “It feels likely that they’re going to come to an agreement and extend that for another 90 days, but I’ll leave it to that team.”
Cliftonville captain Kelsie Burrows has been handed a 16-match ban for an alleged ‘assault on a match official’.
The Northern Ireland international was shown a red card by referee Simon Bickerstaff after the Reds’ 2-0 win against Glentoran Women on 25 July.
The suspension is effective immediately and cover all competitions but it is understood that the club are appealing the decision, which means Burrows will be available to play in Friday’s Premiership game against Crusaders Strikers.
Team coach Brendan Lynch has been handed a three-match ban from the same game for ‘entering the field of play to confront a match official’.
The incident came after the final whistle of the victory over Glentoran which put Cliftonville right in the mix at the top of the table as they currently sit six points off leaders Linfield with two games in hand.
Cliftonville, the Irish FA and NIFL have been contacted by BBC Sport NI for comment.
Over the past two decades, the posture of the United States towards China has evolved from economic cooperation to outright antagonism. US media outlets and politicians have engaged in persistent anti-China rhetoric, while the US government has imposed trade restrictions and sanctions on China and pursued military build-up close to Chinese territory. Washington wants people to believe that China poses a threat.
China’s rise indeed threatens US interests, but not in the way the US political elite seeks to frame it.
The US relationship with China needs to be understood in the context of the capitalist world system. Capital accumulation in the core states, often glossed as the “Global North”, depends on cheap labour and cheap resources from the periphery and semi-periphery, the so-called “Global South”.
This arrangement is crucial to ensuring high profits for the multinational firms that dominate global supply chains. The systematic price disparity between the core and periphery also enables the core to achieve a large net-appropriation of value from the periphery through unequal exchange in international trade.
Ever since the 1980s, when China opened up to Western investment and trade, it has been a crucial part of this arrangement, providing a major source of labour for Western firms – labour that is cheap but also highly skilled and highly productive. For instance, much of Apple’s production relies on Chinese labour. According to research by the economist Donald A Clelland, if Apple had to pay Chinese and East Asian workers at the same rate as a US worker, this would have cost them an additional $572 per iPad in 2011.
But over the past two decades, wages in China have increased quite dramatically. Around 2005, the manufacturing labour cost per hour in China was lower than in India, less than $1 per hour. In the years since, China’s hourly labour costs have increased to more than $8 per hour, while India’s are now only about $2 per hour. Indeed, wages in China are now higher than in every other developing country in Asia. This is a major, historical development.
This has happened for several key reasons. For one, surplus labour in China has been increasingly absorbed into the wage-labour economy, which has amplified workers’ bargaining power. At the same time, the current leadership of President Xi Jinping has expanded the role of the state in China’s economy, strengthening public provisioning systems – including public healthcare and public housing – that have further improved the position of workers.
These are positive changes for China – and specifically for Chinese workers – but they pose a severe problem for Western capital. Higher wages in China impose a constraint on the profits of Western firms that operate there or that depend on Chinese manufacturing for intermediate parts and other key inputs.
The other problem, for the core states, is that the increase in China’s wages and prices is reducing its exposure to unequal exchange. During the low-wage era of the 1990s, China’s export-to-import ratio with the core was extremely high. In other words, China had to export very large quantities of goods in order to obtain necessary imports. Today, this ratio is much lower, representing a dramatic improvement in China’s terms of trade, substantially reducing the core’s ability to appropriate value from China.
Given all this, capitalists in the core states are now desperate to do something to restore their access to cheap labour and resources. One option – increasingly promoted by the Western business press – is to relocate industrial production to other parts of Asia where wages are cheaper. But this is costly in terms of lost production, the need to find new staff, and other supply chain disruptions. The other option is to force Chinese wages back down. Hence, the attempts by the United States to undermine the Chinese government and destabilise the Chinese economy – including through economic warfare and the constant threat of military escalation.
Ironically, Western governments sometimes justify their opposition to China on the grounds that China’s exports are too cheap. It is often claimed that China “cheats” in international trade, by artificially suppressing the exchange rate for its currency, the renminbi. The problem with this argument, however, is that China abandoned this policy around a decade ago. As the International Monetary Fund (IMF) economist Jose Antonio Ocampo noted in 2017, “In recent years, China has rather been making efforts to avoid a depreciation of the renminbi, sacrificing a large amount of reserves. This may imply that, if anything, this currency is now overvalued.” China did eventually permit a devaluation in 2019, when tariffs imposed by the administration of US President Donald Trump increased pressure on the renminbi. But this was a normal response to a change in market conditions, not an attempt to suppress the renminbi below its market rate.
The US largely supported the Chinese government in the period when its currency was undervalued, including through loans from the IMF and World Bank. The West turned decisively against China in the mid-2010s, at precisely the moment when the country began to raise its prices and challenge its position as a peripheral supplier of cheap inputs to Western-dominated supply chains.
The second element that’s driving US hostility towards China is technology. Beijing has used industrial policy to prioritise technological development in strategic sectors over the past decade, and has achieved remarkable progress. It now has the world’s largest high-speed rail network, manufactures its own commercial aircraft, leads the world on renewable energy technology and electric vehicles, and enjoys advanced medical technology, smartphone technology, microchip production, artificial intelligence, etc. The tech news coming out of China has been dizzying. These are achievements that we only expect from high-income countries, and China is doing it with almost 80 percent less GDP per capita than the average “advanced economy”. It is unprecedented.
This poses a problem for the core states because one of the main pillars of the imperial arrangement is that they need to maintain a monopoly over necessary technologies like capital goods, medicines, computers, aircraft and so on. This forces the “Global South” into a position of dependency, so they are forced to export large quantities of their cheapened resources in order to obtain these necessary technologies. This is what sustains the core’s net-appropriation through unequal exchange.
China’s technological development is now breaking Western monopolies, and may give other developing countries alternative suppliers for necessary goods at more affordable prices. This poses a fundamental challenge to the imperial arrangement and unequal exchange.
The US has responded by imposing sanctions designed to cripple China’s technological development. So far, this has not worked; if anything, it has increased incentives for China to develop sovereign technological capacities. With this weapon mostly neutralised, the US wants to resort to warmongering, the main objective of which would be to destroy China’s industrial base, and divert China’s investment capital and productive capacities towards defence. The US wants to go to war with China not because China poses some kind of military threat to the American people, but because Chinese development undermines the interests of imperial capital.
Western claims about China posing some kind of military threat are pure propaganda. The material facts tell a fundamentally different story. In fact, China’s military spending per capita is less than the global average, and 1/10th that of the US alone. Yes, China has a big population, but even in absolute terms, the US-aligned military bloc spends over seven times more on military power than China does. The US controls eight nuclear weapons for every one that China has.
China may have the power to prevent the US from imposing its will on it, but it does not have the power to impose its will on the rest of the world in the way that the core states do. The narrative that China poses some kind of military threat is wildly overblown.
In fact, the opposite is true. The US has hundreds of military bases and facilities around the world. A significant number of them are stationed near China – in Japan and South Korea. By contrast, China has only one foreign military base, in Djibouti, and zero military bases near US borders.
Furthermore, China has not fired a single bullet in international warfare in over 40 years, while during this time the US has invaded, bombed or carried out regime-change operations in over a dozen Global South countries. If there is any state that poses a known threat to world peace and security, it is the US.
The real reason for Western warmongering is because China is achieving sovereign development and this is undermining the imperial arrangement on which Western capital accumulation depends. The West will not let global economic power slip from its hands so easily.
The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Agreements, including those for the energy and trade sectors, have been signed during the two-day visit of the Iranian president.
Pakistan and Iran have signed agreements pledging to raise bilateral trade to $10bn and committing to work more closely to eliminate the menace of “terrorism” in favour of peace and prosperity in the region, as both nations have recently been embroiled in conflicts with their respective regional foes.
Sunday’s agreements across various sectors, including energy and trade, were signed during the two-day visit of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
“We have set a target of $10bn in trade and hope to achieve it as soon as possible,” Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said, addressing a joint press briefing.
Sharif reiterated Pakistan’s stance of supporting Iran’s right to a nuclear programme for peaceful purposes under the United Nations charter and condemned Israel’s aggression against Iran, saying there was “no justification” for the 12-day June conflict in which the United States militarily intervened on Israel’s behalf.
He said the two countries would take effective steps to eliminate “terrorism” and open the avenues of prosperity in the region. Pakistan and regional rival India were on the cusp of their fifth all-out war earlier this year before a ceasefire ended several days of heavy and deadly aerial exchanges.
The Iranian president said, “My deep belief is that we can easily, in a short time, increase the volume of our trade relations from the current $3bn to the projected goal of $10bn.”
He thanked the government and people supporting Iran “during the 12-day terrorist aggression by the Zionist regime and the United States”.
Analyst Ammar Habib Khan of the Institute of Business Administration told Al Jazeera that the informal trade between Iran and Pakistan is likely to increase more than the formal trade target shared by the countries.
“Discussions have been held on how to formalise the informal trade that is already happening, whether it is oil, gas or something else,” he told Al Jazeera from Karachi.
The analyst said Pakistan’s normalising relations with Iran might lead to the creation of a trade route between Pakistan and Europe.
“It would be an efficient and logistically sound route,” he said.
Along with a high-level delegation, including foreign and defence ministers, Pezeshkian arrived on a two-day visit to Pakistan on Saturday.
Tense ties
Pezeshkian called for better border management and cooperation around the mutual border to counter security threats.
In return, Sharif said that Islamabad and Tehran have a common stand against “terrorism”, and no such activity would be allowed in Pakistan or Iran.
“We have to protect our borders and take strict steps against terrorism to open the roads to peace and development in the region,” said Sharif.
Relations between Pakistan and Iran have often been shaky, especially over cross-border tensions that escalated in January 2024 when both sides launched tit-for-tat missile strikes.
Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said Pakistan and Iran have agreed to cooperate in order to ensure violence is prevented on either side.
“They agreed to have more border management between the two countries,” he said.
Hyder added that the sides also discussed Pakistan acting as an intermediary between Washington and Tehran, among other countries trying to ease tensions between archenemies.
Despite the strains, the two countries have kept the diplomatic door open.
In May, the Iranian foreign minister visited Pakistan amid rising tensions with India. During the Iran-Israel conflict, Pakistan supported Iran’s right to self-defence and condemned the US attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The leaders of Pakistan and Iran also called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to Israel’s attacks in the enclave.
The two sides also inked a string of memorandums of understanding in the fields of information technology, law and justice, climate change, and tourism.
The US has hit many countries with new levies, causing shock and confusion.
Around the world, countries are scrambling to cope with the latest wave of tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.
More than 60 countries are on the list, some with levies as high as 50 percent.
The move has unleashed shock, confusion and financial volatility. The US also stock market took a hit and a jobs report revealed slower than expected economic growth.
Trump didn’t take the news well: He promptly fired the head of the US Labour Statistics agency – accusing her of “manipulating” the data.
But beyond that, how will these tariffs affect the global economy? And will this controversial foreign policy tool backfire on Trump?
Presenter: Adrian Finighan
Guests:
Harry Broadman – Economist at RAND Corporation and a former US assistant trade representative and chief of staff of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers
Seijiro Takeshita – Professor of management at the University of Shizuoka in Japan
Steve Hanke – Professor at Johns Hopkins University, distinguished senior scholar at the Mises Institute, and a former senior economist on President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers
Israeli soldiers have raided the Freedom Flotilla ship, Handala, carrying aid for Gaza in international waters. The husband of onboard activist Huwaida Arraf, who urged Israeli forces to stand down, spoke to Al Jazeera while the ship was being seized. He explained their goal, motivated by the lessons of the Holocaust, is to alleviate the starvation of civilians.
Canberra says restrictions will be lifted following a ‘rigorous science and risk-based assessment’.
Australia has announced that it will lift tough restrictions on beef imports from the United States, removing measures singled out for criticism by US President Donald Trump.
Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said the government would remove the biosecurity restrictions after a “rigorous science and risk-based assessment” found the risks were being managed on the US side.
“Australia stands for open and fair trade – our cattle industry has significantly benefitted from this,” Collins said in a statement.
Australia, which has some of the world’s toughest biosecurity measures, has until now not accepted beef from cattle raised in Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US.
Canberra lifted a ban on beef from cows raised and slaughtered in the US, introduced in response to an outbreak of mad cow disease, in 2019.
The move comes after Trump called out Australia’s restrictions on US beef in his April 2 “Liberation Day” announcement of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries.
“Australia bans – and they’re wonderful people and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef,” Trump said.
“They won’t take any of our beef,” Trump added.
“They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don’t blame them but we’re doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say.”
Australia, which exports about 70 percent of its beef, is among the main suppliers of red meat to the US, but consumes little US beef.
Australia exported about 26,000 tonnes of beef and veal to the US in the first three weeks of July, according to government statistics.
Meat & Livestock Australia, a producer-owned company that supports the local beef industry, said the changes would have a minimal effect on the market.
“The potential for US beef to be imported into Australia in large volumes is minimal, given the high demand for beef in the US, the low US cattle herd, the strength of the Australian dollar, our competitive domestic supply, and most importantly Australians’ strong preference for high-quality, tasty and nutritious Australian beef,” the company said.
“In fact, demand for Australian beef in the US continues to grow. In June 2025, exports to the US rose 24 percent year-on-year, despite a 10 percent tariff introduced in April.”
Details about the agreement, which US President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social, are limited
United States President Donald Trump said he has reached a trade deal with the Philippines, charging it 19 percent tariff rate for goods it exports to the US, while US goods will pay zero tariffs.
The president announced the new agreement on Tuesday on his social media platform Truth Social shortly after his meeting with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr at the White House.
“We concluded our Trade Deal, whereby The Philippines is going OPEN MARKET with the United States,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform after welcoming Marcos to the White House.
The 19 percent tariff rate was just below the 20 percent threatened by Trump earlier this month, but above the 17 percent rate set in April when Trump announced what he called reciprocal tariff rates for dozens of countries. It matches the 19 percent rate announced for Indonesia and bests Vietnam’s slightly higher rate of 20 percent.
The US had a deficit of nearly $5bn with the Philippines last year on bilateral goods trade of $23.5bn.
Marcos, the first Southeast Asian leader to meet Trump in his second term, told reporters at the start of the meeting that the US was his country’s “strongest, closest, most reliable ally”.
Trump said the two Pacific allies would also work together militarily but gave no details.
Philippine Assistant Foreign Secretary Raquel Solano said last week that trade officials have been working with US counterparts seeking to seal a “mutually acceptable and mutually beneficial” deal.
Protesters gathered near the White House as Marcos arrived, demanding the Philippine leader address the pleas of Filipino Americans and migrant workers who have made multiple requests for support amid US immigration raids.
Trump underscored the importance of the US-Philippine military relationship, saying, “They’re a very important nation militarily, and we’ve had some great drills lately.”
Marcos, who arrived in Washington on Sunday, met with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday. During his trip, he will also meet US business leaders investing in the Philippines. Philippine officials say Marcos planned to stress that Manila must become economically stronger if it is to serve as a truly robust partner to the US in the Asia Pacific region.
Looming pressure on China
During the Oval Office event, Trump said he may visit China for a landmark trip “in the not-too-distant future” and noted the Philippines had distanced itself from Beijing after his election last November.
“The country was maybe tilting toward China, but we un-tilted it very, very quickly,” Trump said.
The US president has sought to lower tensions with Beijing in recent weeks after pausing a tit-for-tat tariff war that has upended global trade and supply chains. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Tuesday he would meet with Chinese officials in Sweden next week.
No comment was immediately available from Marcos, who did not speak to reporters before leaving the White House grounds.
The move gives US Treasury a chance to recommend replacement, at time that US President Donald Trump is reshaping global economy.
Gita Gopinath, the No. 2 official at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), will leave her post at the end of August to return to Harvard University, the IMF has said.
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva will name a successor to Gopinath in “due course”, the financial institution said in a statement on Monday.
Gopinath joined the fund in 2019 as chief economist, the first woman to serve in that role, and was promoted to first deputy managing director in January 2022.
No comment was immediately available from the United States Department of the Treasury, which manages the dominant US shareholding in the IMF. While European countries have traditionally chosen the IMF’s managing director, the US Treasury has traditionally recommended candidates for the first deputy managing director role.
Gopinath is an Indian-born US citizen.
The timing of the move caught some IMF insiders by surprise, and appears to have been initiated by Gopinath.
Gopinath, who had left Harvard to join the IMF, will return to the university as a professor of economics.
Her departure will offer the US Treasury a chance to recommend a successor at a time when President Donald Trump is seeking to restructure the global economy and end longstanding US trade deficits with high tariffs on imports from nearly all countries.
She will return to a university that has been in the Trump administration’s crosshairs after the school rejected demands to change its governance, hiring and admissions practices.
Georgieva said Gopinath joined the IMF as a highly respected academic and proved to be an “exceptional intellectual leader” during her time, which included the pandemic and global shocks caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“Gita steered the Fund’s analytical and policy work with clarity, striving for the highest standards of rigorous analysis at a complex time of high uncertainty and rapidly changing global economic environment,” Georgieva said.
Gopinath has also overseen the fund’s multilateral surveillance and analytical work on fiscal and monetary policy, debt and international trade.
Gopinath said she was grateful for a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to work at the IMF, thanking both Georgieva and the previous IMF chief, Christine Lagarde, who appointed her as chief economist.
“I now return to my roots in academia, where I look forward to continuing to push the research frontier in international finance and macroeconomics to address global challenges, and to training the next generation of economists,” she said in a statement.
International public opinion continues to turn against Israel for its war on Gaza, with more governments slowly beginning to reflect those voices and increase their own condemnation of the country.
In the last few weeks, Israeli government ministers have been sanctioned by several Western countries, with the United Kingdom, France and Canada issuing a joint statement condemning the “intolerable” level of “human suffering” in Gaza.
Earlier this week, a number of countries from the Global South, “The Hague Group”, collectively agreed on a number of measures that they say will “restrain Israel’s assault on the Occupied Palestinian Territories”.
Across the world, and in increasing numbers, the public, politicians and, following an Israeli strike on a Catholic church in Gaza, religious leaders are speaking out against Israel’s killings in Gaza.
So, are world powers getting any closer to putting enough pressure on Israel for it to stop?
Here’s what we know.
What is the Hague Group?
According to its website, the Hague Group is a global bloc of states committed to “coordinated legal and diplomatic measures” in defence of international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine.
Made up of eight nations; South Africa, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia and Senegal, the group has set itself the mission of upholding international law, and safeguarding the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, principally “the responsibility of all nations to uphold the inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, that it enshrines for all peoples”.
Earlier this week, the Hague Group hosted a meeting of some 30 nations, including China, Spain and Qatar, in the Colombian capital of Bogota. Also attending the meeting was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who characterised the meeting as “the most significant political development in the past 20 months”.
Albanese was recently sanctioned by the United States for her criticism of its ally, Israel.
At the end of the two-day meeting, 12 of the countries in attendance agreed to six measures to limit Israel’s actions in Gaza. Included in those measures were blocks on supplying arms to Israel, a ban on ships transporting weapons and a review of public contracts for any possible links to companies benefiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
Have any other governments taken action?
More and more.
On Wednesday, Slovenia barred far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and ultranationalist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from entering its territory after the wider European Union failed to agree on measures to address charges of widespread human rights abuses against Israel.
Slovenia’s ban on the two government ministers builds upon earlier sanctions imposed upon Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in June by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and Norway over their “incitement to violence”. The two men have been among the most vocal Israeli ministers in rejecting any compromise in negotiations with Palestinians, and pushing for the Jewish settlement of Gaza, as well as the increased building of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Left to right, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israeli far-right lawmaker and leader of the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish power) party, and Bezalel Smotrich, Israeli far-right lawmaker and leader of the Religious Zionist Party have both been declared ‘persona non grata’ by lawmakers in Slovenia [Gil Cohen-Magen/AFP]
In May, the UK, France, and Canada issued a joint statement describing Israel’s escalation of its campaign against Gaza as “wholly disproportionate” and promising “concrete actions” against Israel if it did not halt its offensive.
Later that month, the UK followed through on its warning, announcing sanctions on a handful of settler organisations and announcing a “pause” in free trade negotiations with Israel.
Also in May, Turkiye announced that it would block all trade with Israel until the humanitarian situation in Gaza was resolved.
South Africa first launched a case for genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice in late December 2023, and has since been supported by other countries, including Colombia, Chile, Spain, Ireland, and Turkiye.
In January of 2024, the ICJ issued its provisional ruling, finding what it termed a “plausible” case for genocide and instructing Israel to undertake emergency measures, including the provision of the aid that its government has effectively blocked since March of this year.
Following what was reported to be an “angry” phone call from US President Trump after the bombing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement expressing its “deep regret” over the attack.
To date, Israel has killed more than 58,000 people in Gaza, the majority women and children.
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Archbishop Pierbattista Pizzaballa and Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophilos III visit the Church of the Holy Family, which was hit in an Israeli strike on Thursday, in Gaza City, July 18, 2025 [The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem/Handout via Reuters]
Has the tide turned internationally?
Mass public protests against Israel’s war on Gaza have continued around the world throughout its duration.
And there are clear signs of growing anger over the brutality of the war and the toll it is taking on Palestinians in Gaza.
In Western Europe, a survey carried out by the polling company YouGov in June found that net favourability towards Israel had reached its lowest ebb since tracking began.
A similar poll produced by CNN this week found similar results among the American public, with only 23 percent of respondents agreeing Israel’s actions in Gaza were fully justified, down from 50 percent in October 2023.
Public anger has also found voice at high-profile public events, including music festivals such as Germany’s Fusion Festival, Poland’s Open’er Festival and the UK’s Glastonbury festival, where both artists and their supporters used their platforms to denounce the war on Gaza.
Revellers with Palestinian and other flags gather as Kneecap performs at Glastonbury Festival at Worthy Farm in Pilton, Somerset, UK, June 28, 2025 [Jaimi Joy/Reuters]
Has anything changed in Israel?
Protests against the war remain small but are growing, with organisations, such as Standing Together, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian activists to protest the war.
There has also been a growing number of reservists refusing to show up for duty. In April, the Israeli magazine +972 reported that more than 100,000 reservists had refused to show up for duty, with open letters from within the military protesting the war growing in number since.
Will it make any difference?
Netanyahu’s hard-right coalition has been pursuing its war on Gaza despite its domestic and international unpopularity for some time.
The government’s most recent proposal, that all of Gaza’s population be confined into what it calls a “humanitarian city”, but has been likened to a concentration camp and has been taken by many of its critics as evidence that it no longer cares about either international law or global opinion.
Internationally, despite its recent criticism of Israel for its bombing of Gaza’s one Catholic church, US support for Israel remains resolute. For many in Israel, the continued support of the US, and President Donald Trump in particular, remains the one diplomatic absolute they can rely upon to weather whatever diplomatic storms their actions in Gaza may provoke.
In addition to that support, which includes diplomatic guarantees through the use of the US veto in the United Nations Security Council and military support via its extensive arsenal, is the US use of sanctions against Israel’s critics, such as the International Criminal Court, whose members were sanctioned in June after it issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on war crimes charges.
That means, in the short term, Israel ultimately feels protected as long as it has US support. But as it becomes more of an international pariah, economic and diplomatic isolation may become more difficult to handle.
UK’s Starmer says plan in place in event of ceasefire in Ukraine once Russia’s Putin agrees to ‘unconditional’ truce.
The United Kingdom and Germany have signed their first bilateral treaty since World War II, pledging to deepen cooperation on defence at a time of growing threats to Europe.
The Kensington Treaty, signed by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Thursday, includes clauses on “mutual assistance” in case of attack and on “joint export campaigns” to drum up external orders for military hardware such as fighter jets that the countries produce together.
Speaking after the signing ceremony at London’s Victoria and Albert Museum, Merz was cited by the BBC as saying that defence is the thread running through the treaty, showing that Germany and the UK are “really on the way to a new chapter” following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union in 2020.
“We see the scale of the challenges our continent faces today, and we intend to meet them head on,” Starmer said at the press conference.
It was unclear what practical impact the promise in the treaty to “assist one another, including by military means, in case of an armed attack on the other” would have, since both countries are NATO members and bound by the alliance’s mutual defence pact.
Merz’s visit to London followed a three-day state visit by French President Emmanuel Macron, during which France and the UK pledged to coordinate their nuclear deterrents, signalling tighter cooperation between Europe’s top three powers as doubts persist over US support for the continent amid Russia’s ongoing offensive in Ukraine.
While Germany does not have nuclear weapons, the treaty says the countries will “maintain a close dialogue on defence issues of mutual interest … including on nuclear issues”.
Merz and Starmer also discussed ways of boosting European support for Ukraine, following United States President Donald Trump’s announcement of a plan to bolster Kyiv’s stockpile by selling US weapons to NATO allies who would, in turn, send arms to Kyiv.
Starmer said that a plan was in place in the event of a ceasefire in Ukraine, saying the first step was to get Russian President Vladimir Putin “to the table for an unconditional ceasefire”, according to the BBC.
The so-called “coalition of the willing“, a group of countries led by France and the UK and including Germany, has been discussing the potential deployment of peacekeeping forces to Ukraine to police any future peace agreement with Russia.
The return to power of Trump, who has long been sceptical of US intervention on behalf of historic allies, has made Western European powers more focused on how to defend their own continent, particularly in light of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and the belief that the US may no longer be the transatlantic partner it once was.
Beyond defence, the treaty also includes an agreement to jointly combat irregular migration, part of Starmer’s push to reduce the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK to try to counter the rise of the hard-right Reform UK party.
Starmer said the treaty showed the two countries “mean business” when it comes to disrupting the arrival of refugees and migrants, and thanked Merz for a new law giving security forces powers to investigate storage facilities used by smugglers to conceal small boats making the crossings over the English Channel.
During Macron’s visit last week, the UK and France agreed on a “one in, one out” pilot scheme that would see the UK deporting people arriving on small boats to France in exchange for asylum seekers with a strong case, who have family connections to the country.
Prime Minister Mark Carney also introduced a fund to invest in domestic steel projects.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said that Canada will introduce a tariff rate quota on countries it has free trade agreements with, excluding the United States, in order to protect its domestic steel industry.
Carney announced the new measures on Wednesday.
The plan includes a 50 percent tariff that will apply to imports from relevant countries that surpass the 2024 volumes, though Canada will honour existing arrangements with its United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade partners, Carney said.
Canada will implement additional tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports from all countries containing steel melted and poured in China before the end of July.
Carney is responding to complaints from the domestic industry, which had said that other countries are diverting steel to Canada and making the domestic industry uncompetitive due to US tariffs. The Canadian steel industry had asked the government to introduce tougher anti-dumping measures to protect the domestic industry.
US President Donald Trump increased import duties on steel and aluminium to 50 percent from 25 percent earlier this month. Canada is the top seller of steel to the US.
Carney also said domestic steel companies would be prioritised in government procurement, and he introduced a fund of one billion Canadian dollars ($730m) to help steel companies advance projects in industries such as defence.
“These measures will ensure Canadian steel producers are more competitive by protecting them against trade diversion resulting from a fast-changing global environment for steel,” Carney said on Wednesday.
For countries without free trade agreements with Canada, the government lowered the tariff-free quota to 50 percent of 2024 volumes from 100 percent previously. Above the quota, imports will also face a 50 percent tariff.
Catherine Cobden, president and CEO of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, in an interview with broadcaster CBC, said the timing wasn’t sufficient for domestic steelmakers confronting a crisis.
“This is something we should have been doing all along, but it’s fantastic to see that we are making progress,” Cobden said.
In a separate statement, Canadian steel maker Evraz said it has filed a complaint against steel imports from Mexico, the Philippines, South Korea, Turkiye and the US, against unfairly priced imports of oil country tubular goods.
