The trade deal between India and the European Union is as much about geopolitics as it’s about intercontinental business relations.

The EU is already India’s largest partner with trade in goods reaching $142.3bn (£104.07bn) in 2024, amounting to 11.5% of the South Asian nation’s total trade. India is the EU’s ninth largest trading partner.

These are impressive numbers and reflect strong relations. And yet, trade talks were stuck for two decades.

That raises the question: what’s changed now? The answer lies in the fast-evolving geopolitical landscape and the unpredictability of the US administration under President Donald Trump.

The US leader has used tariffs as a bargaining chip in some negotiations but he has often used them to punish countries, including partners, which don’t agree with his worldview.

The US has imposed 50% tariffs on Indian goods, which include a 25% penalty for Delhi’s refusal to stop buying oil from Russia.

Some EU countries recently faced fresh tariff threats from Trump as the US president was put out by their refusal to accept his proposed takeover of Greenland. He later withdrew the threat, but experts say it did rattle the EU.

The EU and India are not alone in looking to hedge their bets when it comes to the US – the free trade agreement (FTA) in Delhi was secured amid a flurry of countries striking deals and patching things up as they try to cope with global unpredictability.

The EU-India pact – the seventh trade deal India has completed recently – comes after Brussels signed a trade accord with South American trade bloc Mercosur earlier this month after 25 years of negotiation. Experts say the Trump factor helped speed that up too, though it’s now facing legal challenges in Europe.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney – who warned of a “rupture” in the post-war international order last week – is just back from a visit resetting ties in China which will boost trade ties, drawing Trump’s ire and fresh threats of 100% tariffs. Carney is also due to travel to India in the near future, with trade high on the agenda. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is heading to Beijing this week, accompanied by dozens of British business executives, following years of strained ties with China.

Against this backdrop, the India-EU trade deal, which is still subject to ratification, assumes greater geopolitical significance as it achieves more than just trade results – for both Brussels and Delhi.

It sends a message to Trump that global powers have started to look at ways to club together to protect themselves against his administration.

“One could argue that the Trump factor provided a very strong impetus to the deal because both India and the EU are facing shock US tariffs that they never expected,” said Michael Kugelman, senior fellow for South Asia at the Atlantic Council.

He added that Trump is a big reason why the EU and India have been able to overcome most of their differences and put issues they couldn’t resolve on the back-burner for future negotiations.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen both called Tuesday’s agreement “the mother of all deals”.

“This is the tale of two giants – the world’s second and fourth largest economies – two giants who choose partnership in a true win-win fashion, a strong message that co-operation is the best answer to global challenges,” said von der Leyen, standing beside Modi after they exchanged agreements.

“By combining these strengths, we reduce strategic dependencies at a time when trade is increasingly weaponised… We are not only making our economies stronger – we are also delivering security for our people in an increasingly insecure world.”

Modi said the global order is in “great turmoil” and the trade deal would strengthen supply chains globally.

“This means it is not just a trade agreement. This is a new blueprint for shared prosperity,” he said.

The two leaders’ may or may not have intended the deal to annoy the Trump administration, but they appear to have done exactly that.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told ABC News on Sunday that the EU was “financing the war against themselves” by signing a trade deal with Delhi.

He was referring to India’s purchase of Russian crude, which US officials have often said was indirectly financing Moscow’s war in Ukraine. India has always denied this, saying the purchase of Russian oil secures energy needs of millions of its people.

The time-tested Delhi-Moscow relations are also the reason why India has been reluctant to abruptly cut business ties with Russia. It has long relied on Moscow for military hardware but today’s deal will help it build on already strong defence ties with France as it looks to diversify its defence imports portfolio with other European nations too.

The India deal also gives the EU access to another huge market and may help it reduce its reliance on China in the future.

“India will also look at this partnership as a way to counter China’s dominance in global trade, which it envisaged doing with the US. But it’s a different state of play right now. The EU likewise sees India as a useful country to partner within its own efforts to counter China,” Kugelman added.

But it’s worth remembering that behind the chest-thumping headlines, there is still plenty of work to do for both India and the EU. While negotiations around the deal have concluded, the formal signing of the agreement will take a long time..

World Opinion + BBC News

L’article Trump’s shadow looms over India-EU trade deal est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Public anger is growing against looters and exploitative merchants. Their actions are seen as betrayal.

On July 17, I was in a market in Nuseirat camp in central Gaza looking for any affordable food item to buy when I saw a crowd of people gather in front of some shops. The people were angry about the exorbitant prices that the shop owners were charging for goods that had clearly been looted from aid convoys.

Two weeks later, I was at the same market and witnessed another angry protest. People were chanting, “You thieves!” and cursing the merchants.

Having no fear of God, shop owners are exploiting the famine without mercy, selling aid as if it were rare luxury items when in fact it is supposed to be distributed for free. The greed and exploitation have gone too far, and the people are taking things into their own hands. Across Gaza, there are protests against price speculation. In some places, shops are being forcibly closed.

Indeed, the prices of essential goods have soared to unimaginable levels, beyond anything dictated by the forces of supply and demand. People cannot understand why goods cost so much despite their minimal purchasing power. The prices I saw while walking at the market were insane: a kilo (2.2lb) of flour – 40 shekels ($12), a kilo of rice – 60 shekels ($18), a kilo of lentils – 40 shekels ($12), a kilo of sugar – 250 shekels ($73), a litre (1 quart) of cooking oil – 200 shekels ($58).

Since Israel imposed a full blockade on Gaza in March, the normal aid distribution through the United Nations – something that has to happen unabated in any warzone – has ceased.

To stave off global criticism, Israel set up humanitarian hubs to supposedly distribute aid. But they have been nothing more than death traps. Many of those who come to collect aid are shot at, and thousands have been killed or wounded.

In parallel, the Israeli government started allowing in a very small quantity of aid trucks, but a large portion of those are looted once they enter Gaza. The goods are then resold at outrageous prices.

Those who control this supply of looted food are powerful merchants and brokers, often protected by local influential actors or benefitting from indirect coordination with Israel. These actions are not spontaneous. They take place within a deliberately created atmosphere of chaos. With the collapse of state institutions and absence of legal accountability, exploitation has become the rule, not the exception.

It is clear to the Palestinians that the occupation doesn’t merely aim to show that Gaza is weak. It actively seeks to prove that it is ungovernable. To achieve this, closing the borders isn’t enough. The people of Gaza must be pushed into a state of constant chaos and friction.

Starvation is a key instrument here. Hunger doesn’t only kill. It also changes human nature. A starving person, stripped of the bare minimum needed to survive and subjected to daily humiliation, slowly loses the ability to think clearly, to judge or to restrain themselves from turning against those they perceive – rightly or wrongly – as contributing to their suffering.

There are black markets and war profiteers in every conflict. But in this one, the occupying power is encouraging these criminal activities, not because it is earning money from them, but because it serves its overall goal. The Palestinians who choose to participate in this form of extortion are motivated by greed, blackmail or survival.

This slow unravelling is exactly what the occupation has aimed for. It wants chaos in the streets of Gaza so Israeli and international media can be quick to point a finger at the Palestinians and declare: “Look, the Palestinian people are imploding. They can’t govern themselves. They don’t deserve a state.” But the truth is, this is not a sign of a failed nation. It is evidence of the occupation’s success in dragging it to the brink.

It is not the people who have lost control. Control has been forcibly stripped from them – through starvation, the systematic destruction of healthcare and sanitary infrastructure, the dismantling of state institutions and the empowerment of criminals.

Yet Gaza will not break. People may grow angry and desperate, cry out and protest, but they still retain a moral compass. This collective outcry is not infighting. It is a clear warning that society will no longer tolerate betrayal. Those who raise prices mercilessly in times of siege are traitors, and they will be held accountable before institutions of justice when Gaza rebuilds.

The occupation may be revelling now in the unfolding collapse, but it would be wrong to think it has defeated the Palestinians. Every crisis breeds new awareness. Every betrayal gives birth to new resistance. The vast majority of Palestinians refuse to become tools in the hands of their torturers. They refuse subjugation and erasure. They refuse to exploit and harm their fellow citizens.

Palestinian national solidarity is still alive.

By Amal Abu Seif Palestinian writer and researcher from Gaza – Aljazeera ENG

L’article Palestinians won’t tolerate war profiteering in Gaza est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Nigerians have been hit by a double whammy of chronic fuel shortages and a hike in prices by the state-owned oil company.

The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), which imports the country’s fuel and distributes it to private sellers, blamed its debts and rising global prices for its difficulty in getting fuel.

Many people have been left stranded with long queues at petrol stations nationwide. Commuters in Lagos have been lining up at bus stations, but there very few buses operating.

Others told the BBC they have been forced to trek long distances as public transport prices have doubled along some routes.

On Tuesday, the NNPC said it was putting up the petrol price from 617 naira ($0.40, £0.30) to 897 naira a litre.

Its petrol stations have the cheapest fuel on sale in the country – but at the vast majority of other private garages the pump price is much higher.

When the NNPC puts up the price, so do private sellers and in some states, like Oyo, Kano and Kaduna, petrol is now selling for as much as 1,200 naira a litre.

Many garages around the country have shut because they have run out of fuel, others have closed to adjust their prices.

In the capital, Abuja, most are open but all have long queues as desperate drivers wait their turn – some slept in their cars overnight.

Fuel stations are not rationing supply, so there is a danger their wait will be futile.

A motorcycle rider in Kano, the main trading hub of northern Nigeria, said it was frustrating: “Most of the fuel stations here in Kano are closed because they want to adjust their pumps to the new price.

“I was able to get fuel at 950 naira at a particular station, but other places have already started selling at 1,200 per litre,” Aminu Danyaro told the BBC.

Black-market traders, who buy fuel from petrol stations and sell it by the roadside from jerrycans at inflated prices, are doing a brisk trade in Kano, where there is significantly less traffic than usual.

The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) – the country’s main trade union body – says it feels “betrayed”, explaining that the reason it accepted the new minimum monthly wage of 70,000 naira ($44, £34) in July was because there was an agreement with the government that petrol price would not be increased.

When President Bola Tinubu came to power last year, he shocked Nigerians on his first day by removing a subsidy that kept the price of fuel low.

This – amongst other policies – has led to the worst economic crisis in a generation and cost-of-living protests, dubbed “10 days of rage”, were held countrywide last month.

Nigerians are now pinning their hopes on the new privately owned Dangote Petroleum Refinery, which has been built by one of Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote.

On Monday, it was announced with great fanfare that the refinery had just started producing petrol – a milestone in Nigeria which despite being Africa’s largest producer of crude oil imports all its refined fuel.

But it is not clear how long Nigerians will have to wait to see ready availability of petrol or a drop in prices.

World Opinions – BBC News

L’article Gridlock in Nigeria amid fuel shortages and price hikes est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

When Janet Yellen left Beijing on Sunday after four days of talks, the US treasury secretary in effect admitted that the delegation achieved its main objective simply by sitting down with top Chinese officials.

After years of dangerous and deepening separation between the people running the world’s two biggest economies, they were finally back in a room together.

At a brief press conference that was the only tangible outcome of the talks, Yellen listed her hopes for the future. They included something that a decade ago would have been taken for granted: regular “senior-level diplomacy” between Washington and Beijing to manage their relationship.

Now the US can be more confident of that, and the relief is tangible. The meetings between Yellen and Chinese financial officials were particularly urgent, given there is a changing of the guard under way in Beijing.

Personal relationships between the US political elite and outgoing Chinese decision makers that dated back to before the pandemic are being rendered obsolete.

Yellen’s visit is part of a broader push to put ties back on what she called a “surer footing”. She was following in the footsteps of the secretary of state, Antony Blinken, who last month led the first senior US delegation to China in more than three years.

After years of deepening economic and military mistrust between the superpowers, they were finally back in a room together

Better communication is vital because it reduces the risk of misunderstandings or disputes between two nuclear-armed superpowers spiralling towards unintended hostilities – whether economic or military.

But if the effort to rebuild these relationships is bearing fruit, it also throws a far greater challenge into relief. Now the two sides are talking, will their diplomacy aim only to stave off crisis, or can they use it to make constructive progress in a difficult relationship?

Yellen highlighted areas where collaboration is desperately needed, and should not threaten the core strategic interests of either side, from financing investments to tackle the global climate crisis, to dealing with the heavy debts of some of the world’s poorest countries.

But the milestones of this trip may be challenging to build on. The Covid-19 pandemic cut off in-person meetings, and accelerated a shift in the relationship between China and the west, perhaps best captured in a term coined by the EU. In 2019 it officially designed Beijing a “systemic rival”, even though China remains one of its top trade partners.

The consensus of the previous decades, that economic engagement with China would bind the country into the post-second world war world order and that economic liberalisation could catalyse political liberalisation, has been firmly put aside.

Replacing it is an uneasy mix of mutual dependency and mistrust. China has accused the west of trying to choke off its economic growth to prevent its rise as a global power. In March, Xi Jinping accused the west, led by the US, of “all-round containment, encirclement and suppression”.

Many policymakers in the west fear China will use western-developed technology to build a military more powerful than the US’s. That prompted the US to bar the sale of the most advanced microchips to China last year.

Looming over disputes about trade, AI, Beijing’s close ties with Russia as it wages war in Ukraine, China’s human rights record and other controversial issues, is the remote but real risk the countries could end up in a war precipitated by a Chinese military campaign to capture Taiwan.

Xi has told China’s armed forces to be ready to do this by 2027, US intelligence believes. Military ships and planes were sent into waters and airspace near Taiwan during Yellen’s visit, keeping up pressure on something Beijing sees as a core issue.

There is a greater and more immediately urgent risk, that sanctions and other tensions could escalate towards an economic war. Beijing has accused the US of seeking to “de-couple”, or try to separate their countries’ closely entwined economies.

That would be catastrophic for both, something Yellen acknowledged on Sunday morning, saying US moves to protect national security would be narrow and carefully targeted. She described decoupling – attempting to separate the two countries’ economies – as “virtually impossible”.

If it were attempted, it would be “disastrous for both countries and destabilising for the world”; US policymakers now prefer to talk about “de-risking” their relationship.

This fear of mutually assured economic destruction is one reason to hope that both countries will try to build on this diplomatic thaw, even as they manage mistrust and security tensions that are here for the long term.

But it was perhaps a sign of how bad things have got between the US and China that one of the most senior visits to Beijing in years had the most modest of aims: better communication. The question now is where the relationship goes next.

By Emma Graham-Harrison in Taipei – The Guardian

L’article Analysis. The US and China are talking again, but what happens next? est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Banks are a special type of organisation. They take deposits and lend these funds to borrowers over long periods. It is pretty remarkable when you think about it. Banks make loans over many years, but you and I can withdraw the savings that banks use to fund the loans instantly.

For banks to operate this franchise model profitably, they essentially rely on two ingredients. First, they need to earn a profit by charging higher interest on long-term loans than they pay on short-term deposits. This model has come under severe strain in recent years. Owing to high inflation now and lower expected inflation in the next few years, many banks currently pay more for deposits and other funds than they earn on long-term loans and other assets. This makes the traditional banking model loss-making and raises questions about what the assets of some banks are worth if they had to be sold now.

Second, trust in the viability of a bank is vital. Banks are inherently unstable due to the mismatch in the duration of loans and deposits. They cannot liquidate their long-term assets quickly enough when many depositors withdraw at once. Even safe banks, with ample liquidity and capital, risk collapse when trust evaporates and depositors withdraw en masse.

It is important to remember that Credit Suisse is subject to more stringent regulations and oversight than other banks. Silicon Valley Bank was compliant with liquidity and capital regulations. In fact, SVB was well capitalised compared with many of its peers. However, when trust in the solvency of a bank goes, its franchise may crumble quickly, and depositors at other banks start worrying about the safety of their deposits.

This is by no means a repeat of the 2008 crisis. Regulations ensured banks, particularly the largest ones, have more capital and therefore greater ability to absorb losses than they did in 2008. Banks have also been stress-tested to withstand quite significant losses in the value of their loan portfolio.

In the US, Biden has assured voters that no taxpayer money would go to at-risk banks, but trust in the system relies on such support

Fortunately, regulators can address trust issues by providing large, potentially limitless, liquidity to solvent banks that have suffered from an erosion of trust. Over the weekend, the Federal Reserve and other US regulators did just that when they acted decisively in providing a large amount of liquidity to US banks.

However, I was less encouraged by the authorities’ insistence that this was not a bailout and that no taxpayers’ money was used. In situations where trust in banking comes under strain, bailouts are needed to prevent much worse and, if designed well, taxpayer money need not be at stake.

Recent events starkly contrast statements made by Mario Draghi about 10 years ago when he was head of the European Central Bank. During the euro crisis, which many feared might cause a breakup of the euro with catastrophic effects on the global financial system, Draghi declared that the central bank “is ready to do whatever it takes” and added “believe me, it will be enough”. His comments are widely credited with having ended the immediate financial crisis.

As this current crisis rattles on, a statement by global regulators that they are ready to do likewise to stem instability would be very welcome. While this will not be the last banking crisis and lessons must be learned, history also tells us that “whatever it takes” will restore trust and stability.

By Jens Hagendorff is professor of finance at King’s College London – Theguardian.com

L’article Analysis. Unlike 2008, Credit Suisse and SBV haven’t been saved by governments. But let’s not make ‘bailout’ a dirty word est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Europe is sweltering during a prolonged summer heatwave. But the attention of political leaders is increasingly focused on the coming winter. As a succession of recent warnings from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and elsewhere has underlined, an energy crisis to rival the oil price shock in the 1970s could hit when the weather turns cold.

As Vladimir Putin seeks to make the west pay for its support for Ukraine since February’s brutal invasion, Moscow has intensified its squeeze on gas exports to Europe. On Monday, Russia shut down its main pipeline to Germany – having previously reduced the flow of gas through it by 60%. Ostensibly, Nord Stream 1 has been closed to allow scheduled maintenance work, but its reopening later this month is far from certain. Gas supplies to Italy have been reduced by a further third; in all, a total of 12 EU countries have been either fully or partially cut off from Russian gas supplies. Supplies are accordingly dwindling before the period when they will be most needed. And, amid shortages and outages, European gas prices are almost 10 times higher than in the US.

Matters could get worse. The IEA has cautioned that rationing of fuel to industry, and even households, may become necessary if Mr Putin moves to a complete cutoff of gas supplies over the winter. As Russian troops expand their occupation of eastern Ukraine, the Kremlin is aiming to exert economic leverage over Europe’s response through a form of energy blackmail. Last week, Mr Putin threatened to unleash “catastrophic consequences” on markets if the west instituted further sanctions, such as a mooted cap on oil prices.

A freezing winter, soaring inflation and the wider cost of living crisis could tip millions of families over the edge, undermining support for sanctions on Russia and western solidarity with Ukraine. Without significant intervention to protect vulnerable people and ease hardship, there is a risk that, as the European Commission vice-president, Frans Timmermans, told the Guardian last week, countries will descend into “very, very strong conflict and strife”.

A concerted response is therefore urgently required. Having belatedly recognised the dangers of oil and gas dependency on Moscow, governments above all need to accelerate the pace of transition to renewables and promote energy efficiency. But that will be a process which takes years, not months. Alternatives to Russian energy are, meanwhile, proving difficult to access in sufficient quantity. The immediate problem of getting through the winter will require decisive action in the short term, including energy conservation to build up gas stockpiles for the winter. The gravity of the moment is illustrated by the decision of Germany’s green minister for climate action, Robert Habeck, to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants. At an emergency meeting later this month, EU leaders will collectively discuss winter contingency plans. A pan-European energy “solidarity plan” will need to ensure a fair distribution of gas supplies in the event of severe shortages, and establish common rules for identifying priorities.

Before the invasion, European governments were hoping to return to a form of political and economic normality after Covid. Instead they find themselves confronted with another existential threat requiring emergency measures. To face down Mr Putin’s threats this winter, and maintain a united front in support of Ukraine, a pandemic-style sense of collective solidarity will need to be fostered. It will not come cheap.

World Opinions – The Guardian View

L’article View on Europe’s energy crisis: facing down Putin will not come cheap est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Prices in the US rose faster than expected last month, as rising energy and food costs pushed inflation to the highest rate since 1981.

The annual inflation rate rose to 8.6% in May, the Labor Department said, after easing in April.

The rising cost of living has been squeezing households and putting pressure on policymakers to bring the issue under control.

The US central bank has been raising interest rates since March.

Analysts had hoped that the moves were starting to work to cool economic activity, easing the price pressures. But the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has driven up the price of oil and commodities like wheat as it disrupts exports from the two countries, has made tackling the problem more difficult.

Food prices were up more than 10% last month compared to May 2021, while energy surged more than 34%.

But Friday’s report showed the increases continue to spread throughout the economy, pushing the cost of everything from airline tickets and clothing to medical services higher.

“So much for the idea that inflation has peaked. Consumer prices blew past expectations – and not in a good way with the 8.6% annual increase the fastest in more than 40 years,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

“Worse the increases were nearly ubiquitous. Just no place to hide.”

The US has been grappling with rising prices since last year, when an unexpectedly strong economic rebound from the shock of the pandemic – driven by large doses of US government spending, including direct cheques to households – overwhelmed supplies, prompting companies to raise prices.

Now the war in Ukraine has spread the problem around the world, with Covid related shutdowns in China this spring contributing.

As the rising costs hit household purchasing power and prompt a pullback in spending, officials are warning that growth in many countries is at risk of a sharp downturn.

“The war in Ukraine, lockdowns in China, supply-chain disruptions, and the risk of stagflation are hammering growth. For many countries, recession will be hard to avoid,” World Bank President David Malpass said this week.

US stock markets fell in the wake of the inflation reports, with all three major indexes dropping more than 2%. The falls added to weeks of declines in US shares, as investors become nervous about the path for the economy.

“Even if inflation peaks soon, it’s unlikely to decelerate quickly.” said Richard Flynn. managing director of Charles Schwab UK. “High prices may put pressure on consumer spending into the medium term.

“Add ongoing supply-chain problems and the economic impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the threat of inflation, and it’s easy to see why fears of a downturn have risen swiftly.”

Polls show a majority of Americans see inflation as the top problem facing the country. Consumer sentiment has plunged and US President Joe Biden’s approval ratings have sunk as Republicans criticise him over the issue.

In hearings in Washington this week, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said bringing down prices was the “number one priority”.

Over the month, prices gained 1%, driven by rising cost of petrol, which has hit new records in the US, approaching an average of nearly $5 a gallon.

Wages have not kept up with the rising prices. The rising cost of living has especially hit lower income households, for whom basics like food and energy make up large portions of spending.

By Natalie Sherman Business reporter, New York – BBC News

L’article Energy and food drive US inflation to highest for 40 years est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

African countries are innocent victims of the war in Ukraine and Russia should help ease their suffering, the head of the African Union has told Vladimir Putin at a meeting in Sochi.

After three hours of talks, Macky Sall said the Russian leader had promised to ease the export of cereals and fertiliser.

However, he did not give any details.

Prior to the conflict, more than 40% of wheat consumed in Africa came from Russia and Ukraine.

The war has exacerbated shortages caused by bad harvests and insecurity.

Food prices have shot up across the continent since Russian invaded Ukraine 100 days ago, pushing huge numbers towards hunger.

Chad has declared a national food emergency. A third of the population needs food aid, according to the UN and the government has appealed for international assistance

Mr Sall, who is Senegal’s president, told Mr Putin he should be “aware that our countries, even if they are far from the theatre [of action], are victims of this economic crisis” caused by the conflict.

He said he was also pleading on behalf of other countries like “Asia, the Middle East and also Latin America”.

Mr Putin said exports could either go through the Black Sea port of Odessa “which is difficult because Ukrainians have to clear mines” or via the Russia-controlled port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, the AFP news agency quotes Mr Sall as saying.

Ukraine’s ports in the Black Sea have been largely blocked for exports since the conflict began.

Russia’s defence ministry says that vessels carrying grain can leave Ukraine’s ports in the Black Sea via “humanitarian corridors”, with Russia ready to guarantee their safety, Reuters quotes the Interfax news agency as saying. However, it is not clear how these corridors would work.

Before the meeting, Mr Putin said he was always on the side of Africa, but didn’t explicitly mention the continent’s food crisis.

Like many African countries, Senegal has avoided taking sides in the conflict and the Senegalese leader also said food supplies should be “outside” the West’s sanctions on Russia. He said he had made this point when he spoke to the European Council earlier in the week.

On Friday, US President Joe Biden dismissed the idea that the West bore responsibility for the global price rises.

“This is a Putin price hike. Putin’s war has raised the price of food because Ukraine and Russia are two of the world’s major bread baskets for wheat and corn, the basic product for so many foods around the world,” he said.

World Opinions + BBC News

L’article Africa is victim of Ukraine war, Macky Sall tells Vladimir Putin est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Amazon has defeated activists hoping to establish the company’s first unionised warehouse in the US.

Workers at the Bessemer, Alabama warehouse voted 1,798 to 738 against the effort, labour officials said.

That represented a majority of votes cast in the contest, which was seen as a key test for Amazon after global criticism of its treatment of workers during the pandemic.

The union said it would challenge the results.

It accused Amazon of interfering with the right of employees to vote in a “free and fair election”, including by lying to staff about the implications of the vote in mandatory meetings and pushing the postal service to install a mailbox on company grounds in an effort to monitor the vote.

“Amazon has left no stone unturned in its efforts to gaslight its own employees,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), which organised the effort.

“We won’t let Amazon’s lies, deception and illegal activities go unchallenged, which is why we are formally filing charges against all of the egregious and blatantly illegal actions taken by Amazon during the union vote.”

Amazon said on Friday that it was “not true” that it had intimidated staff.

It said the firm worked hard to listen to concerns and improve, casting the outcome as a choice by staff, rather than a company victory.

“We’re not perfect, but we’re proud of our team and what we offer, and will keep working to get better every day,” it said.

World Opinions News – BBC.COM

L’article Amazon defeats historic Alabama union effort est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

In a statement, Amazon apologised ‘unconditionally to anyone who felt hurt’ after its political drama Tandav allegedly offended Hindu viewers.

Amazon.com Inc’s Prime Video streaming service on Tuesday issued a rare apology to its Indian viewers for some scenes in its original political drama series Tandav, which allegedly offended Hindu religious beliefs.

Tandav, a Hindi word meaning “fury”, stars top Bollywood actors. In several states, it has faced police complaints and court cases alleging the show had depicted Hindu gods and goddesses in a derogatory manner and offended religious beliefs. Lawmakers from India’s ruling nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party have also criticised it.

In a statement titled “Amazon Prime Video Apologizes”, the company on Tuesday said it deeply regrets that viewers considered certain scenes to be objectionable.

Amazon apologises “unconditionally to anyone who felt hurt,” it said, adding that the company will continue to develop content while respecting the diversity of audiences’ culture and beliefs.

The Tandav controversy escalated last week when police in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh questioned one of Amazon’s top executives for hours in one case filed against the show.

Asked about the company apology, a senior state police official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said authorities would continue investigating the matter.

Shows on streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime have often faced complaints in India for obscenity or offending beliefs, but the latest controversy involving the Amazon show Tandav is among the highest-profile cases.

An Indian media and entertainment industry executive said Amazon’s apology was unprecedented and showed that big US conglomerates can capitulate to political or cultural demands. The executive spoke on condition of anonymity.

In January 2020, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos attended a Prime Video event in Mumbai with Bollywood stars and announced it would double down on its investments. He said Prime Video was doing well globally “but nowhere it’s doing better than India”.

India is a critical growth market for Amazon, where it has committed investments of $6.5bn, with interests in e-commerce, video streaming, cloud computing and other areas.

Amazon is currently also facing calls for a ban after Reuters news agency reported last month that the US firm had for years given preferential treatment to a small group of sellers on its India website and used them to circumvent the country’s strict foreign investment regulations.

SOURCE : REUTERS

L’article Amazon apologises to Indian viewers over Tandav controversy est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.