On July 8, local time, former British Prime Minister Sunak announced the appointment of the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet, which is the first shadow cabinet of the Conservative Party in 14 years. Several former British cabinet members during Sunak's tenure as prime minister were appointed to the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet, including James Cleverly as Shadow Home Secretary and Jeremy Hunt as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. But former Foreign Secretary Cameron was not appointed as Shadow Foreign Secretary. In addition, the new leader of the Conservative Party will be elected as early as this week. On July 4, the UK held a parliamentary election. The counting results showed that the British Labour Party won more than half of the seats and won an overwhelming victory; the Conservative Party suffered a disastrous defeat, ending its 14-year continuous rule.

US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) - U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott Associates on Tuesday urged a London court to overturn a verdict supporting the London Metal Exchange's (LME) cancellation of nickel trades partly because the exchange failed to disclose documents. The LME annulled $12 billion in nickel trades in March 2022 when prices shot to records above $100,000 a metric ton in a few hours of chaotic trade. Elliott and market maker Jane Street Global Trading brought a case demanding a combined $472 million in compensation, alleging at a trial in June last year that the 146-year-old exchange had acted unlawfully. London's High Court ruled last November that the LME had the right to cancel the trades because of exceptional circumstances, and was not obligated to consult market players prior to its decision. Lawyers for Elliott told London's Court of Appeal that the LME belatedly released documents in May detailing its "Kill Switch" and "Trade Halt" internal procedures. It also newly disclosed an internal report that Elliott said detailed potential conflicts of interest at the exchange. "It was troubling that one gets disclosure out of the blue in the Court of Appeal for the first time," Elliott lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk told the court. Jane Street Global did not appeal the ruling. "If we had had them (documents) in the proceedings before the divisional court, we may well have sought permission to cross examine." LME lawyers said the new documents were not relevant. "The disclosed documents do not affect the reasoning of the divisional court or the merits of the arguments on appeal," the exchange said in documents prepared for the appeal hearing. "Elliott's appeal is largely a repetition of the arguments which were advanced, and rightly rejected." The LME said it had both the power and a duty to unwind the trades because a record $20 billion in margin calls could have led to at least seven clearing members defaulting, systemic risk and a potential "death spiral". Elliott said the ruling diluted protection provided by the Human Rights Act and also wrongly concluded the LME had the power to cancel the trades.

On Monday, executives from the three major chip giants in the US - Intel, Qualcomm, and Nvidia - met with US officials, including Antony Blinken, to voice their opposition to the Biden administration's plan of imposing further restrictions on chip sales to Chinese companies and investments in China. The Semiconductor Industry Association also released a similar statement, opposing the exclusion of US semiconductor companies from the Chinese market. First of all, we mustn't believe that the appeals of these companies and industry associations will collectively change the determination of US political elites to stifle China's progress. These US elites are very fearful of China's rapid development, and they see "chip chokehold" as a new discovery and a successful tactic formed under US leadership and with the cooperation of allies. Currently, the chip industry is the most complex technology in human history, with only a few companies being at the forefront. They are mainly from the Netherlands, Taiwan island, South Korea, and Japan, most of which are in the Western Pacific. These countries and regions are heavily influenced by the US. Although these companies have their own expertise, they still use some American technologies in their products. Therefore, Washington quickly persuaded them to form an alliance to collectively prevent the Chinese mainland from obtaining chips and manufacturing technology. Washington is proud of this and wants to continuously tighten the noose on China. The New York Times directly titled an article "'An Act of War': Inside America's Silicon Blockade Against China, " in which an American AI expert, Gregory Allen, publicly claimed that this is an act of war against China. He further stated that there are two dates that will echo in history from 2022: The first is February 24, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, and the second is October 7, when the US imposed a sweeping set of export controls on selling microchips to China. China must abandon its illusions and launch a challenging and effective counterattack. We already have the capability to produce 28nm chips, and we can use "small chip" technology to assemble small semiconductors into a more powerful "brain," exploring 14nm or even 7nm. Additionally, China is the world's largest commercial market for commodity semiconductors. Last year, semiconductor procurement in China amounted to $180 billion, surpassing one-third of the global total. In the past, China had been faced with the choice between independent innovation and external purchases. Due to the high returns from external purchases, it is easy for it to become the overwhelming choice over independent research and development. However, now the US is gradually blocking the option of external purchases, and China has no strategic choice but to independently innovate, which in turn puts tremendous pressure on American companies. Scientists generally expect that, although China may take some detours, such as recently apprehending several company leaders who fraudulently obtained subsidies from national semiconductor policies, China has the ability to gradually overcome the chip difficulties. And we will form our own breakthroughs and industrial chain, which is expected to put quite a lot of pressure on US companies. If domestic firms acquire half of China's $180 billion per year in chip acquisitions, this would provide a significant boost for the industry as a whole and help it advance steadily. The New York Times refers to the battle on chips as a bet by Washington. "If the controls are successful, they could handicap China for a generation; if they fail, they may backfire spectacularly, hastening the very future the United States is trying desperately to avoid," it argued. Whether it is a war or a game, when the future is uncertain, what US companies hope for most of all is that they can sell simplified versions of high-end chips to China, so that the option of external purchases by China continues to exist and remains attractive. This can not only maintain the interests of the US companies, enabling them to obtain sufficient funds to develop more advanced technologies, but also disrupt China's plans for independent innovation. This idea is entirely based on their own commercial interests and also has a certain political and national strategic appeal. Hence, there is no shortage of supporters within the US government. US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen seems to be one of them, as she has repeatedly stated that the US' restrictions on China will not "fundamentally" hurt China, but will only be "narrowly targeted." The US will balance its strict suppression on China from the perspective of maintaining its technological hegemony, while also leaving some room for China, in order to undermine China's determination to counterattack in terms of independent innovation. China needs to use this mentality of the US to its advantage. On the one hand, China should continue to purchase US chips to maintain its economic fundamentals, and on the other hand, it should firmly support the development of domestic semiconductor companies from both financial and market perspectives. If China were to continue relying on exploiting the gaps in US chip policies in the long term, akin to a dependency on opium, it would only serve to weaken China further as it becomes increasingly addicted. China's market is extremely vast, and its innovation capabilities are generally improving and expanding. Although the chip industry is highly advanced, if there is one country that can win this counterattack, it is China. As long as we resolutely continue on the path of independent innovation, this road will definitely become wider. Various breakthroughs and turning points that are unimaginable today may soon occur.

The returner of the Chang'e-6 lunar probe is opened during a ceremony at the China Academy of Space Technology under the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation in Beijing, capital of China, June 26, 2024. The returner of the Chang'e-6 lunar probe was opened at a ceremony in Beijing on Wednesday afternoon. During the ceremony at the China Academy of Space Technology under the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, researchers opened the returner and examined key technical indicators. Photo: Xinhua As the US space industry recently faced yet more delays and stagnation with key components including manned spacecraft and space suits "going wrong," NASA has once again resorted to its "sour grapes" rhetoric upon seeing China's successful retrieval of fresh lunar soils from the far side of the moon, by claiming that China did not directly invite its scientists to participate in the lunar soil research. This behavior is a typical blame-shifting trick, Chinese experts said, noting it is clear to all that it is the US' own laws, not China, that are restricting space cooperation between the two sides. Instead of deceiving themselves by distorting the truth, the US should face up to its own problem of overall weakening engineering capability and the lack of long-term planning in its space industry. After the Chang'e-6 samples, weighing nearly 2 kilograms, were safely transported to a special laboratory for further study on Friday, NASA spokesperson Faith McKie told media that while China worked with the European Space Agency, France, Italy and Pakistan on this mission, "NASA wasn't invited to take part in the moon probe." NASA also didn't get "any direct invitation" to study China's moon rocks, after it welcomed all scientists from around the world to apply to study them, McKie told NatSec Daily. Responding to the remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told the Global Times on Monday that China is open to having space exchanges with the US, and we also welcome countries around the world to take part in the study of lunar samples. "However, the US side seems to have forgotten to mention its domestic legislation such as the Wolf Amendment. The real question is whether US scientists and institutions are allowed by their own government to participate in cooperation with China," Mao said. "The existence of the Wolf Amendment has basically shut the door to space collaboration between the two countries," Wang Yanan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Monday. Even if research institutions of the US have the willingness to work with China on opportunities such as lunar sample research, institutions there must obtain special approval from the US Congress due to the presence of this amendment, Wang explained. Currently, no such "green light" is in sight from the Congress. Furthermore, China's collaboration with international partners is based on equality and mutual benefit, leveraging their respective scientific resources, facilities, and expertise. However, the US only wants what it doesn't have, and its engagement with China would be advantageous only to itself, Wang noted. NASA has found itself embroiled in a number of thorny issues recently, with the latest being Boeing's Starliner manned spaceship experiencing both helium leaks and thruster issues during a June 6 docking with the International Space Station (ISS), which led to an indefinite delay for its crew's return to Earth, despite NASA's insistence that they are not "stranded" in space. The return of the Starliner capsule, while has already been delayed by two weeks, will be put on hold "well into the summer" pending results of new thruster tests, which are scheduled to start Tuesday and will take approximately two weeks or even more, per NASA officials. Previously on June 24, NASA cancelled a spacewalk on the ISS following a "serious situation," when one of the spacesuits experienced coolant leak in the hatch. While being broadcast on a livestream, the astronauts reported "literally water everywhere" as they were preparing for the extravehicular activity, space.com reported. The report said that this is the second time this particular spacewalk was postponed, after a June 13 attempt with a different astronaut group was pushed back due to a "spacesuit discomfort." The recurring issues with the spacesuits are due to their much-extended service lifespan, media reported, as the puffy white ones US astronauts currently wear were designed more than 40 years ago. Despite the pressing need to replace them, NASA announced recently that it is abandoning a plan to develop next-generation spacesuits, which had been committed to be delivered by 2026, CNN reported on Thursday. One of the root causes for such problems is that the US has developed many large technology conglomerates, which for a long time have benefited significantly from government orders and industry monopolies. Consequently, in many complex engineering fields, the level of attention given is greatly insufficient, Wang noted. It also reflected the US' lack of long-term strategic planning for its manned space program. For instance, the ageing spacesuits should have been replaced a decade ago to ensure that operational suits remain in usable condition. Failure to address this issue results in a hindrance to the space station's necessary maintenance tasks and even poses life-threatening risks to astronauts in emergency situations, experts said. The issues with Boeing's spacecraft and the spacesuits are not isolated problems, but reflected a systemic issue in the US space industry - the overall weakening of engineering capabilities, they noted.