'Played it wrong, they panicked': Trump goads China as global trade war intensifies
Bangkok (AP): China announced Friday that it will impose a 34 per cent tax on all US imports next week, part of a flurry of retaliatory measures to US President Donald Trump's new tariffs that delivered the strongest response yet from Beijing to the American leader's trade war.
The tariffs taking effect Thursday match the rate that Trump this week ordered imposed on Chinese products flowing into the United States. In February and March, Trump slapped two rounds of 10 per cent tariffs on Chinese goods, citing allegations of Beijing's role in the fentanyl crisis.
The US stock market plunged Friday following China's retaliatory moves. They include more export controls on rare earth minerals, which are critical for various technologies, and a lawsuit at the World Trade Organization over what Trump has dubbed reciprocal tariffs.
China also suspended imports of sorghum, poultry and bonemeal from six US companies, added 27 firms to lists of companies facing trade restrictions, and launched an anti-monopoly investigation into DuPont China Group Co., a subsidiary of the multinational chemical giant.
Trump posted Friday on Truth Social: “CHINA PLAYED IT WRONG, THEY PANICKED - THE ONE THING THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO DO.”
Yet he also indicated he could still negotiate with China on the sale of TikTok even after Beijing pressed pause on a deal following the new tariffs. On Friday, he extended the deadline for the social media app to divest from its Chinese parent company, per a federal law, for another 75 days.
“We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs,” Trump posted on his social media site. “We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal.”
China's response to tariffs grows tougher
Beijing's response is “notably less restrained” than during the recent two rounds of 10 per cent tariffs on Chinese goods, and that “likely reflects the Chinese leadership's diminished hopes for a trade deal with the US, at least in the short term,” wrote Gabriel Wildau, managing director of the consultancy Teneo.
He said Beijing's tough response could trigger further escalation, with no sign that Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump might meet soon or get on the phone to ease the tensions.
If China's previous responses were scalpels, this time it drew a sword, said Craig Singleton, senior China fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based think tank.
“China's new tariffs stop short of full-blown trade war, but they mark a clear escalation — matching Trump blow-for-blow and signaling that Xi Jinping won't sit back under pressure,” Singleton said.
But the escalation also is squeezing out space for diplomacy, he warned.
“The longer this drags, the harder it becomes for either side to deescalate without losing face,” Singleton said.
What China's retaliatory measures look like
In Beijing, the Commerce Ministry said it would impose more export controls on rare earths — materials used in high-tech products such as computer chips and electric vehicle batteries. Included in the list was samarium and its compounds, which are used in aerospace manufacturing and the defense sector. Another element called gadolinium is used in MRI scans.
China's customs administration said it had suspended imports from two US poultry businesses after officials detected furazolidone, a drug banned in China, in shipments from those companies. It said it found high levels of mold in the sorghum and found salmonella in the bonemeal feeds from four other US companies.
The Chinese government said it also added 16 US companies to the export control list, subjecting them to an export ban of dual-use products. Among them are High Point Aerotechnologies, a defense tech company, and Universal Logistics Holding, a publicly traded transportation and logistics company.
An additional 11 US companies were added to the unreliable entity list, including the American drone makers Skydio and BRINC Drones, banning them from import and export activities as well as making new investments in China.
In announcing its WTO lawsuit, the Commerce Ministry said Trump's new tariffs move “seriously violates WTO rules, seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of WTO members, and seriously undermines the rules-based multilateral trading system and international economic and trade order.”
The ministry called the tariffs “a typical unilateral bullying practice that endangers the stability of the global economic and trade order.”
Beijing's previous tariff moves
In February, in response to Trump's first 10 per cent tariff, China announced a 15 per cent tariff on imports of coal and liquefied natural gas products from the US It separately added a 10 per cent tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery and large-engine cars.
A month later, Beijing responded to Trump's second round with additional tariffs of up to 15 per cent on imports of key US farm products, including chicken, pork, soy and beef. Experts then said Beijing exercised restraint, leaving room for negotiations with Washington.
By now, dozens of US companies are subject to controls on trade and investment, while many more Chinese companies face similar limits on dealings with US firms.
While friction on the trade front has been heating up, the two sides have maintained military dialogue.
US and Chinese military officials met this week for the first time Trump took office in January to share concerns about military safety on the seas. The talks held Wednesday and Thursday in Shanghai were aimed at minimizing the risk of trouble, both sides said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Liberal approach must be adopted while considering disability pension to army men: SC
New Delhi (PTI): Observing that a liberal approach must be adopted while construing beneficial provisions, the Supreme Court has granted disability pension to an army man who was relieved from the service as he was suffering from "Schizophrenia."
The top court noted that the decision of the authority to discharge a serviceman is based on a medical report which is devoid of reasons.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh said the requirement to give reasons by the Medical Board is crucial, critical, decisive and necessary for granting or denying disability pension.
The apex court said it is not a mere formality, but a necessary material based on which the pension sanctioning authority has to decide about the grant or refusal of disability pension.
"Accordingly, in our opinion, if the serviceman is discharged from service or denied the disability pension on the basis of a medical opinion which is devoid of reasons, it would strike at the root of the action taken by the authority, and such action cannot be sustained in law.
"We, therefore, hold that if any action is taken by the authority for the discharge of a serviceman and the serviceman is denied disability pension on the basis of a report of the Medical Board wherein no reasons have been disclosed for the opinion so given, such an action of the authority will be unsustainable in law," the bench said in its judgement dated May 7 which was uploaded today.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by an army man challenging an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, by which the appellant's claim for grant of disability pension was denied.
The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on November 17, 1988, as a sepoy, and after serving more than nine years, he was discharged from service on being diagnosed with Schizophrenia.
His discharge on medical invalidation was based on the opinion of the Invalidating Medical Board held on March 30, 1998, at the Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir which found that the onset of the invalidating disease was in August 1993 during which period the appellant had served in a peace station and that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and the said disease of the appellant was constitutional in nature and not connected with the service.
In its judgement, the top court said a much more liberal view needs to be adopted while dealing with the cases of discharge of servicemen from service on account of suffering from Schizophrenia as they may face several impediments and difficulties in proving the causal connection of the said disease with the military service.
"We must appreciate the fact that the provisions for grant of disability pension are in the nature of a beneficial scheme intended to provide succour to servicemen in hard times who have been discharged from service after having served the nation with dedication. Accordingly, a liberal approach must be adopted while construing such beneficial provisions," the bench said.
The apex court said in cases where the serviceman himself has not applied for discharge but has been discharged by the authority, the onus of proving the disability and grounds for denying the disability pension would lie heavily on the authority.
"Since it is the statutory requirement that the opinion of the Medical Board is to be the basis of the discharge, in our view, if the opinion of Medical Board is devoid of reasons, the act of the authority based on mere opinion sans reasons can certainly be questioned.
"According to us, if the decision of the authority to discharge a serviceman is based on a medical report which is devoid of reasons, which are required to be given as also mandated by rules as discussed above, such an act of the authority specially when it denies any post discharge benefit will be rendered invalid in the eyes of law," the bench said.
The court said it has noted that in the entire original record produced, there is no material for concluding that the appellant was suffering from Schizophrenia, which is in the nature of a constitutional personal disorder.
"Accordingly, we hold that the order of discharge of the appellant and denial of disability pension to him based on a medical opinion without providing full reasons to support the opinion cannot be said to be valid.
"The question which would arise for consideration now is whether we should remit the matter to the Medical Board at this stage for reconsideration in the light of our observations made above. We, however, feel that adopting the aforesaid course of action at this stage after about 27 years of the appellant being invalided from service on May 18, 1998, would not be in the interest of justice," the bench said.
The top court refused to disturb the order of discharge of the army man on the ground of medical invalidity due to Schizophrenia, but directed the authorities that he be granted disability pension with immediate effect with all attending benefits, as per rules.
However, the appellant will not be entitled to any arrears of invalid pension, except for the last three years, it said.
