Maritime trade between Europe and Asia goes back many centuries. All these years the trade route has remained unchanged but Russia sees it differently. Due to global warming and melting Polar Ice, Russia wants to firmly establish a much shorter Europe-Asia sea route that's entirely under Russian control. Here's an exclusive ground report by WION's senior correspondent Sidhharth MP from Russia's Far East Arctic region. Watch in for more details!

Russia's commercial, military interests in the Arctic region | Exclusive Ground report from Arctic

The world trade is re-globalising. Companies and government are driving this "re-globalisation", where companies are reducing their reliance on a single country while countries are ensuring that key materials are secured if trade splinters into geopolitical blocs.

World trade is 'reglobalising'

Planes, trains, and automobiles carry us and a lot of other things, but ships carry more than 80 per cent of the goods traded globally. So, stay close to the ports if you want to understand the shifts in global trade patterns.&nbsp;

And by the looks of it maritime trade, which bounced back significantly in the post-Covid months, is&nbsp;growing at a slower pace as the war in Ukraine and economic uncertainty begin to bite the world.&nbsp;

According to UNCTAD, the UN trade body, international maritime trade showed an estimated growth of 3.2 per cent&nbsp;and overall shipments of 11 billion tons in 2021, a rise of 7 percentage points compared to a decline of 3.8 per cent in 2020 when the world shut down due to fears over a global spread of the pandemic. Asia remained the world’s leading maritime cargo handling centre in 2021, accounting for a large chunk of exports and imports.&nbsp;

In a recent report, UNCTAD projected global maritime trade growth to fall to 1.4&nbsp;per cent this year and then grow at an annual average of 2.1&nbsp;per cent between 2023 and 2027 -- a sharply slower rate than the previous three-decade average of 3.3 per cent. According to its latest update, global trade should hit a record $32 trillion for 2022, but a slowdown that began in the second half of the year is only expected to worsen in 2023.&nbsp;

Why is global trade losing the spring in its steps? The World Trade Organization (WTO) blames it on multiple shocks that weigh on the global economy. Fears of Covid continue to linger in China, the Ukraine war is making things difficult for Europe and rising prices is forcing Americans to slow their purchases. So, while WTO economists now predict global merchandise trade volumes to grow by 3.5&nbsp;per cent this year, they are cagey about 2023 predicting a much smaller increase.&nbsp;

To better understand 2023, we would want to return to 2021 when the world started re-opening and demand for consumer goods and e-commerce shot up across countries, much of it pent-up from months of closure. The abrupt rise in demand caused a supply-chain crisis, and that takes us back to the ships.&nbsp;

A surge in demand pushed container freight rates in 2021 five times higher than their pre-Covid levels and a longer turn-around time at congested ports – especially in the United States thanks to a paucity of port workers and truckers -- led to a sharp increase in consumer prices. Though container freight rates have fallen from their peak in early 2022, they remain high for energy cargo, according to UNCTAD.&nbsp;

And then came another economic disrupter. The Russian attack on Ukraine shook both the energy and the commodities markets hard. Mid-year, energy prices were up 78&nbsp;per cent year-on-year with natural gas up 250 per cent, according to WTO data. Crude oil prices were up by 36 per cent. Food prices galloped higher as wheat supplies from war-hit Ukraine stopped due to the closure of Black Sea ports. Dry bulk freight rates rose sharply even as the world was beginning to slowly recover from the pandemic’s earlier economic onslaught, as the war also affected the rail route between China and Europe.&nbsp;

In 2021, the railway was a saviour for shippers who had to look for alternatives to move cargo as ports became congested and airlines still weren’t flying at their pre-Covid capacity. According to UNCTAD data, the demand on the China-Europe railway rose 30 per cent to nearly 1.5 million twenty-foot containers. The war also impeded the use of the trans-Siberian route, which was used by China, South Korea and Japan to move goods into Europe.&nbsp;

It was a double whammy of the sorts never experienced before. The world was as unprepared for the trade stoppage as it was for its recovery. And if current underlying assumptions – a global economic slowdown, continuing higher inflation rates, currency shocks, and higher food, and energy prices among others – hold then 2023 could possibly turn out to be worse than anticipated.&nbsp;

For example, import demand is likely to be subdued in Europe as high energy prices due to the war in Ukraine and Russia’s decision to shut down gas supplies will impact household spend even as manufacturing costs rise. High inflation is eating into the American dream of buying homes and cars.&nbsp;

China, still very much the world’s factory, is struggling due to the earlier difficult Covid closures and now sudden uncertain re-opening, as production gets hit at a time when exports are slowing. Exports from China were lower in October 2022, the first decline in shipments since May 2020, thanks to poor overseas demand. The situation might not change very much very fast.&nbsp;

The IMF expects one-third of the global gross domestic product (GDP) to enter contraction. When the global economy slows, trade slows too. The US – the world’s biggest economy -- which expanded by 5.6 per cent in 2021, is expected to grow by less than 1 per cent next year. High inflation and rising interest rates are choking demand and growth.&nbsp;

China, the other big elephant in the room, is expected to grow a tad stronger next year, but these are still early days of post-Covid reopening and a lot will depend on whether China returns to lockdowns if things go out of hand. India – a bright spot in an otherwise gloomy world -- is also expected to slow, as are Gulf economies, which benefited from high oil and gas prices following the pandemic.&nbsp;

With so much happening, the big question on everybody’s mind is whether trade will only slow or end up shrinking if current underlying assumptions give way to surprises, even shocks. All that is bad news for trade and the ships that sail the oceans. So, watch those ships closely!&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Planes, trains, and automobiles carry us and a lot of other things, but ships carry more than 80 per cent of the goods traded globally. So, stay close to the ports if you want to understand the shifts in global trade patterns.

Planes, trains, and automobiles carry us and a lot of other things, but ships carry more than 80 per cent of the goods traded globally. So, stay close to the ports if you want to understand the shifts in global trade patterns. And by the looks of it maritime trade, which bounced back significantly in the post-Covid months, is growing at a slower pace as the war in Ukraine and economic uncertainty begin to bite the world. According to UNCTAD, the UN trade body, international maritime trade showed an estimated growth of 3.2 per cent and overall shipments of 11 billion tons in 2021, a rise of 7 percentage points compared to a decline of 3.8 per cent in 2020 when the world shut down due to fears over a global spread of the pandemic. Asia remained the world’s leading maritime cargo handling centre in 2021, accounting for a large chunk of exports and imports. In a recent report, UNCTAD projected global maritime trade growth to fall to 1.4 per cent this year and then grow at an annual average of 2.1 per cent between 2023 and 2027 -- a sharply slower rate than the previous three-decade average of 3.3 per cent. According to its latest update, global trade should hit a record $32 trillion for 2022, but a slowdown that began in the second half of the year is only expected to worsen in 2023. Why is global trade losing the spring in its steps? The World Trade Organization (WTO) blames it on multiple shocks that weigh on the global economy. Fears of Covid continue to linger in China, the Ukraine war is making things difficult for Europe and rising prices is forcing Americans to slow their purchases. So, while WTO economists now predict global merchandise trade volumes to grow by 3.5 per cent this year, they are cagey about 2023 predicting a much smaller increase. To better understand 2023, we would want to return to 2021 when the world started re-opening and demand for consumer goods and e-commerce shot up across countries, much of it pent-up from months of closure. The abrupt rise in demand caused a supply-chain crisis, and that takes us back to the ships. A surge in demand pushed container freight rates in 2021 five times higher than their pre-Covid levels and a longer turn-around time at congested ports – especially in the United States thanks to a paucity of port workers and truckers -- led to a sharp increase in consumer prices. Though container freight rates have fallen from their peak in early 2022, they remain high for energy cargo, according to UNCTAD. And then came another economic disrupter. The Russian attack on Ukraine shook both the energy and the commodities markets hard. Mid-year, energy prices were up 78 per cent year-on-year with natural gas up 250 per cent, according to WTO data. Crude oil prices were up by 36 per cent. Food prices galloped higher as wheat supplies from war-hit Ukraine stopped due to the closure of Black Sea ports. Dry bulk freight rates rose sharply even as the world was beginning to slowly recover from the pandemic’s earlier economic onslaught, as the war also affected the rail route between China and Europe. In 2021, the railway was a saviour for shippers who had to look for alternatives to move cargo as ports became congested and airlines still weren’t flying at their pre-Covid capacity. According to UNCTAD data, the demand on the China-Europe railway rose 30 per cent to nearly 1.5 million twenty-foot containers. The war also impeded the use of the trans-Siberian route, which was used by China, South Korea and Japan to move goods into Europe. It was a double whammy of the sorts never experienced before. The world was as unprepared for the trade stoppage as it was for its recovery. And if current underlying assumptions – a global economic slowdown, continuing higher inflation rates, currency shocks, and higher food, and energy prices among others – hold then 2023 could possibly turn out to be worse than anticipated. For example, import demand is likely to be subdued in Europe as high energy prices due to the war in Ukraine and Russia’s decision to shut down gas supplies will impact household spend even as manufacturing costs rise. High inflation is eating into the American dream of buying homes and cars. China, still very much the world’s factory, is struggling due to the earlier difficult Covid closures and now sudden uncertain re-opening, as production gets hit at a time when exports are slowing. Exports from China were lower in October 2022, the first decline in shipments since May 2020, thanks to poor overseas demand. The situation might not change very much very fast. The IMF expects one-third of the global gross domestic product (GDP) to enter contraction. When the global economy slows, trade slows too. The US – the world’s biggest economy -- which expanded by 5.6 per cent in 2021, is expected to grow by less than 1 per cent next year. High inflation and rising interest rates are choking demand and growth. China, the other big elephant in the room, is expected to grow a tad stronger next year, but these are still early days of post-Covid reopening and a lot will depend on whether China returns to lockdowns if things go out of hand. India – a bright spot in an otherwise gloomy world -- is also expected to slow, as are Gulf economies, which benefited from high oil and gas prices following the pandemic. With so much happening, the big question on everybody’s mind is whether trade will only slow or end up shrinking if current underlying assumptions give way to surprises, even shocks. All that is bad news for trade and the ships that sail the oceans. So, watch those ships closely! (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Watch those ships as global trade growth seen slowing

After a gap of 6 years, India, Maldives, and Sri Lanka trilateral meet will take place with a focus on maritime security co-operation in the Indian Ocean region. The meet will take place in Colombo on November 27 and 28th, with India being represented by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. This is the first foreign visit of the NSA amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sri Lanka is being represented by its Defense Secretary Major General Kamal Gunaratne. Maldives Defense Minister Mariya Didi will be representing her country.&nbsp;

This is the 4th time such a meeting is taking place. The first India-Maldives-Sri Lanka trilateral took place in 2011 in the Maldives. Second meeting took place in Sri Lanka in 2013 while the third took place in India in 2014.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-can-never-forget-2611-mumbai-attacks-pm-modi-345539">India can never forget 26/11 Mumbai attacks: PM Modi</a> 
 
The Ministry of External Affairs while making the announcement called it an "effective platform for cooperation among Indian Ocean countries" and said it will provide an "opportunity for discussion on issues pertaining to cooperation in maritime security in the Indian Ocean region."

Bangladesh, Mauritius, and Seychelles are observer members of the trilateral meet and are expected to participate. Maldives foreign ministry said it will see discussion on "most pressing issues surrounding maritime security in the Indian Ocean region".

The meet happens even as the Indian ocean has seen an increased presence of Chinese vessels, a worrisome factor for several countries in the region. Chinese vessels have been found indulging in Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) activities in addition to being a security issue.&nbsp;

The Indian Ocean region sees 80 per cent of world trade and a substantial oil trade taking place via its waters. It has 4 choke points, the most important being the strait of Malacca, which if disrupted can led to global trade being disrupted.

After a gap of 6 years, India, Maldives, and Sri Lanka trilateral meet will take place with a focus on maritime security co-operation in the Indian Ocean region.

After a gap of 6 years, India, Maldives, and Sri Lanka trilateral meet will take place with a focus on maritime security co-operation in the Indian Ocean region. The meet will take place in Colombo on November 27 and 28th, with India being represented by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. This is the first foreign visit of the NSA amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Sri Lanka is being represented by its Defense Secretary Major General Kamal Gunaratne. Maldives Defense Minister Mariya Didi will be representing her country. This is the 4th time such a meeting is taking place. The first India-Maldives-Sri Lanka trilateral took place in 2011 in the Maldives. Second meeting took place in Sri Lanka in 2013 while the third took place in India in 2014. Also Read | India can never forget 26/11 Mumbai attacks: PM Modi The Ministry of External Affairs while making the announcement called it an "effective platform for cooperation among Indian Ocean countries" and said it will provide an "opportunity for discussion on issues pertaining to cooperation in maritime security in the Indian Ocean region." Bangladesh, Mauritius, and Seychelles are observer members of the trilateral meet and are expected to participate. Maldives foreign ministry said it will see discussion on "most pressing issues surrounding maritime security in the Indian Ocean region". The meet happens even as the Indian ocean has seen an increased presence of Chinese vessels, a worrisome factor for several countries in the region. Chinese vessels have been found indulging in Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) activities in addition to being a security issue. The Indian Ocean region sees 80 per cent of world trade and a substantial oil trade taking place via its waters. It has 4 choke points, the most important being the strait of Malacca, which if disrupted can led to global trade being disrupted.

India-Maldives-Sri Lanka to meet on Indian Ocean security after 6 years

Jacquelin Febrillet was 26 years old on September 11, 2001, when jihadist hijackers flew two passenger jets into the World Trade Center just two blocks from where she worked.

Fifteen years after the attacks that day, Febrillet, by then a mother of three, was diagnosed with metastatic cancer. The likely cause: a cloud of toxic ash that engulfed her.

"I was there (on) 9/11 For years I have been working down there every day since 9/11. We were never told that something could happen," she says.

Unlike Febrillet, Richard Fahrer, then 19, wasn't in the area on 9/11, but he regularly worked as a land surveyor between 2001 and 2003 in south Manhattan, where the Twin Towers came crashing down.

Eighteen months ago, the young father, now 37, was diagnosed with aggressive colon cancer, a disease that usually affects older men and which there is no history of in his family.

Febrillet and Fahrer represent a growing category of patients who were living or working close to the World Trade Center in the wake of the attacks, which killed almost 3,000 people.

They were not among the thousands of emergency personnel who rushed to the site or who spent months clearing debris at Ground Zero, but their health is being similarly affected.

As the 18th anniversary of the attacks approaches, New York continues to count the number of people who have developed cancer or other serious illnesses related to the toxic cloud that hovered over Manhattan for several weeks.

'People are dying'&nbsp;

The 9/11 attacks released unprecedented amounts of chemicals into the air, including dioxins, asbestos, and other carcinogenic substances.

Firefighters, other first responders, and volunteers who helped with the months-long clean-up were the first to be affected. Studies found they faced an increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Ten thousand of them have been diagnosed with cancer by the World Trade Center Health Program, a federal treatment program helping survivors.

At the end of June this year, 21,000 people not considered first responders were also in the program twice as many as in June 2016. Of these, almost 4,000 have cancer, the most common being prostate, breast, and skin.

Febrillet, now 44, is one of them. She recalls that the message at the time was to get the city back to normal as quickly as possible.

"People were just going about their business a few days later. But look at what happened a few years later, people are dying," says Febrillet, who also lived close to Ground Zero.

Fahrer, too, laments that city officials did not do more to protect residents and office staff in the vicinity.

"My wife asks me, 'Did terrorists cause your cancer?' I can't say 100 percent, but I do know there could have been better efforts to limit the exposure of healthy adults from entering into the disaster area," he says.

Compensation fund&nbsp;

Health experts say it is impossible to pinpoint exactly the cause of cancer in every patient, but note that there is a clear correlation between the rate and exposure to toxic debris.

Several studies have shown that the cancer rate "has increased between 10 and 30 percent" among people who were exposed compared to those who weren't, David Prezant, New York fire department chief medical officer, told AFP. &nbsp; &nbsp;

The rate is expected to increase further, he said, as exposed people get older. The risk of cancer increases with age and some cancers, including lung, can take 20 to 30 years to develop, Prezant added.

It is because of this that President Donald Trump signed a bill in July that extends a deadline for victims to file claims for compensation from December 2020 to 2090.

The Victim Compensation Fund will be regularly topped up after exhausting its initial budget of $7.3 billion. The average compensation per patient is $240,000, or $682,000 for a deceased person.

Lawyer Matthew Baione, who represents Fahrer and Febrillet in their pursuit of claims, said the extension recognized that it was appropriate to cover someone "who was a baby during the attacks for the rest of their life."

"We have lost so many people, so many friends are sick," says Febrillet

"You get to a point where you are not asking, 'Have you seen so and so, I wonder how she is doing, is she retired?'

"Instead you are asking, 'So how is the surgery, how is the treatment going?' We are so young, this shouldn't be happening."

Jacquelin Febrillet was 26 years old on September 11, 2001, when jihadist hijackers flew two passenger jets into the World Trade Center just two blocks from where she worked.

Jacquelin Febrillet was 26 years old on September 11, 2001, when jihadist hijackers flew two passenger jets into the World Trade Center just two blocks from where she worked. Fifteen years after the attacks that day, Febrillet, by then a mother of three, was diagnosed with metastatic cancer. The likely cause: a cloud of toxic ash that engulfed her. "I was there (on) 9/11 For years I have been working down there every day since 9/11. We were never told that something could happen," she says. Unlike Febrillet, Richard Fahrer, then 19, wasn't in the area on 9/11, but he regularly worked as a land surveyor between 2001 and 2003 in south Manhattan, where the Twin Towers came crashing down. Eighteen months ago, the young father, now 37, was diagnosed with aggressive colon cancer, a disease that usually affects older men and which there is no history of in his family. Febrillet and Fahrer represent a growing category of patients who were living or working close to the World Trade Center in the wake of the attacks, which killed almost 3,000 people. They were not among the thousands of emergency personnel who rushed to the site or who spent months clearing debris at Ground Zero, but their health is being similarly affected. As the 18th anniversary of the attacks approaches, New York continues to count the number of people who have developed cancer or other serious illnesses related to the toxic cloud that hovered over Manhattan for several weeks. 'People are dying' The 9/11 attacks released unprecedented amounts of chemicals into the air, including dioxins, asbestos, and other carcinogenic substances. Firefighters, other first responders, and volunteers who helped with the months-long clean-up were the first to be affected. Studies found they faced an increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Ten thousand of them have been diagnosed with cancer by the World Trade Center Health Program, a federal treatment program helping survivors. At the end of June this year, 21,000 people not considered first responders were also in the program twice as many as in June 2016. Of these, almost 4,000 have cancer, the most common being prostate, breast, and skin. Febrillet, now 44, is one of them. She recalls that the message at the time was to get the city back to normal as quickly as possible. "People were just going about their business a few days later. But look at what happened a few years later, people are dying," says Febrillet, who also lived close to Ground Zero. Fahrer, too, laments that city officials did not do more to protect residents and office staff in the vicinity. "My wife asks me, 'Did terrorists cause your cancer?' I can't say 100 percent, but I do know there could have been better efforts to limit the exposure of healthy adults from entering into the disaster area," he says. Compensation fund Health experts say it is impossible to pinpoint exactly the cause of cancer in every patient, but note that there is a clear correlation between the rate and exposure to toxic debris. Several studies have shown that the cancer rate "has increased between 10 and 30 percent" among people who were exposed compared to those who weren't, David Prezant, New York fire department chief medical officer, told AFP. The rate is expected to increase further, he said, as exposed people get older. The risk of cancer increases with age and some cancers, including lung, can take 20 to 30 years to develop, Prezant added. It is because of this that President Donald Trump signed a bill in July that extends a deadline for victims to file claims for compensation from December 2020 to 2090. The Victim Compensation Fund will be regularly topped up after exhausting its initial budget of $7.3 billion. The average compensation per patient is $240,000, or $682,000 for a deceased person. Lawyer Matthew Baione, who represents Fahrer and Febrillet in their pursuit of claims, said the extension recognized that it was appropriate to cover someone "who was a baby during the attacks for the rest of their life." "We have lost so many people, so many friends are sick," says Febrillet "You get to a point where you are not asking, 'Have you seen so and so, I wonder how she is doing, is she retired?' "Instead you are asking, 'So how is the surgery, how is the treatment going?' We are so young, this shouldn't be happening."

18 years later, cancer cases linger over 9/11 anniversary

A rise in US visa denials for Chinese academics and intensified scrutiny of alleged links to Beijing over fears of potential espionage are having a chilling effect on long-standing research collaboration, researchers say.

American and Chinese scientists have co-authored thousands of papers each year, far outpacing the output from scientific collaborations between any other two nations, according to a 2018 survey by academic database Nature Index.

But it is getting tougher for researchers to work together on projects and share data for peer review, as American institutions tighten rules for accepting foreign funding and intensify vetting of foreign partners, several researchers told AFP.

The pressure is the result of a clampdown by Washington on what it describes as espionage and technology theft through academic contacts, with the White House warning last year that Chinese nationals studying or working in the United States could be manipulated or forced to "serve Beijing's military and strategic ambitions".

In one of the latest countermeasures, the US Department of Energy -- which conducts advanced research on everything from supercomputers to nuclear weapons -- blocked its scientists from participating in a foreign government's talent recruitment programmes, citing national security and competition concerns.

Its order, seen by AFP, did not mention a specific country, but officials pointed to Beijing's lucrative 'Thousand Talents' programme.

The initiative offers non-Chinese, and Chinese working abroad, high pay to deliver top-level technology to China.&nbsp;

The increased mistrust is bound to have an impact on research collaboration, academics and experts say.

An increasing number of young Chinese scholars are told they cannot participate in a project for security reasons, said an official at Pennsylvania State University, who requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the topic.

"Research collaboration between China and the US will be severely disrupted by the trade war-turned-technology war, which essentially is a talent war," said Cao Cong, professor of innovation studies at Nottingham University's China campus in the city of Ningbo.

Beijing has committed billions of dollars in recent years to narrow China's science and technology gap with the United States, Cao said.

But China is still "heavily dependent" on the US for technology transfers and training, he added, and the "cut off" will have an impact in coming years.

Visa Troubles

The rising number of visa denials have prompted a warning from China's education ministry that students and academics could have their study or research plans foiled by refusals or delays.

One in eight Chinese applicants seeking US visas for academic or research purposes between January and March this year had difficulties securing them, a marked increase from last year, education ministry official Xu Yongji said.

Star quantum physicist Pan Jianwei was unable to attend a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in February, where he was to collect the prestigious Newcomb Cleveland Prize, due to visa delays.

"I waited for four months before I got a visa in March," Pan told AFP. When it finally arrived, the award ceremony had long passed.

Yi Rao, a prominent Chinese neurobiologist who had worked at Harvard and Northwestern universities in the past, said his application for a US visa to attend a workshop by the National Science Foundation was denied last July without an explanation.

A State Department official said she could not discuss specific visa cases due to US privacy laws.

The State Department has said the increased scrutiny was prompted by rising number of students who were co-opted by foreign intelligence while in the United States.

China is by far the biggest source of international students and scholars on US campuses, with 360,000 attendings last year.

Atmosphere of Suspicion

The cooling of ties is also complicating Beijing's efforts to recruit top Chinese and foreign talent, after US intelligence officials in December said the 'Thousand Talents' programme facilitated the theft of American technology and intellectual property.

Tim Byrnes -- an Australian physicist who won nearly one million yuan ($144,000) from the programme in 2016 for a quantum computing lab at New York University's Shanghai campus -- said he now finds himself in a "precarious position".

"Possibly, some people awarded the Thousand Talents might not be able to apply for grants in the US in future due to fears of leaking intellectual property," Byrnes said.

Since it was launched in 2008, the programme has attracted more than 7,000 Chinese and foreign researchers to China -- mostly from the US -- according to its website.

But Byrnes said he was not asked to share any of his findings with the Chinese government.

"Everything we do is published in academic journals. Everything is disclosed not just to China but to the whole world," he said.

"But the current atmosphere of suspicion is threatening the openness of science."

A rise in US visa denials for Chinese academics and intensified scrutiny of alleged links to Beijing over fears of potential espionage are having a chilling effect on long-standing research collaboration, researchers say.

A rise in US visa denials for Chinese academics and intensified scrutiny of alleged links to Beijing over fears of potential espionage are having a chilling effect on long-standing research collaboration, researchers say. American and Chinese scientists have co-authored thousands of papers each year, far outpacing the output from scientific collaborations between any other two nations, according to a 2018 survey by academic database Nature Index. But it is getting tougher for researchers to work together on projects and share data for peer review, as American institutions tighten rules for accepting foreign funding and intensify vetting of foreign partners, several researchers told AFP. The pressure is the result of a clampdown by Washington on what it describes as espionage and technology theft through academic contacts, with the White House warning last year that Chinese nationals studying or working in the United States could be manipulated or forced to "serve Beijing's military and strategic ambitions". In one of the latest countermeasures, the US Department of Energy -- which conducts advanced research on everything from supercomputers to nuclear weapons -- blocked its scientists from participating in a foreign government's talent recruitment programmes, citing national security and competition concerns. Its order, seen by AFP, did not mention a specific country, but officials pointed to Beijing's lucrative 'Thousand Talents' programme. The initiative offers non-Chinese, and Chinese working abroad, high pay to deliver top-level technology to China. The increased mistrust is bound to have an impact on research collaboration, academics and experts say. An increasing number of young Chinese scholars are told they cannot participate in a project for security reasons, said an official at Pennsylvania State University, who requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the topic. "Research collaboration between China and the US will be severely disrupted by the trade war-turned-technology war, which essentially is a talent war," said Cao Cong, professor of innovation studies at Nottingham University's China campus in the city of Ningbo. Beijing has committed billions of dollars in recent years to narrow China's science and technology gap with the United States, Cao said. But China is still "heavily dependent" on the US for technology transfers and training, he added, and the "cut off" will have an impact in coming years. Visa Troubles The rising number of visa denials have prompted a warning from China's education ministry that students and academics could have their study or research plans foiled by refusals or delays. One in eight Chinese applicants seeking US visas for academic or research purposes between January and March this year had difficulties securing them, a marked increase from last year, education ministry official Xu Yongji said. Star quantum physicist Pan Jianwei was unable to attend a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in February, where he was to collect the prestigious Newcomb Cleveland Prize, due to visa delays. "I waited for four months before I got a visa in March," Pan told AFP. When it finally arrived, the award ceremony had long passed. Yi Rao, a prominent Chinese neurobiologist who had worked at Harvard and Northwestern universities in the past, said his application for a US visa to attend a workshop by the National Science Foundation was denied last July without an explanation. A State Department official said she could not discuss specific visa cases due to US privacy laws. The State Department has said the increased scrutiny was prompted by rising number of students who were co-opted by foreign intelligence while in the United States. China is by far the biggest source of international students and scholars on US campuses, with 360,000 attendings last year. Atmosphere of Suspicion The cooling of ties is also complicating Beijing's efforts to recruit top Chinese and foreign talent, after US intelligence officials in December said the 'Thousand Talents' programme facilitated the theft of American technology and intellectual property. Tim Byrnes -- an Australian physicist who won nearly one million yuan ($144,000) from the programme in 2016 for a quantum computing lab at New York University's Shanghai campus -- said he now finds himself in a "precarious position". "Possibly, some people awarded the Thousand Talents might not be able to apply for grants in the US in future due to fears of leaking intellectual property," Byrnes said. Since it was launched in 2008, the programme has attracted more than 7,000 Chinese and foreign researchers to China -- mostly from the US -- according to its website. But Byrnes said he was not asked to share any of his findings with the Chinese government. "Everything we do is published in academic journals. Everything is disclosed not just to China but to the whole world," he said. "But the current atmosphere of suspicion is threatening the openness of science."

Amid heightened US-China tensions, science suffers collateral damage

In early March 2019, President Donald Trump, announced that he would withdraw duty benefits on all imports from India. These benefits had been offered under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), a programme that allows duty-free imports of specified goods from beneficiary countries. &nbsp;

The scheme, introduced in 1974, was intended as a way of helping developing nations as well as giving the US manufacturers access to cheap raw material. &nbsp;

The March announcement should not have come as a surprise to India. In November, the US withdrew GSP benefits to some 50 products from India. &nbsp;

Earlier in 2018, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) had begun an eligibility review of India, based on complaints received from US dairy associations and the medical technology association. &nbsp;

The trigger for these trade bodies to focus on India was because India had made it difficult for them to enter the market. &nbsp;

In the case of dairy, India had asked dairy importers to certify their products as being from livestock that had not been fed animal parts. &nbsp;

The reason for this is that dairy products in India are often used in religious rites, and need to be ritually “pure”. &nbsp;

Medical technology companies, meanwhile, have been hit hard by the Indian government providing heavy subsidies on medical equipment in order to make such equipment easily accessible. This “populist” move has meant that American companies cannot charge a premium on their products.

According to the USTR, beneficiary countries under GSP are expected to provide “equitable and reasonable access to its markets” to US companies. &nbsp;

India, however, has imposed several measures that the US considers protectionist, including the two steps mentioned above. &nbsp;

What does this mean for Indian exports? According to the government, very little. &nbsp;

Official sources have downplayed the impact of GSP removal. The numbers they quote seem convincing -- Indian exports to the US are valued at $5.6 billion; Indian trade authorities say that GSP covers some $190 million worth of exports and so the impact of removing India from GSP will be minimal. But any negative impact could hit the country’s balance of trade, and a big trade deficit will hit the GDP. 
 
Exporters will also take a hit. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) form the bulk of exporters who benefit under GSP, and having to pay duty on their goods could prove too expensive for them. &nbsp;

Many of these exporters are in labour-intensive industries, so if they go out of business, it could hit the labour market as well. Leather and footwear, chemicals, and bulk drugs will be the sectors most affected.

On the whole, other exports will not feel the pinch. However, the fear is that once the US has used GSP as a stick, it will make other exports from India unviable. &nbsp;

In the case of seafood, the US has already imposed stringent import regulations; given that the bulk of Indian seafood exports is to the US, these norms will hit India hard. &nbsp;

There’s also the possibility of the US imposing or increasing anti-dumping duties on a range of other goods.

The impact on exporters will likely be softened over the medium term as these players look at markets outside the US. While China and the US may both be closed to these exporters, there’s still a large market in the rest of the world. &nbsp;

Judging by the state of internal politics, and with elections coming up soon, the GSP issue may soon be buried or resolved to India’s benefit. &nbsp;

That’s because removing India from the GSP will mean that Indian goods will cost more in the US, which means that the cost of raw material for American industry could go up too.

Meanwhile, there are steps India can take to protect its exporters. For one, it can approach the World Trade Organisation. Under the Enabling Clause of the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (to which both India and the US are signatories), developed countries can offer preferential treatment on a non-reciprocal basis. By removing India from the GSP on the grounds that the country isn’t providing access to its market, the US is violating this GATT clause. &nbsp;

India can take this matter to the WTO and, judging by a past victory against the European Union, win. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-india-s-removal-from-gsp-new-delhi-can-move-wto-2740316">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In early March 2019, President Donald Trump, announced that he would withdraw duty benefits on all imports from India. These benefits had been offered under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), a programme that allows duty-free imports of specified goods from beneficiary countries.

In early March 2019, President Donald Trump, announced that he would withdraw duty benefits on all imports from India. These benefits had been offered under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), a programme that allows duty-free imports of specified goods from beneficiary countries. The scheme, introduced in 1974, was intended as a way of helping developing nations as well as giving the US manufacturers access to cheap raw material. The March announcement should not have come as a surprise to India. In November, the US withdrew GSP benefits to some 50 products from India. Earlier in 2018, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) had begun an eligibility review of India, based on complaints received from US dairy associations and the medical technology association. The trigger for these trade bodies to focus on India was because India had made it difficult for them to enter the market. In the case of dairy, India had asked dairy importers to certify their products as being from livestock that had not been fed animal parts. The reason for this is that dairy products in India are often used in religious rites, and need to be ritually “pure”. Medical technology companies, meanwhile, have been hit hard by the Indian government providing heavy subsidies on medical equipment in order to make such equipment easily accessible. This “populist” move has meant that American companies cannot charge a premium on their products. According to the USTR, beneficiary countries under GSP are expected to provide “equitable and reasonable access to its markets” to US companies. India, however, has imposed several measures that the US considers protectionist, including the two steps mentioned above. What does this mean for Indian exports? According to the government, very little. Official sources have downplayed the impact of GSP removal. The numbers they quote seem convincing -- Indian exports to the US are valued at $5.6 billion; Indian trade authorities say that GSP covers some $190 million worth of exports and so the impact of removing India from GSP will be minimal. But any negative impact could hit the country’s balance of trade, and a big trade deficit will hit the GDP. Exporters will also take a hit. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) form the bulk of exporters who benefit under GSP, and having to pay duty on their goods could prove too expensive for them. Many of these exporters are in labour-intensive industries, so if they go out of business, it could hit the labour market as well. Leather and footwear, chemicals, and bulk drugs will be the sectors most affected. On the whole, other exports will not feel the pinch. However, the fear is that once the US has used GSP as a stick, it will make other exports from India unviable. In the case of seafood, the US has already imposed stringent import regulations; given that the bulk of Indian seafood exports is to the US, these norms will hit India hard. There’s also the possibility of the US imposing or increasing anti-dumping duties on a range of other goods. The impact on exporters will likely be softened over the medium term as these players look at markets outside the US. While China and the US may both be closed to these exporters, there’s still a large market in the rest of the world. Judging by the state of internal politics, and with elections coming up soon, the GSP issue may soon be buried or resolved to India’s benefit. That’s because removing India from the GSP will mean that Indian goods will cost more in the US, which means that the cost of raw material for American industry could go up too. Meanwhile, there are steps India can take to protect its exporters. For one, it can approach the World Trade Organisation. Under the Enabling Clause of the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (to which both India and the US are signatories), developed countries can offer preferential treatment on a non-reciprocal basis. By removing India from the GSP on the grounds that the country isn’t providing access to its market, the US is violating this GATT clause. India can take this matter to the WTO and, judging by a past victory against the European Union, win. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

India-US trade bumps: New Delhi can move WTO on its removal from GSP

A modern, comprehensive and mutually beneficial economic partnership agreement for an open trade and investment milieu in the Asia-Pacific region is the core objective of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). &nbsp;

Countries, in diverse stages of development, from Australia, China, Japan and India to the 10 members of the Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) are part of the RCEP, besides South Korea and New Zealand.&nbsp;

Once wrapped up, RCEP would foster the largest regional trading bloc, making up 25 per cent of global GDP, 30 per cent of world trade and 26 per cent of cross-country foreign direct investment (FDI) flows the world over.

While 'substantial progress’ has been claimed by India in negotiations in 2018, a closer look is needed. So far, as many as seven chapters in RCEP encompassing economic and technical cooperation, amongst others, have been concluded. But the crucial one on market negotiations bristle with Indian reservations, as it is not prepared to let its domestic industry smothered by the deluge of cheap goods from the other members, particularly China.&nbsp;

Interestingly, the erstwhile tiger economies of ASEAN want India to eliminate tariffs or customs duties on about 90-92 per cent items that it trades with the countries with which India has a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). These include ASEAN and Japan.&nbsp;

With the non-FTA partners—Australia, New Zealand and China, discussions are on for removing duties on 80 per cent of traded products. New Delhi has asked for a 20-year deadline to end the duties, but with China, it seeks more time for removal of tariffs. &nbsp;

The need for seeking a protracted liberalisation phase with China is based on ground realities. A House Panel report on the impact of Chinese goods on Indian industry, tabled in the monsoon session of Parliament, vehemently argued that “the impact of Chinese imports has been such that India is threatened to become a country of importers and traders with domestic factories either cutting down their production or shutting down completely…”

From raw material to components to final product assembly, the competitive strength of the Middle Kingdom is proven beyond a pale of doubt and that too across several sectors in which the competitive strength of Indian products are ironically, at a disadvantage.

According to the report, the annual year-on-year growth in Chinese imports was about 9 per cent in 2013-14, which had soared to 20 per cent in 2017-18. The trade deficit with China at $63 billion constitutes more than 40 per cent of India’s aggregate trade deficit.&nbsp;

The Chinese goods itself constitute about one-sixth of all imports in terms of quantum in India. In the decade 2007-08 to 2017-18, there has been an increase in India’s exports to China by $2.5 billion only while its imports from China have zoomed by $50 billion during this period. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

With sobering statistics such as these, Indian trade envoys are naturally demanding that China should give more and we, in turn, would give China lower concessions and take a longer staging period, given the gargantuan trade deficit with Beijing.

As the core of the marathon talks zero in on market access for goods, services and investment with the deadline deferred to 2019, India might have earned a reprieve from immediate danger to its cocooned domestic sectors.&nbsp;

But as 2019 is an election year in India, the outcome of which will determine whether the proposed RCEP would be wrapped up by the incumbent dispensation or a new one, the fact remains that India must perforce have to undertake structural reforms, including correction of the much-delayed inverted duty structure, liberalisation of the mining sector to spur domestic manufacturing and markedly cut down import of steel, coal, oil and a plethora of other minerals.&nbsp;

The urgent need to be in a mega trading bloc is nowhere crucial than at this juncture when the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is faced with an existential crisis.&nbsp;

The numerous multilateral trade deals under its charge have come to a halt over the past decade. A slew of few trading nations have naturally pitched for regional or preferential free trade agreements (FTAs) among compact number of participants to exchange concessions and move ahead with gains accruing from such liberalised trade.&nbsp;

For India, which has not been in any meaningful regional trading arrangement, but attempted to latch on to a few FTAs that had only brought resentment from local industries, the enduring benefits of trade remain elusive!&nbsp;

To compound the cup of mercantile misery, there is an ongoing trade war between majors, the United States and China, which began slapping retaliatory measures, fouling up the global trading atmosphere and generating a sort of psychosis among others as to how to wade in the choppy waters of overseas markets that have abruptly become protectionist and impermeable. In this dismal scenario, the time to fix the roof can no longer be deferred. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-much-rests-on-china-for-rcep-s-rollout-on-schedule-2691979">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

A modern, comprehensive and mutually beneficial economic partnership agreement for an open trade and investment milieu in the Asia-Pacific region is the core objective of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

A modern, comprehensive and mutually beneficial economic partnership agreement for an open trade and investment milieu in the Asia-Pacific region is the core objective of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Countries, in diverse stages of development, from Australia, China, Japan and India to the 10 members of the Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) are part of the RCEP, besides South Korea and New Zealand. Once wrapped up, RCEP would foster the largest regional trading bloc, making up 25 per cent of global GDP, 30 per cent of world trade and 26 per cent of cross-country foreign direct investment (FDI) flows the world over. While 'substantial progress’ has been claimed by India in negotiations in 2018, a closer look is needed. So far, as many as seven chapters in RCEP encompassing economic and technical cooperation, amongst others, have been concluded. But the crucial one on market negotiations bristle with Indian reservations, as it is not prepared to let its domestic industry smothered by the deluge of cheap goods from the other members, particularly China. Interestingly, the erstwhile tiger economies of ASEAN want India to eliminate tariffs or customs duties on about 90-92 per cent items that it trades with the countries with which India has a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). These include ASEAN and Japan. With the non-FTA partners—Australia, New Zealand and China, discussions are on for removing duties on 80 per cent of traded products. New Delhi has asked for a 20-year deadline to end the duties, but with China, it seeks more time for removal of tariffs. The need for seeking a protracted liberalisation phase with China is based on ground realities. A House Panel report on the impact of Chinese goods on Indian industry, tabled in the monsoon session of Parliament, vehemently argued that “the impact of Chinese imports has been such that India is threatened to become a country of importers and traders with domestic factories either cutting down their production or shutting down completely…” From raw material to components to final product assembly, the competitive strength of the Middle Kingdom is proven beyond a pale of doubt and that too across several sectors in which the competitive strength of Indian products are ironically, at a disadvantage. According to the report, the annual year-on-year growth in Chinese imports was about 9 per cent in 2013-14, which had soared to 20 per cent in 2017-18. The trade deficit with China at $63 billion constitutes more than 40 per cent of India’s aggregate trade deficit. The Chinese goods itself constitute about one-sixth of all imports in terms of quantum in India. In the decade 2007-08 to 2017-18, there has been an increase in India’s exports to China by $2.5 billion only while its imports from China have zoomed by $50 billion during this period. With sobering statistics such as these, Indian trade envoys are naturally demanding that China should give more and we, in turn, would give China lower concessions and take a longer staging period, given the gargantuan trade deficit with Beijing. As the core of the marathon talks zero in on market access for goods, services and investment with the deadline deferred to 2019, India might have earned a reprieve from immediate danger to its cocooned domestic sectors. But as 2019 is an election year in India, the outcome of which will determine whether the proposed RCEP would be wrapped up by the incumbent dispensation or a new one, the fact remains that India must perforce have to undertake structural reforms, including correction of the much-delayed inverted duty structure, liberalisation of the mining sector to spur domestic manufacturing and markedly cut down import of steel, coal, oil and a plethora of other minerals. The urgent need to be in a mega trading bloc is nowhere crucial than at this juncture when the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is faced with an existential crisis. The numerous multilateral trade deals under its charge have come to a halt over the past decade. A slew of few trading nations have naturally pitched for regional or preferential free trade agreements (FTAs) among compact number of participants to exchange concessions and move ahead with gains accruing from such liberalised trade. For India, which has not been in any meaningful regional trading arrangement, but attempted to latch on to a few FTAs that had only brought resentment from local industries, the enduring benefits of trade remain elusive! To compound the cup of mercantile misery, there is an ongoing trade war between majors, the United States and China, which began slapping retaliatory measures, fouling up the global trading atmosphere and generating a sort of psychosis among others as to how to wade in the choppy waters of overseas markets that have abruptly become protectionist and impermeable. In this dismal scenario, the time to fix the roof can no longer be deferred. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Much rests on China for RCEP’s rollout on schedule

The Trump administration had a simple but stark message for world financial leaders who gathered in Washington on Thursday amid worries about rising US&nbsp;protectionism: fair trade means tit-for-tat tariffs.

Speaking to bankers just hours after the formal start of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank spring meetings, White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said Washington was prepared to get tougher in the trade arena.

&quot;If you want to insist on having a tariff on a product - which we prefer you not - the president believes that we should treat you in a reciprocal fashion and that we should tax your product coming into the United States,&quot; Cohn said. &quot;That is free, that is open, and that is fair.&quot;

Asked at the Institute of International Finance about his message for his international counterparts, Cohn said the United States doesn&#39;t want to be &quot;taken advantage of&quot; any more.

&quot;The message is simple. We care about the United States of America, we care about economic prosperity, we care about economic growth, we care about trade, we care about being treated fairly,&quot; he said.

Earlier at the White House, President Donald Trump signed a directive to study whether steel imports into the United States should be restricted for national security reasons under a law passed in 1962.

Such moves, including a review of &quot;Buy American&quot; rules launched earlier this week, have raised concerns that the Trump administration is looking outside the World Trade Organization for remedies to restrict US&nbsp;imports.

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde told reporters on Thursday that more needed to be done to make the global trading system fairer and expressed a willingness to work with Trump to do just that.

In a news conference, Lagarde said there was a need to improve the WTO dispute settlement rules as well as reduce government subsidies for industry and tackle other trade distortions.

She said the IMF would do its part in working to cut government subsidies for industry and other trade practices that limit competition, but said &quot;protectionist measures&quot; needed to be avoided.

&quot;From the various contacts that I&#39;ve had with the (Trump) administration so far, I have every reason to believe that we will make progress, that we will cooperate all together in order to support and indeed improve the system as we have it,&quot; Lagarde said.

The IMF also has expressed concerns about the Trump administration&#39;s plan to cut taxes, releasing reports on Wednesday that said such a move could fuel financial risk-taking and increase public debt.

Appearing alongside Cohn, US&nbsp;Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he would unveil the tax plan &quot;soon, very soon,&quot; and predicted it would be passed by Congress this year.

But he gave few details and shed no light on whether the plan would include a controversial border-tax component.

&quot;It will be sweeping, it will be significant and it will create a lot of economic growth,&quot; Mnuchin said. &quot;The plan will pay for itself with growth.&quot;

Separately, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim also put in a plug for free trade and said he was &quot;encouraged&quot; by his engagement so far with Trump. But he added that he would not reduce the multilateral lender&#39;s commitment to trade or to financing alternative energy projects.

&quot;The science of climate change didn&#39;t change with any particular election, and I don&#39;t see that it will,&quot; Kim said at a news conference. &quot;We have to be an evidence-based organisation.&quot;

&nbsp;

&#39;LITTLE LEVERAGE&#39;

The IMF and World Bank meetings come about a month after Mnuchin insisted that an anti-protectionism pledge be dropped from a Group of 20 communique issued in Baden-Baden, Germany.

Eswar Prasad, former head of the IMF&#39;s China department, said the Trump administration may choose to simply ignore the advice of the IMF and other institutions.

&quot;The IMF has little leverage since its limited toolkit of analysis-based advice, persuasion, and peer pressure is unlikely to have much of an impact on this administration&#39;s policies,&quot; said Prasad, now an international trade professor at Cornell University.

Mnuchin&#39;s decision against naming China a currency manipulator last week removed one concern for the IMF ahead of the meetings.

(Reuters)

Asked about his message for his international counterparts, Cohn said the United States doesn't want to be 'taken advantage of' any more

The Trump administration had a simple but stark message for world financial leaders who gathered in Washington on Thursday amid worries about rising US protectionism: fair trade means tit-for-tat tariffs. Speaking to bankers just hours after the formal start of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank spring meetings, White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said Washington was prepared to get tougher in the trade arena. "If you want to insist on having a tariff on a product - which we prefer you not - the president believes that we should treat you in a reciprocal fashion and that we should tax your product coming into the United States," Cohn said. "That is free, that is open, and that is fair." Asked at the Institute of International Finance about his message for his international counterparts, Cohn said the United States doesn't want to be "taken advantage of" any more. "The message is simple. We care about the United States of America, we care about economic prosperity, we care about economic growth, we care about trade, we care about being treated fairly," he said. Earlier at the White House, President Donald Trump signed a directive to study whether steel imports into the United States should be restricted for national security reasons under a law passed in 1962. Such moves, including a review of "Buy American" rules launched earlier this week, have raised concerns that the Trump administration is looking outside the World Trade Organization for remedies to restrict US imports. IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde told reporters on Thursday that more needed to be done to make the global trading system fairer and expressed a willingness to work with Trump to do just that. In a news conference, Lagarde said there was a need to improve the WTO dispute settlement rules as well as reduce government subsidies for industry and tackle other trade distortions. She said the IMF would do its part in working to cut government subsidies for industry and other trade practices that limit competition, but said "protectionist measures" needed to be avoided. "From the various contacts that I've had with the (Trump) administration so far, I have every reason to believe that we will make progress, that we will cooperate all together in order to support and indeed improve the system as we have it," Lagarde said. The IMF also has expressed concerns about the Trump administration's plan to cut taxes, releasing reports on Wednesday that said such a move could fuel financial risk-taking and increase public debt. Appearing alongside Cohn, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he would unveil the tax plan "soon, very soon," and predicted it would be passed by Congress this year. But he gave few details and shed no light on whether the plan would include a controversial border-tax component. "It will be sweeping, it will be significant and it will create a lot of economic growth," Mnuchin said. "The plan will pay for itself with growth." Separately, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim also put in a plug for free trade and said he was "encouraged" by his engagement so far with Trump. But he added that he would not reduce the multilateral lender's commitment to trade or to financing alternative energy projects. "The science of climate change didn't change with any particular election, and I don't see that it will," Kim said at a news conference. "We have to be an evidence-based organisation." 'LITTLE LEVERAGE' The IMF and World Bank meetings come about a month after Mnuchin insisted that an anti-protectionism pledge be dropped from a Group of 20 communique issued in Baden-Baden, Germany. Eswar Prasad, former head of the IMF's China department, said the Trump administration may choose to simply ignore the advice of the IMF and other institutions. "The IMF has little leverage since its limited toolkit of analysis-based advice, persuasion, and peer pressure is unlikely to have much of an impact on this administration's policies," said Prasad, now an international trade professor at Cornell University. Mnuchin's decision against naming China a currency manipulator last week removed one concern for the IMF ahead of the meetings. (Reuters)

Trump admin, world financial officials clash over trade

China will work with its G20 partners to promote global trade growth, Beijing&#39;s commerce minister said today, as the world&#39;s top economies met in Shanghai. 
 
Global trade is expected to grow at a tepid 2.8 per cent in 2016, the World Trade Organization (WTO) said in April, with uncertainty over Britain&#39;s decision to leave the EU only adding to concerns. 
 
&quot;The economic recovery and growth is still feeble and global trade is fluctuating at a low level,&quot; Gao Hucheng said before ministers began talks, vowing: &quot;China is willing to work with all parties with wisdom, courage and action.&quot; 
 
WTO director-general Roberto Azevedo said on Friday ahead of the talks that 2016 would be the fifth consecutive year with trade growth below three per cent -- its weakest sustained level in 30 years. 
 
He warned that there were &quot;no immediate signs of significant change in the current trajectory for trade growth&quot;. 
 
Gao said ministers would discuss how to boost trade and coordinate global investment strategies, as well as how to strengthen investment among G20 nations. 
 
&quot;The world is hopeful despite the still difficult tasks which lie in front of us. But there is still great hope and opportunities contained in this,&quot; Gao said. 
 
Today&#39;s talks bring together G20 trade ministers as well as representatives from organisations including the IMF, OECD and WTO. They will give a press conference on Sunday after two days of talks behind closed doors. 
 
China, a key driver of global growth, has seen its GDP growth slip to its slowest rate in a quarter of a century, with expansion last year weakening to 6.9 per cent. 
 
The world&#39;s largest trader in goods also saw its total trade fall eight per cent last year. 
 
The World Bank identified the slump in Chinese growth and the country&#39;s economic transition as the key factor in a sharp slowdown in global trade last year, in a report released in March. 
 
Beijing has been trying to retool its economy to encourage domestic consumption and move away from infrastructure investment and exports as the main drivers of growth, but the pace has been slow. 
 
Azevedo also appealed for cooperation in the battle to spur trade. 
 
&quot;This is a time for governments to work together to see how trade can be used to boost growth, development and job creation,&quot; he said on Friday. 
 
&quot;It is a time for vigilance against measures which hamper and restrict trade and against very damaging anti-trade rhetoric.&quot; 
 
(AFP)

The talks will bring together G20 trade ministers as well as representatives from organisations including the IMF, OECD and WTO

China will work with its G20 partners to promote global trade growth, Beijing's commerce minister said today, as the world's top economies met in Shanghai. Global trade is expected to grow at a tepid 2.8 per cent in 2016, the World Trade Organization (WTO) said in April, with uncertainty over Britain's decision to leave the EU only adding to concerns. "The economic recovery and growth is still feeble and global trade is fluctuating at a low level," Gao Hucheng said before ministers began talks, vowing: "China is willing to work with all parties with wisdom, courage and action." WTO director-general Roberto Azevedo said on Friday ahead of the talks that 2016 would be the fifth consecutive year with trade growth below three per cent -- its weakest sustained level in 30 years. He warned that there were "no immediate signs of significant change in the current trajectory for trade growth". Gao said ministers would discuss how to boost trade and coordinate global investment strategies, as well as how to strengthen investment among G20 nations. "The world is hopeful despite the still difficult tasks which lie in front of us. But there is still great hope and opportunities contained in this," Gao said. Today's talks bring together G20 trade ministers as well as representatives from organisations including the IMF, OECD and WTO. They will give a press conference on Sunday after two days of talks behind closed doors. China, a key driver of global growth, has seen its GDP growth slip to its slowest rate in a quarter of a century, with expansion last year weakening to 6.9 per cent. The world's largest trader in goods also saw its total trade fall eight per cent last year. The World Bank identified the slump in Chinese growth and the country's economic transition as the key factor in a sharp slowdown in global trade last year, in a report released in March. Beijing has been trying to retool its economy to encourage domestic consumption and move away from infrastructure investment and exports as the main drivers of growth, but the pace has been slow. Azevedo also appealed for cooperation in the battle to spur trade. "This is a time for governments to work together to see how trade can be used to boost growth, development and job creation," he said on Friday. "It is a time for vigilance against measures which hamper and restrict trade and against very damaging anti-trade rhetoric." (AFP)

China vows to act with G20 partners to boost world trade

world-trade-0

World Trade, News on World Trade, stories on World Trade, articles on World Trade, World Trade stories at Wion, World Trade news, World Trade latest news

world trade-0