#multilateral trade agreements | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 8 months

Text

The CHIPS Act treats the symptoms, but not the causes

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/07/farewell-mr-chips/#we-used-to-make-things

There's this great throwaway line in 1992's Sneakers, where Dan Aykroyd, playing a conspiracy-addled hacker/con-man, is feverishly telling Sydney Poitier (playing an ex-CIA spook) about a 1958 meeting Eisenhower had with aliens where Ike said, "hey, look, give us your technology, and we'll give you all the cow lips you want."

Poitier dismisses Aykroyd ("Don't listen to this man. He's certifiable"). We're meant to be on Poitier's side here, but I've always harbored some sympathy for Aykroyd in this scene.

That's because I often hear echoes of Aykroyd's theory in my own explanations of the esoteric bargains and plots that produced the world we're living in today. Of course, in my world, it's not presidents bargaining for alien technology in exchange for cow-lips – it's the world's wealthy nations bargaining to drop trade restrictions on the Global South in exchange for IP laws.

These bargains – which started as a series of bilateral and then multilateral agreements like NAFTA, and culminated in the WTO agreement of 1999 – were the most important step in the reordering of the world's economy around rent-extraction, cheap labor exploitation, and a brittle supply chain that is increasingly endangered by the polycrisis of climate and its handmaidens, like zoonotic plagues, water wars, and mass refugee migration.

Prior to the advent of "free trade," the world's rich countries fashioned debt into a whip-hand over poor, post-colonial nations. These countries had been bankrupted by their previous colonial owners, and the price of their freedom was punishing debts to the IMF and other rich-world institutions in exchange for loans to help these countries "develop."

Like all poor debtors, these countries were said to have gotten into their predicament through moral failure – they'd "lived beyond their means."

(When rich people get into debt, bankruptcy steps in to give them space to "restructure" according to their own plans. When poor people get into debt, bankruptcy strips them of nearly everything that might help them recover, brands them with a permanent scarlet letter, and subjects them to humiliating micro-management whose explicit message is that they are not competent to manage their own affairs):

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/07/hr-4193/#shoppers-choice

So the poor debtor nations were ordered to "deregulate." They had to sell off their state assets, run their central banks according to the dictates of rich-world finance authorities, and reorient their production around supplying raw materials to rich countries, who would process these materials into finished goods for export back to the poor world.

Naturally, poor countries were not allowed to erect "trade barriers" that might erode the capacity of this North-South transfer of high-margin goods, but this was not the era of free trade. It wasn't the free trade era because, while the North-South transfer was largely unrestricted, the South-North transfer was subject to tight regulation in the rich world.

In other words, poor countries were expected to export, say, raw ore to the USA and reimport high-tech goods, with low tariffs in both directions. But if a poor country processed that ore domestically and made its own finished goods, the US would block those goods at the border, slapping them with high tariffs that made them more expensive than Made-in-the-USA equivalents.

The argument for this unidirectional trade was that the US – and other rich countries – had a strategic need to maintain their manufacturing industries as a hedge against future geopolitical events (war, but also pandemics, extreme weather) that might leave the rich world unable to provide for itself. This rationale had a key advantage: it was true.

A country that manages its own central bank can create as much of its own currency as it wants, and use that money to buy anything for sale in its own currency.

This may not be crucial while global markets are operating to the country's advantage (say, while the rest of the world is "willingly" pricing its raw materials in your country's currency), but when things go wrong – war, plague, weather – a country that can't make things is at the rest of the world's mercy.

If you had to choose between being a poor post-colonial nation that couldn't supply its own technological needs except by exporting raw materials to rich countries, and being a rich country that had both domestic manufacturing capacity and a steady supply of other countries' raw materials, you would choose the second, every time.

What's not to like?

Here's what.

The problem – from the perspective of America's ultra-wealthy – was that this arrangement gave the US workforce a lot of power. As US workers unionized, they were able to extract direct concessions from their employers through collective bargaining, and they could effectively lobby for universal worker protections, including a robust welfare state – in both state and federal legislatures. The US was better off as a whole, but the richest ten percent were much poorer than they could be if only they could smash worker power.

That's where free trade comes in. Notwithstanding racist nonsense about "primitive" countries, there's no intrinsic defect that stops the global south from doing high-tech manufacturing. If the rich world's corporate leaders were given free rein to sideline America's national security in favor of their own profits, they could certainly engineer the circumstances whereby poor countries would build sophisticated factories to replace the manufacturing facilities that sat behind the north's high tariff walls.

These poor-country factories could produce goods ever bit as valuable as the rich world's shops, but without the labor, environmental and financial regulations that constrained their owners' profits. They slavered for a business environment that let them kill workers; poison the air, land and water; and cheat the tax authorities with impunity.

For this plan to work, the wealthy needed to engineer changes in both the rich world and the poor world. Obviously, they would have to get rid of the rich world's tariff walls, which made it impossible to competitively import goods made in the global south, no matter how cheaply they were made.

But free trade wasn't just about deregulation in the north – it also required a whole slew of new, extremely onerous regulations in the global south. Corporations that relocated their manufacturing to poor – but nominally sovereign – countries needed to be sure that those countries wouldn't try to replicate the American plan of becoming actually sovereign, by exerting control over the means of production within their borders.

Recall that the American Revolution was inspired in large part by fury over the requirement to ship raw materials back to Mother England and then buy them back at huge markups after they'd been processed by English workers, to the enrichment of English aristocrats. Post-colonial America created new regulations (tariffs on goods from England), and – crucially – they also deregulated.

Specifically, post-revolutionary America abolished copyrights and patents for English persons and firms. That way, American manufacturers could produce sophisticated finished goods without paying rent to England's wealthy making those goods cheaper for American buyers, and American publishers could subsidize their editions of American authors' books by publishing English authors on the cheap, without the obligation to share profits with English publishers or English writers.

The surplus produced by ignoring the patents and copyrights of the English was divided (unequally) among American capitalists, workers, and shoppers. Wealthy Americans got richer, even as they paid their workers more and charged less for their products. This incubated a made-in-the-USA edition of the industrial revolution. It was so successful that the rest of the world – especially England – began importing American goods and literature, and then American publishers and manufacturers started to lean on their government to "respect" English claims, in order to secure bilateral protections for their inventions and books in English markets.

This was good for America, but it was terrible for English manufacturers. The US – a primitive, agricultural society – "stole" their inventions until they gained so much manufacturing capacity that the English public started to prefer American goods to English ones.

This was the thing that rich-world industrialists feared about free trade. Once you build your high-tech factories in the global south, what's to stop those people from simply copying your plans – or worse, seizing your factories! – and competing with you on a global scale? Some of these countries had nominally socialist governments that claimed to explicitly elevate the public good over the interests of the wealthy. And all of these countries had the same sprinkling of sociopaths who'd gladly see a million children maimed or the land poisoned for a buck – and these "entrepreneurs" had unbeatable advantages with their countries' political classes.

For globalization to work, it wasn't enough to deregulate the rich world – capitalists also had to regulate the poor world. Specifically, they had to get the poor world to adopt "IP" laws that would force them to willingly pay rent on things they could get for free: patents and other IP, even though it was in the short-term, medium-term, and long-term interests of both the nation and its politicians and its businesspeople.

Thus, the bargain that makes me sympathetic to Dan Aykroyd: not cow lips for alien tech; but free trade for IP law. When the WTO was steaming towards passage in the late 1990s, there was (rightly) a lot of emphasis on its deregulatory provisions: weakening of labor, environmental and financial laws in the poor world, and of tariffs in the rich world.

But in hindsight, we all kind of missed the main event: the TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). This actually started before the WTO treaty (it was part of the GATT, a predecessor to the WTO), but the WTO spread it to countries all over the world. Under the TRIPS, poor countries are required to honor the IP claims of rich countries, on pain of global sanction.

That was the plan: instead of paying American workers to make Apple computers, say, Apple could export the "IP" for Macs and iPhones to countries like China, and these countries would produce Apple products that were "designed in California, assembled in China." China would allow Apple to treat Chinese workers so badly that they routinely committed suicide, and would lock up or kill workers who tried to unionize. China would accept vast shipments of immortal, toxic e-waste. And China wouldn't let its entrepreneurs copy Apple's designs, be they software, schematics or trademarks.

Apple isn't the only company that pursued this strategy, but no company has executed it as successfully. It's not for nothing that Steve Jobs's hand-picked successor was Tim Cook, who oversaw the transfer of even the most exacting elements of Apple manufacturing to Chinese facilities, striking bargains with contractors like Foxconn that guaranteed that workers would be heavily – lethally! – surveilled and controlled to prevent the twin horrors of unionization and leaks.

For the first two decades of the WTO era, the most obvious problems with this arrangement was wage erosion (for American workers) and leakage (for the rich). China's "socialist" government was only too happy to help Foxconn imprison workers who demanded better wages and working conditions, but they were far more relaxed about knockoffs, be they fake iPods sold in market stalls or US trade secrets working their way into Huawei products.

These were problems for the American aristocracy, whose investments depended on China disciplining both Chinese workers and Chinese businesses. For the American people, leakage was a nothingburger. Apple's profits weren't shared with its workforce beyond the relatively small number of tech workers at its headquarters. The vast majority of Apple employees, who flogged iPhones and scrubbed the tilework in gleaming white stores across the nation, would get the same minimal (or even minimum) wage no matter how profitable Apple grew.

It wasn't until the pandemic that the other shoe dropped for the American public. The WTO arrangement – cow lips for alien technology – had produced a global system brittle supply chains composed entirely of weakest links. A pandemic, a war, a ship stuck in the Suez Canal or Houthi paramilitaries can cripple the entire system, perhaps indefinitely.

For two decades, we fought over globalization's effect on wages. We let our corporate masters trick us into thinking that China's "cheating" on IP was a problem for the average person. But the implications of globalization for American sovereignty and security were banished to the xenophobic right fringe, where they were mixed into the froth of Cold War 2.0 nonsense. The pandemic changed that, creating a coalition that is motivated by a complex and contradictory stew of racism, environmentalism, xenophobia, labor advocacy, patriotism, pragmatism, fear and hope.

Out of that stew emerged a new American political tendency, mostly associated with Bidenomics, but also claimed in various guises by the American right, through its America First wing. That tendency's most visible artifact is the CHIPS Act, through which the US government proposes to use policy and subsidies to bring high-tech manufacturing back to America's shores.

This week, the American Economic Liberties Project published "Reshoring and Restoring: CHIPS Implementation for a Competitive Semiconductor Industry," a fascinating, beautifully researched and detailed analysis of the CHIPS Act and the global high-tech manufacturing market, written by Todd Achilles, Erik Peinert and Daniel Rangel:

https://www.economicliberties.us/our-work/reshoring-and-restoring-chips-implementation-for-a-competitive-semiconductor-industry/#

Crucially, the report lays out the role that the weakening of antitrust, the dismantling of tariffs and the strengthening of IP played in the history of the current moment. The failure to enforce antitrust law allowed for monopolization at every stage of the semiconductor industry's supply-chain. The strengthening of IP and the weakening of tariffs encouraged the resulting monopolies to chase cheap labor overseas, confident that the US government would punish host countries that allowed their domestic entrepreneurs to use American designs without permission.

The result is a financialized, "capital light" semiconductor industry that has put all its eggs in one basket. For the most advanced chips ("leading-edge logic"), production works like this: American firms design a chip and send the design to Taiwan where TSMC foundry turns it into a chip. The chip is then shipped to one of a small number of companies in the poor world where they are assembled, packaged and tested (AMP) and sent to China to be integrated into a product.

Obsolete foundries get a second life in the commodity chip ("mature-node chips") market – these are the cheap chips that are shoveled into our cars and appliances and industrial systems.

Both of these systems are fundamentally broken. The advanced, "leading-edge" chips rely on geopolitically uncertain, heavily concentrated foundries. These foundries can be fully captured by their customers – as when Apple prepurchases the entire production capacity of the most advanced chips, denying both domestic and offshore competitors access to the newest computation.

Meanwhile, the less powerful, "mature node" chips command minuscule margins, and are often dumped into the market below cost, thanks to subsidies from countries hoping to protect their corner of the high-tech sector. This makes investment in low-power chips uncertain, leading to wild swings in cost, quality and availability of these workhorse chips.

The leading-edge chipmakers – Nvidia, Broadcom, Qualcomm, AMD, etc – have fully captured their markets. They like the status quo, and the CHIPS Act won't convince them to invest in onshore production. Why would they?

2022 was Broadcom's best year ever, not in spite of its supply-chain problems, but because of them. Those problems let Broadcom raise prices for a captive audience of customers, who the company strong-armed into exclusivity deals that ensured they had nowhere to turn. Qualcomm also profited handsomely from shortages, because its customers end up paying Qualcomm no matter where they buy, thanks to Qualcomm ensuring that its patents are integrated into global 4G and 5G standards.

That means that all standards-conforming products generate royalties for Qualcomm, and it also means that Qualcomm can decide which companies are allowed to compete with it, and which ones will be denied licenses to its patents. Both companies are under orders from the FTC to cut this out, and both companies ignore the FTC.

The brittleness of mature-node and leading-edge chips is not inevitable. Advanced memory chips (DRAM) roughly comparable in complexity to leading-edge chips, while analog-to-digital chips are as easily commodified as mature-node chips, and yet each has a robust and competitive supply chain, with both onshore and offshore producers. In contrast with leading-edge manufacturers (who have been visibly indifferent to the CHIPS incentives), memory chip manufacturers responded to the CHIPS Act by committing hundreds of billions of dollars to new on-shore production facilities.

Intel is a curious case: in a world of fabless leading-edge manufacturers, Intel stands out for making its own chips. But Intel is in a lot of trouble. Its advanced manufacturing plans keep foundering on cost overruns and delays. The company keeps losing money. But until recently, its management kept handing its shareholders billions in dividends and buybacks – a sign that Intel bosses assume that the US public will bail out its "national champion." It's not clear whether the CHIPS Act can save Intel, or whether financialization will continue to hollow out a once-dominant pioneer.

The CHIPS Act won't undo the concentration – and financialization – of the semiconductor industry. The industry has been awash in cheap money since the 2008 bailouts, and in just the past five years, US semiconductor monopolists have paid out $239b to shareholders in buybacks and dividends, enough to fund the CHIPS Act five times over. If you include Apple in that figure, the amount US corporations spent on shareholder returns instead of investing in capacity rises to $698b. Apple doesn't want a competitive market for chips. If Apple builds its own foundry, that just frees up capacity at TSMC that its competitors can use to improve their products.

The report has an enormous amount of accessible, well-organized detail on these markets, and it makes a set of key recommendations for improving the CHIPS Act and passing related legislation to ensure that the US can once again make its own microchips. These run a gamut from funding four new onshore foundries to requiring companies receiving CHIPS Act money to "dual-source" their foundries. They call for NIST and the CPO to ensure open licensing of key patents, and for aggressive policing of anti-dumping rules for cheap chips. They also seek a new law creating an "American Semiconductor Supply Chain Resiliency Fee" – a tariff on chips made offshore.

Fundamentally, these recommendations seek to end the outsourcing made possible by restrictive IP regimes, to undercut Wall Street's power to demand savings from offshoring, and to smash the market power of companies like Apple that make the brittleness of chip manufacturing into a feature, rather than a bug. This would include a return to previous antitrust rules, which limited companies' ability to leverage patents into standards, and to previous IP rules, which limited exclusive rights chip topography and design ("mask rights").

All of this will is likely to remove the constraints that stop poor countries from doing to America the same things that postcolonial America did to England – that is, it will usher in an era in which lots of countries make their own chips and other high-tech goods without paying rent to American companies. This is good! It's good for poor countries, who will have more autonomy to control their own technical destiny. It's also good for the world, creating resiliency in the high-tech manufacturing sector that we'll need as the polycrisis overwhelms various places with fire and flood and disease and war. Electrifying, solarizing and adapting the world for climate resilience is fundamentally incompatible with a brittle, highly concentrated tech sector.

Pluralizing high-tech production will make America less vulnerable to the gamesmanship of other countries – and it will also make the rest of the world less vulnerable to American bullying. As Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman describe so beautifully in their 2023 book Underground Empire, the American political establishment is keenly aware of how its chokepoints over global finance and manufacturing can be leveraged to advantage the US at the rest of the world's expense:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/10/weaponized-interdependence/#the-other-swifties

Look, I know that Eisenhower didn't trade cow-lips for alien technology – but our political and commercial elites really did trade national resiliency away for IP laws, and it's a bargain that screwed everyone, except the one percenters whose power and wealth have metastasized into a deadly cancer that threatens the country and the planet.

Image: Mickael Courtiade (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/197739384@N07/52703936652/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

#pluralistic #chips act #ip #monopolies #antitrust #national security #industrial policy #american economic liberties project #tmsc #leading-edge #intel #mature node #lagging edge #foundries #fabless

253 notes · View notes

allthebrazilianpolitics · 8 months

Text

A Balancing Act for Brazil’s Foreign Policy

What seems like a contradictory agenda for 2024 reflects the country’s deeper priorities, writes a Brazilian expert.

“Hope dances on a tightrope with an umbrella,” a famous Brazilian song says to enlighten us about the fragility of human existence during trying times. The lyrics convey a cautionary tale of what 2024 may represent for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his ambitious foreign policy: “At every step of the line, you can get hurt.” If controversies marked Brazil’s foreign policy in 2023, this year promises to be a stage for new tensions and ambiguities —a tightrope of sorts for its government. After an intense first year of government, Lula is now preparing for a series of initiatives expected to draw global attention, including hosting the G-20 summit in Rio de Janeiro in November.

This year, Brazil will be caught between celebrating the bicentennial of relations with the United States—and 50 years of relations with China. It will try to preserve its capacity to mediate in the territorial dispute between Guyana and Venezuela while managing the uncertainties facing Mercosur, such as challenges in expanding intra-regional trade, high tariffs, and protectionism, as well as difficulties in finalizing external trade agreements, such as the Mercosur-European Union negotiation. It will attempt to harmonize interests to expand its geopolitical and economic influence diversifying business opportunities and reducing dependence on rules and regulations set by Western countries in the face of the controversial BRICS+ Summit in Russia. Last but not least, it will try to convince everyone that the decision to join OPEC+ does not contradict the country’s commitment to being a green power and the host of COP30 next year. Tension, contradictions? Nothing new. Controversy was almost inherent in Brazil’s diplomatic performance last year:Lula visited over 20 countries, participated in numerous bilateral meetings, and led multilateral mobilizations to back up his claim that “Brazil is back.” He offered to play a mediating role between Russia and Ukraine after the former’s invasion and was criticized for hesitating to assign responsibility to Moscow for the war. Lula also participated in a BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, where the bloc proposed including Iran and other countries, and while attending COP28 in the United Arab Emirates, he confirmed Brazil’s entry into OPEC+, a group that includes the oil cartel nations and ten observer countries. On another front, Brazil proposed de-dollarizing trade with China, and in the region, Lula made a controversial outreach to Nicolas Maduro’s government in Venezuela during its pro tempore presidency of Mercosur.

#brazil #brazilian politics #politics #foreign policy #mod nise da silveira #image description in alt

1 note · View note

fronthunt · 11 days

Text

Mastering Offshore Recruitment: A Comprehensive Guide to Legal and Regulatory Best Practices

In a globalized world, offshore recruitment has become a strategic advantage for companies looking to leverage diverse talent pools. However, navigating complex laws and regulations across jurisdictions can be challenging. Successful recruitment of offshore personnel requires a deep understanding of international labor law, compliance issues and best practices to ensure a smooth and legal recruitment process way this comprehensive guide outlines the legal and regulatory best practices needed to enable offshore recruitment.

1. Understand Local Labor Laws and Regulations

One of the first steps to a successful offshore recruitment process is to fully understand the labor laws and regulations in the target country. Each country has its own employment laws, which cover employment contracts, minimum wages, working hours and termination procedures Become familiar with these laws to ensure compliance and avoid legal pitfalls.

For example, some states have strict requirements for employment contracts, including specific terms that must be included. Others may have rules for benefits, such as mandatory health insurance or paid vacations. Understanding these requirements is critical to drafting tailored and appropriate employment contracts.

2. Ensure Compliance with International Standards

In addition to local laws, compliance with international standards and treaties is important. Organizations should consider international labor standards set by bodies such as the International Labor Organization (ILO). These standards often include basic principles such as fair wages, working conditions, and the prohibition of child labor. Adhering to these standards not only helps maintain ethical hiring practices but also builds your company’s global reputation.

Also, be aware of any bilateral or multilateral agreements between countries that may affect hiring practices. For example, trade agreements may affect labor mobility or introduce specific employment rules for foreign workers.

3. Address Tax and Social Security Considerations

Taxes and social security contributions are important components of offshore employment. Different states have different tax obligations and different social security requirements for employers and employees. Understanding these requirements is important to ensure proper compliance and avoid potential legal issues.

In some states, employers are required to withhold and remit taxes on behalf of their employees. In addition, local authorities may require social security contributions. Be prepared to handle these responsibilities, either directly or through a local payroll service.

4. Monitor Immigration and Work Permit Requirements

Hiring foreign workers often involves dealing with immigration and work permit issues. Make sure you are familiar with the visa and work permit requirements of the country you wish to visit. This includes understanding what types of visas are available, the application process, and any restrictions or quotas.

Work permits generally require specific documentation, such as proof of employment, qualifications, and sometimes a labor market test showing no local preferences that he does the work

5. Implemented Effective Data Protection Measures

In offshore hiring, it is important to manage candidate data responsibly. Different countries have different laws relating to data protection and privacy, such as the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Make sure your recruitment process complies with the data protection laws in your country and the country where the candidate is located in the 19th century.

Implement secure storage and handling systems, and obtain explicit constituent consent for data collection and use. Additionally, establish clear data retention and disposal policies to comply with legal requirements and protect candidate privacy.

6. Develop a Multicultural Recruitment Strategy

Effective marine recruitment requires more than just compliance; It also requires cultural sensitivity. Different cultures have different expectations and practices when it comes to hiring. Understanding these cultural differences can improve your recruiting efforts and foster better relationships with prospective employees.

Tailor your recruiting process to cultural nuances such as preferred communication styles, interviews, and communication styles. By respecting and embracing these cultural differences, you can grow your employer brand and attract top talent from diverse backgrounds.

7. Work with Specialist Local Partners

Partnering with local experts such as recruitment agencies, attorneys and payroll service providers can make offshore hiring much easier. Local partners bring valuable insights from a regulatory perspective and can assist with compliance, recruitment and onboarding.

Select partners with a proven track record in the target country and draw up a clear agreement outlining their roles and responsibilities. This collaboration ensures that you navigate complex rules and regulations smoothly while focusing on your core hiring goals.

Conclusion

Successful offshore recruitment requires a thorough understanding of legal and regulatory best practices in different jurisdictions. By paying attention to local labor laws, international standards, tax and social security considerations, immigration requirements, data security, cultural differences, and working with local experts, companies can overcome challenges which has a better handle on sourcing talent from abroad. As you navigate the challenges of offshore recruitment, a comprehensive and informed approach will pave the way for successful and sustainable recruitment practices.

#offshore recruitment #offshore recruitment services #offshore hiring agency #offshore hiring agency in Australia #virtual hiring agency

0 notes

ebelal56-blog · 27 days

Video

youtube

India vs Russia: The Unlikely Rivalry

India's relationships with its neighboring countries are like a complex tapestry, woven with threads of history, culture, and politics. Each thread tells a story-of shared struggles, of cultural ties, and yes, of conflict. Take Pakistan, for instance. The partition in 1947 didn't just divide land; it divided families, communities, and even dreams. The echoes of that division still resonate today, shaping our diplomatic landscape. Then there's Nepal and Bangladesh, countries with whom we share deep cultural connections, yet also face challenges like border disputes and political tensions. And let's not forget Sri Lanka, where our influence has been significant, but not without its own set of complications. Now, when we look at Russia, the dynamics shift dramatically. Russia's relationships with its neighbors are heavily influenced by its Soviet past. The legacy of the USSR looms large over its interactions, creating a sense of nostalgia and, at times, a desire to re-establish a sphere of influence. This is a nation that often prioritizes its geopolitical interests, sometimes at the expense of its neighbors' sovereignty. The aggressive policies we've seen in regions like Ukraine or Georgia serve as stark reminders of how power can overshadow diplomacy. So, what does this mean for India? Well, India has a unique position. We have strategic interests that are not just about power, but also about regional stability. Security concerns, trade routes, and economic cooperation are all part of the equation. However, balancing these interests with the need for friendly relations is no easy task. It's a tightrope walk, where one misstep could lead to tensions that spiral out of control. Historically, India has leaned on diplomacy and soft power to build its relationships. Think about it-cultural exchanges, economic ties, and shared democratic values have been our tools. But let's be honest, recent years have seen some cracks. The tensions with Pakistan are well-documented, and the situation with Nepal has also soured, particularly over border issues. It's a reminder that even the most well-intentioned policies can hit roadblocks. Now, if we look at Russia's approach, it's often marked by assertiveness. Military maneuvers, economic pressure-these are tactics that have led to strained relations with several neighboring countries. It's a stark contrast to what we aspire to as a nation. We need to learn from these mistakes. Building trust and cooperation is paramount. India could benefit from focusing on confidence-building measures. Imagine increasing people-to-people ties, engaging in cultural exchanges, and participating in multilateral forums where smaller neighbors feel heard and respected. It's about creating an environment where dialogue flourishes, rather than one where fear prevails. Economic integration is another critical area. Strengthening ties through trade agreements and infrastructure projects can create a web of interdependence that reduces the likelihood of conflicts. When our neighbors see tangible benefits from our relationship, they're less likely to view us as a threat. Respecting sovereignty is crucial too. We need to ensure that our actions are perceived as supportive, rather than dominating or interfering. It's about walking alongside our neighbors, not ahead of them. And let's not overlook the impact of domestic issues on foreign policy. Sometimes, internal politics can cloud our judgment and negatively influence our international relationships. By keeping our domestic affairs in check, we can maintain a more stable and constructive foreign policy. In conclusion, India's relationships with its neighbors are multi-faceted and require a delicate balance of power, diplomacy, and mutual respect. While we can learn from Russia's missteps, we must forge our own path, emphasizing cooperation and regional stability. After all, a peaceful neighborhood is not just a dream; it's a necessity for our growth and prosperity.

#youtube

0 notes

kgsupsccourses · 1 month

Text

Important Current Affairs for UPSC 2024 Prelims

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination is one of the most challenging exams in India, and staying updated with current affairs is crucial for success, especially in the Prelims. With the UPSC 2024 Prelims approaching, aspirants are increasingly focusing on which current affairs topics are likely to be significant. Below is a guide to the most important areas you should concentrate on, with insights from Khan Global Studies.

1. Geopolitical Developments

International relations play a significant role in the UPSC Prelims, and 2023 has been a year of major geopolitical shifts. The evolving dynamics between major powers like the United States, China, and Russia, along with India's role in these global developments, are crucial. Key topics include the Russia-Ukraine conflict, its global impact, and India's stance on various international issues. Additionally, India's relations with neighboring countries, its role in multilateral organizations like the United Nations, BRICS, and G20, and participation in global summits are vital areas to focus on.

2. Environmental and Climate Issues

With increasing emphasis on sustainability and climate change, environmental issues have become a staple in the UPSC Prelims. The COP28 conference, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, and India's initiatives toward achieving its climate goals under the Paris Agreement are critical topics. Additionally, understanding the impact of natural disasters, new environmental policies, and biodiversity conservation efforts in India will be beneficial.

3. Economic Developments

The Indian economy has seen significant changes, especially in the post-pandemic recovery phase. Topics like inflation trends, fiscal policies, monetary policy changes by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and government initiatives like 'Make in India' and 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' are essential for the Prelims. Furthermore, recent developments in digital currency, economic reforms, and trade relations will likely be tested.

4. Social Issues and Government Schemes

Social issues such as healthcare, education, and gender equality continue to be relevant for the UPSC exam. Recent government schemes like PM Gati Shakti, PM-Poshan, and the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which are being implemented or modified, should be studied in detail. Additionally, awareness of social justice issues and government responses to them is important.

5. Science and Technology

Advancements in science and technology are always a hot topic in UPSC Prelims. Areas like space exploration, with India's missions by ISRO, developments in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and renewable energy technologies, are all critical. The application of technology in governance, digital initiatives by the Indian government, and cybersecurity issues are also worth focusing on.

Conclusion

Preparing for the UPSC 2024 Prelims requires a comprehensive understanding of current affairs. While it is impossible to predict every question, focusing on the areas mentioned above will give you a strong foundation. Khan Global Studies provides tailored resources that help aspirants navigate these complex topics with ease, offering in-depth analysis and insights that go beyond mere facts, helping you build a critical perspective essential for the exam.

#current affairs today #upsc current affairs #current affairs #daily current affairs #best upsc coaching in delhi

0 notes

jobskenyaplace · 2 months

Text

DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND COMMISSIONING OF AN INTRANET 2024 - ATIDI

AFRICAN TRADE INSURANCE AGENCY TENDER AUGUST 2024 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP] Tender No. ATIDI/FD/APU/0BIT/001/2024 Design, Development and Commissioning of an Intranet The African Trade Insurance Agency [ATIDI) is a multilateral international financial institution established under the Agreement Establishing the African Trade Insurance Agency (“Treaty”]. ATIDI’s mandate is to…

0 notes

seoplassy · 2 months

Text

Navigating the Global Trade of Agricultural Products: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities

The global Import Export of Agricultural Products is continually evolving, shaped by several key trends. One prominent trend is the growth of demand from emerging markets, driven by increasing populations and rising incomes. Technological advancements are also transforming the sector, with innovations like precision farming and blockchain improving efficiency and traceability. Additionally, there is a strong emphasis on sustainability, with more producers adopting organic practices to meet consumer preferences for environmentally friendly products.

Key Challenges in Global Agricultural Trade

Despite these positive trends, the global trade of agricultural products faces several challenges. Climate change is a significant concern, impacting crop yields and production through extreme weather conditions and climate variability. Trade barriers, including tariffs, quotas, and non-tariff barriers, pose obstacles to smooth international trade. Supply chain disruptions, highlighted by global crises such as pandemics and geopolitical tensions, reveal vulnerabilities in the trade network.

Opportunities in Agricultural Trade

Amidst these challenges, opportunities abound in the global agricultural trade landscape. Technological innovations offer the chance to enhance productivity and efficiency, with advancements in agri-tech playing a crucial role. Exploring new and emerging markets presents opportunities for growth, especially in regions with rising agricultural needs. Strategic partnerships and collaborations with international stakeholders can open new avenues for trade. Diversifying product offerings and sources helps mitigate risks associated with market fluctuations.

Impact of Trade Policies and Agreements

Trade policies and agreements significantly influence the Import Export of Agricultural Products. Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements can facilitate market access and improve competitiveness. Export incentives provided by governments support agricultural exports by reducing trade barriers. Conversely, import restrictions can affect supply chains and market accessibility, impacting global trade flows.

Future Outlook and Strategies

Looking ahead, the future of global agricultural trade will be shaped by long-term trends and evolving market dynamics. Strategic planning will be essential to navigate challenges and leverage opportunities effectively. Investing in research and development will foster innovation, driving progress in the sector. By staying informed and adaptable, stakeholders can successfully navigate the complexities of the global agricultural trade landscape and capitalize on emerging opportunities.

#Agricultural Commodities Exporter From India #Export of Agriculture and Agro Based Products #Import Export of Agricultural Products

0 notes

kesarijournal · 7 months

Text

The Grand WTO's Food, Fishing, and Farming Fiasco

Welcome to the latest drama that’s more tangled than your earphones in a pocket – the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ongoing saga involving a cast of nations with India and South Africa in leading roles, and a contentious plot over food, fishing, and farming subsidies. Set against the backdrop of Abu Dhabi’s Ministerial Conference, our story unfolds with India and South Africa uniting to…

View On WordPress

0 notes

head-post · 2 months

Text

Italy, China sign three-year action plan

The leaders of Italy and China signed a three-year action plan to implement previous agreements and experiment with new forms of co-operation.

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is trying to reset relations with China as fears of a trade war with the European Union hamper interests in attracting Chinese investment in the continent’s automotive and other industries. At the start of a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang, she stated:

We certainly have a lot of work to do and I am convinced that this work can be useful in such a complex phase on a global level, and also important at a multilateral level.

Her five-day visit came a few months after Italy withdrew from China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Nevertheless, Italy remains committed to maintaining a strong economic relationship with China.

Stellantis, a major carmaker that includes Italy’s Fiat, in May announced a joint venture with Leapmotor, a Chinese electric vehicle (EV) startup, to start selling EVs in Europe.

Li, for his part, stated that China’s drive to modernise its economy would increase demand for high-quality products, expanding opportunities for co-operation between companies from the two countries.

At the same time, we hope the Italian side will work with China to provide a more fair, just and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese companies doing business in Italy.

Meloni told business leaders that the two sides signed an industrial co-operation memorandum that includes EVs and renewable energy. EVs have become a symbol of growing trade tensions between China and the EU as the European Union imposed temporary duties of up to 37.6 per cent on Chinese-made EVs in early July.

In response, China initiated an anti-dumping investigation into European pork exports, just days after the EU had announced the imposition of EV duties.

Italy’s decision to join the Belt and Road Initiative in 2019 gave China an opportunity to penetrate Western Europe and a symbolic impetus in then trade war with the United States. However, Italy says the promised economic benefits have not been realised, with its membership causing tension with other Western European governments and the United States.

Read more HERE

#world news #news #world politics #europe #european news #european union #eu politics #eu news #italy #italy news #italian politics #meloni #giorgia meloni #china #chinaeurope2024 #china news #chinese politics

0 notes

univerthityoftekthath · 2 months

Text

Diplomatic Skills 10

Conversation and debate lead to negotiation

Negotiation= verbal interaction based on arguments. The interaction is between parties that have divergent or even opposing interests on a controversial issue. The purpose of the negotiation is to overcome what divides them.

Negotiation is about interests

the method of negotiation is bargaining

Unlike in debate, a negotiator will not necessarily stick to their position. Good negotiators do not stick to their positions, they know at some point they will have to revisit their position.

You shouldn’t care much about a negotiator’s opening position, it will most likely not be their closing position.

In negotiation, opinions and positions are not what is centrally at stake, interests are.

The concessions a negotiator makes in bargaining are calculated trade-offs that can be sacrificed for gains elsewhere

What exactly are the interests?

Negotiation: opposing parties come together to make an agreement

Parties in negotiation have both conflicting and common interests— if this were not the case, negotiation could not take place, there would be no point in negotiating.

Interesting and common phenomenon in diplomacy— although competition and cooperation are opposing they can merge together. Negotiation pays, sometimes cooperation between two parties in competition is beneficial to the parties. THEY REVISIT THEIR POSITION, they make a compromise. Both the parties work towards a common objective (compromise).

But, parties must first be willing to negotiate. Both parties must address this.

Question must be asked: Am I prepared on principle and fact to enter into a negotiation? The answer depends on pre-negotiation (Six points to follow)

Who are the parties? Negotiation is not with everyone. The other party must be serious and have integrity. Is the party interested in the negotiations or the side effects of having done negotiations? eg. publicity, find out the other party’s negotiation position, divert attention from other issues. Sometimes in multilateral context (UN) you have no option in the party, their status can no longer be questioned. Don’t negotiate with Hitler, evil.

0 notes

allthebrazilianpolitics · 1 year

Text

Brazil a leading country in climate policy: Arab minister

On a visit to Brasília, United Arab Emirates International Cooperation minister of state Reem Al Hashimy said Brazil-UAE relations are strategic and her delegation is exploring the opportunities the Latin American country has to offer. She expects a broad participation of Brazilians at COP28 in Dubai.

On a visit to Brazil, United Arab Emirates International Cooperation minister of state Reem Al Hashimy (pictured above) spoke at the opening of the Economic Meeting Brazil-UAE that took place Thursday (15) in Brasília. Hashimy said the relations between the two countries are strategic and that her 52-member delegation, including businesspeople of leading industries from her country, is exploring the opportunities Brazil has to offer. She also said Brazil is seen as a leading country in climate policy and expects a broad participation of the Latin American country in the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai.

Brazil and the UAE have strengthened diplomatic and trade ties and their relation is 50 years old. Hashimy said she expects the Mercosur-UAE free trade agreement to further widen the trade relations. “It’s important for us to continue cooperating in a multilateral manner,” said the minister. The Arab country doesn’t have an agreement yet with the bloc consisting of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

Dubai, UAE, will host the COP28 from next November through December. “We count on partners like Brazil, which has a long record of credibility in supporting climate action and green funding strategies. I’d like to highlight the innovation of its small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in tech, all of which will positively impact the success of the COP28 but more importantly the results for the success of its region, which is led by Brazil,” she said.

#brazil #politics #united arab emirates #environmentalism #climate change #emirati politics #international politics #Reem Al Hashimy #mod nise da silveira #image description in alt

2 notes · View notes

novumtimes · 3 months

Text

Freeland optimistic in digital sales tax dispute with US

Article content Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland says she is optimistic about the prospect of avoiding U.S. retaliation over the implementation of Ottawa’s digital sales tax and that she cannot accept Canada being in an inferior position relative to other allies when it comes to taxing America’s digital giants. The federal government authorized the DST, effective as of last Friday. The tax was first introduced in 2020 and imposes a three per cent levy on companies that provide digital services to Canadians and will be applied retroactively on revenue going back to 2022. News of the DST implementation was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. Article content U.S. trade representative Katherine Tai and members of U.S. Congress have previously threatened trade retaliation if Canada were to go forward with the tax. But Freeland said Thursday that Canada is engaged in conversations with U.S. counterparts to avoid this. “Canada also has been and continues to be engaged in bilateral conversations with the United States about a win-win outcome for our two countries,” Freeland said during a press conference with reporters. “We believe that the way to achieve that is to negotiate in good faith, to negotiate creatively with our multilateral partners and with the U.S., and to also be strong.” Freeland said that other U.S. allies, such as the United Kingdom, France and Italy, have already imposed DSTs of their own and have not been subjected to trade retaliation, and emphasized that Canada was being put in an unfair position. “They are collecting revenue from international tech giants, and that is revenue they are using to invest in their people,” Freeland said. “I can’t accept Canada being in a discriminate position.” Those three countries, however, are not part of the Canada-United-States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), and the U.S. has argued the DST violates the terms of that trade pact. Article content Business groups in Canada have warned that the dispute could alienate Canada from its most important trading partner and will negatively impact Canadian consumers. “The government should reverse its unilateral decision that is out of step with our allies, and instead, work with our trading partners on an international solution that would better serve Canadians,” said Robin Guy, vice president of government relations at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a statement on Thursday. Recommended from Editorial Canada’s income tax regime is confusing even to experts 3 positives about the capital gains inclusion rate hike Canada had previously delayed its implementation of the DST in the hopes that a multinational agreement on the tax could be reached with other OECD countries. The two-pillared agreement still hasn’t been ratified. “We have been very clear with the U.S., with our multilateral partners, about Canada’s position, and where Canada would need to go, absent a multilateral deal,” Freeland said. • Email: [email protected] Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the business news you need to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here. Share this article in your social network Source link via The Novum Times

#The Novum Times

0 notes

citrus-freight · 3 months

Text

Pomegranate Export From India - Citrus

Pomegranate export from India is a significant aspect of the country's agricultural trade. India is one of the leading producers and exporters of pomegranates, renowned for their quality and taste. Here's an overview of pomegranate export from India:

Key Production Areas

Maharashtra: The leading state in pomegranate production, contributing to a large percentage of the total output.

Karnataka

Gujarat

Andhra Pradesh

Tamil Nadu

Rajasthan

Varieties

Bhagwa: The most popular variety for export due to its bright red color, large arils, and sweetness.

Ganesh: Known for its soft seeds and sweet-sour taste.

Arakta: Notable for its deep red arils and sweetness.

Export Markets

Indian pomegranates are exported to various countries, including:

United States

European Union (including Germany, Netherlands, and UK)

Middle East (including UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait)

Southeast Asia (including Singapore and Malaysia)

Russia

Export Data

Volume and Value: The volume and value of pomegranate exports from India have been increasing over the years due to rising global demand and improvements in supply chain and quality control.

Export Process: The process includes harvesting, sorting, grading, packing, and transportation. Cold chain logistics play a crucial role in maintaining the quality of the fruit during transit.

Quality Standards

APEDA (Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority): This body oversees the quality standards for export. It ensures that the pomegranates meet international quality requirements regarding size, color, sweetness, and absence of pests and diseases.

GlobalGAP Certification: Many Indian exporters are GlobalGAP certified, ensuring good agricultural practices.

Challenges

Perishability: Pomegranates are perishable and require careful handling and transportation.

Pest and Disease Management: Managing pests and diseases to meet export quality standards is crucial.

Market Competition: Indian pomegranates face competition from other major pomegranate-producing countries like Spain, Iran, and Turkey.

Government Support

Subsidies and Schemes: The Indian government provides various subsidies and schemes to support pomegranate farmers and exporters, including subsidies for cold storage and transportation.

Trade Agreements: Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements help in reducing tariffs and gaining market access.

Recent Trends

Organic Pomegranates: There's a growing demand for organic pomegranates in international markets.

Processed Products: Along with fresh pomegranates, products like pomegranate juice, arils, and concentrates are gaining popularity.

Steps for Export

Registration: Exporters need to register with APEDA.

Quality Control: Ensure the produce meets international standards.

Packaging: Use suitable packaging to preserve freshness.

Documentation: Complete necessary documentation, including phytosanitary certificates.

Logistics: Arrange for transportation, focusing on maintaining the cold chain.

India's strategic initiatives to enhance the quality and reach of its pomegranate exports continue to support the growth and sustainability of this sector in the global market. Know more from Citrus Freight blog.

#vegetable exports #cargo insurance #fruits exports #reefer container #citrus freight #fruits and vegetable exports #marine insurance #pomegranate

0 notes

gauravmohindrachicago · 4 months

Text

Safeguarding Creativity across Borders: Intellectual Property in International Law

In today’s interconnected world, where ideas travel at the speed of light and innovation fuels progress, safeguarding intellectual property (IP) is paramount. Intellectual property encompasses a wide array of intangible assets, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. These assets are the lifeblood of innovation, creativity, and economic growth, serving as the foundation upon which businesses thrive and societies evolve say, Gaurav Mohindra.

However, protecting intellectual property is not merely a domestic concern; it’s a global challenge that requires a harmonized approach across borders. This is where international law steps in, providing frameworks, treaties, and agreements to govern the complex landscape of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on a global scale.

Understanding Intellectual Property Rights

Before delving into the intricacies of international law, it’s essential to grasp the fundamentals of intellectual property rights.

Patents: Patents grant inventors exclusive rights to their inventions, preventing others from making, using, or selling the patented invention without permission for a specified period, typically 20 years.

Trademarks: Trademarks protect distinctive signs, such as logos or brand names that distinguish goods or services in the marketplace safeguarding against unauthorized use that could lead to consumer confusion.

Copyrights: Copyrights safeguard original works of authorship, including literary, artistic, and musical creations, giving creators the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and display their works.

Trade Secrets: Trade secrets encompass confidential information, such as formulas, algorithms, or customer lists, which provide businesses with a competitive advantage and are protected through confidentiality agreements.

The Role of International Law

Gaurav Mohindra: In a world where innovation knows no borders, the need for international cooperation in intellectual property enforcement is evident. International law plays a pivotal role in harmonizing standards, fostering innovation, and promoting fair competition.

International Treaties: Key international agreements, such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), set minimum standards for intellectual property protection among member states, ensuring a level playing field for global trade.

2. WIPO: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) serves as the global forum for intellectual property services, policy, information, and cooperation, facilitating dialogue and collaboration among nations to address emerging IP challenges.

3. Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements: Countries often enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements to strengthen intellectual property protection and enforcement mechanisms, fostering innovation, investment, and economic development.

4. Enforcement Mechanisms: International law provides mechanisms for enforcing intellectual property rights across borders, including mutual recognition of patents, extradition treaties for IP-related crimes, and dispute resolution mechanisms to address violations.

Challenges and Controversies

Despite the progress made in harmonizing intellectual property standards, challenges and controversies persist in the realm of international IP law.

Access to Medicines: The balance between protecting pharmaceutical patents and ensuring access to affordable medicines remains a contentious issue, particularly in developing countries where access to life-saving treatments is a matter of public health.

Digital Piracy: The rise of digital technologies has fueled the proliferation of online piracy, posing significant challenges to copyright enforcement and intellectual property rights in the digital age.

Geographical Indications: Disputes over the protection of geographical indications, which identify products as originating from a particular place and possessing qualities, reputation, or characteristics attributable to that origin, often arise in international trade negotiations.

Emerging Technologies: Rapid advancements in emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and blockchain, raise novel questions and challenges regarding intellectual property ownership, enforcement, and ethical considerations.

The Way Forward

In navigating the complex landscape of intellectual property in international law, collaboration, innovation, and adaptability are key.

Collaborative Efforts: Enhanced cooperation among governments, businesses, and civil society organizations is essential to address global intellectual property challenges, promote innovation, and ensure equitable access to knowledge and technology.

Innovation Ecosystems: Cultivating robust innovation ecosystems that incentivize creativity, reward invention, and protect intellectual property rights is critical to driving economic growth, fostering entrepreneurship, and tackling societal challenges.

Capacity Building: Building institutional capacity, raising awareness, and providing technical assistance to developing countries can help bridge the gap in intellectual property enforcement and promote sustainable development.

Ethical Considerations: As technology evolves, it’s imperative to consider the ethical implications of intellectual property rights, ensuring that innovation serves the greater good and contributes to the advancement of society as a whole.

In conclusion, intellectual property in international law is a dynamic and multifaceted field that requires continuous adaptation to keep pace with technological advancements, economic shifts, and societal needs. By fostering collaboration, promoting innovation, and upholding the principles of fairness and equity, we can navigate the maze of intellectual property rights on the global stage and unlock the full potential of human creativity and ingenuity says, Gaurav Mohindra.

Originally Posted: https://medium.com/gaurav-mohindra/safeguarding-creativity-across-borders-intellectual-property-in-international-law-f88c08a66bea

#Law #Property

0 notes