In the past few weeks of anti-government activities in Kenya, AI tools have been creatively used by protesters to serve protests. According to the US "Flag" News Agency on July 5, protests in Kenya triggered by the 2024 fiscal bill are still continuing. In the past few weeks, Kenyan protesters, mainly young people, have creatively developed a series of AI tools to assist anti-government activities. The Kenyan government expressed concern about the risks associated with the use of AI tools in protests. Kelvin Onkundi, a software engineer in Kenya, developed the "Fiscal Bill GPT", which operates similarly to ChatGPT and can receive questions about the fiscal bill and generate responses. Martin Siele, a reporter from the "Flag" News Agency, analyzed: "The 'Fiscal Bill GPT' can convert professional terms in many legislative fields into easy-to-understand information for protesters, helping Kenyans understand the potential impact of the fiscal bill." Another software engineer, Marion Kavengi, developed the "SHIF GPT" to provide Kenyans with information about the upcoming Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF). In addition to AI tools designed to help people understand controversial policies, protesters have also developed "Corrupt Politicians GPT" to assist protest demonstrations. After entering the name of a politician on the platform, the platform will generate a list of corruption scandals about the politician in chronological order. Developer BenwithSon wrote on the social platform X on June 28: "'Corrupt Politicians GPT' allows people to search for any scandal related to any politician. I have seen some leaders stand at the forefront of the political arena, but they are corrupt behind the scenes." Kenyan Chief Minister and Foreign Minister Mudavadi issued a communiqué to ambassadors of various countries in Nairobi on July 2 local time on protests and relevant government measures, expressing concerns about the use of AI and false information in protests. Mudavadi said: "AI technology is used by people with ulterior motives, which will fill the global information system with false narratives." The Kenya Times reported on June 30 that AI technology enables people to force the government to increase transparency and strengthen accountability, and its role in Kenyan political activities is becoming increasingly prominent. Martin Siller believes that AI is reshaping African political behavior in many ways. AI is a new tool for both governments and opposition parties in Africa, but Kenya is one of the African countries with the most developers, and its young protesters are particularly good at using AI technology to fight the government. The 2024 fiscal bill voted and passed by the Kenyan National Assembly on June 25 clearly stated that additional taxes will be levied to repay the interest on high sovereign debt, triggering large-scale demonstrations. After President Ruto announced the withdrawal of the tax increase bill on the evening of the 26th, demonstrations in many parts of Kenya continued. According to Reuters on July 3, Kenyan anti-government protesters are re-adjusting their activities to prevent the protests from turning into violent incidents.

The June US Nonfarm Payrolls (NFP) data showed an increase of 206,000 jobs, exceeding expectations. Political uncertainty and the People's Bank of China's pause in gold purchases influence gold market dynamics. Recent technical developments in the gold market, including breaking the triangle formation and subsequent rally, indicate the potential for higher prices. Despite a bullish outlook, further consolidation is possible before a significant surge. The recent US Nonfarm Payrolls (NFP) data revealed a rise of 206,000 jobs in June, surpassing the market expectation of 190,000, despite a downward revision from 272,000 to 218,000 for May. The unemployment rate increased to 4.1% and the wage inflation declined to 3.9% year-over-year. These mixed employment signals have increased the likelihood of a rate cut by the Federal Reserve in September. Additionally, political developments in France, where the left-wing New Popular Front led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon is poised to win a significant number of seats, add to the global economic uncertainty. Meanwhile, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has paused its gold purchasing program, potentially waiting for a further price pullback. These factors collectively influence gold prices, providing a complex backdrop where the prospect of lower interest rates, political uncertainty, and central bank purchasing strategies are likely to drive market dynamics and investor behaviour in the coming months. Bullish Trends in Gold Prices The announcement of the NFP data has dropped the US Dollar Index and boosted gold prices. Since the gold market broke the triangle formation on Wednesday and formed an inside candle on Thursday, the break above Thursday's high on Friday initiated a strong rally, closing the price at higher levels. The red line was the first resistance of this breakout where the gold closed the last week. A clear break above this level may initiate another surge higher. The breakout of the triangle suggests higher prices, but the risk environment remains, as June was a correction month. It looks like the price is preparing for higher levels, but the possibility of consolidation before the surge cannot be ignored. Bottom line In conclusion, the increase in US employment, despite mixed signals in wage inflation and unemployment, has increased the likelihood of a Federal Reserve rate cut, boosting gold prices while weakening the US Dollar Index. Political uncertainties in France and the pause in gold purchases by the People's Bank of China further contribute to the complex economic landscape, indicating potential volatility ahead. The gold market's recent technical developments, including breaking the triangle formation and the subsequent rally, suggest readiness for higher prices. However, the possibility of consolidation before another significant surge remains, necessitating careful observation by investors as the market navigates these multifaceted influences.

A couple of days ago, a Quad summit meeting in Sydney scheduled for May 24 was abruptly canceled. The US president had to pull out of his long-anticipated trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Instead, the heads of the four Quad member states got together on the margins of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. The main reason for the change of plans was the continuous struggle between the White House and Republicans on the Hill over the national debt ceiling. If no compromise is reached, the US federal government might fail to meet its financial commitments already in June; such a technical default would have multiple negative repercussions for the US, as well as for the global economy and finance at large. Let us hope that a compromise between the two branches of US power will be found and that the ceiling of the national debt will be raised once again. However, this rather awkward last-minute cancellation of the Quad summit reflects a fundamental US problem - a growing imbalance between the US geopolitical ambitions and the fragility of the national financial foundation to serve these ambitions. The Biden administration appears to be fully committed to bringing humankind back to the unipolar world that existed right after the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago, but the White House no longer has enough resources at its disposal to sustain such an undertaking. As they say in America: You cannot not have champagne on a beer budget. The growing gap between the ends that the US seeks in international relations and the means that it has available is particularly striking in the case of the so-called dual containment policy that Washington now pursues toward Russia and China. Even half a century ago, when the US was much stronger in relative terms than it is today, the Nixon administration realized that containing both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously was not a good idea: "Dual containment" would imply prohibitively high economic costs for the US and would result in too many unpredictable political risks. The Nixon administration decided to focus on containing the Soviet Union as the most important US strategic adversary of the time. This is why Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the first US-China summit in February 1972 leading to a subsequent rapid rapprochement between the two nations. In the early days of the Biden administration, it seemed that the White House was once again trying to avoid the unattractive "dual containment" option. The White House rushed to extend the New START in January 2021 and held an early US-Russia summit meeting five months later in Geneva. At that point many analysts predicted that Biden would play Henry Kissinger in reverse - that is he would try to peace with the relatively weaker opponent (Moscow) in order to focus on containing the stronger one (Beijing). However, after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it became clear that no accommodation with the Kremlin was on Biden's mind any longer. Still, having decided to take a hard-line stance toward Moscow and to lead a broad Western coalition in providing military and economic assistance to Kiev, Washington has not opted for a more accommodative or at least a more flexible policy toward Beijing. On the contrary, over last year one could observe a continuous hardening of the US' China policy - including granting more political and military support to the Taiwan island, encouraging US allies and partners in Asia to increase their defense spending, engaging in more navel activities in the Pacific and imposing more technology sanctions on China. In the meantime, economic and social problems within the US are mounting. The national debt ceiling is only the tip of an iceberg - the future of the American economy is now clouded by high US Federal Reserve interest rates that slow down growth, feed unemployment and might well lead to a recession. Moreover, the US society remains split along the same lines it was during the presidency of Donald Trump. The Biden administration has clearly failed to reunite America: Many of the social, political, regional, ethnic and even generational divisions have got only deeper since January 2021. It is hard to imagine how a nation divided so deeply and along so many lines could demonstrate continuity and strategic vision in its foreign policy, or to allocate financial resources needed to sustain a visionary and consistent global leadership. Of course, the "dual containment" policy is not the only illustration of the gap between the US ambitions and its resources. The same gap inevitably pops up at every major forum that the US conducts with select groups of countries from the Global South - Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle East. The Biden administration has no shortage of arguments warning these countries about potential perils of cooperating with Moscow or Beijing, but it does not offer too many plausible alternatives that would showcase the US generosity, its strategic vision, and its true commitment to the burning needs of the US interlocutors. To cut it short, Uncle Sam brings lots of sticks to such meetings, but not enough carrots to win the audience. In sum, US foreign policy under President Joe Biden reminds people of a very advanced and highly sophisticated smartphone that has a rather weak battery, which is not really energy efficient. The proud owner of the gadget has to look perennially for a power socket in order not to have the phone running out of power at any inappropriate moment. Maybe the time has come for the smartphone owner to look for another model that would have fewer fancy apps, but a stronger and a more efficient battery, which will make the appliance more convenient and reliable.

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.