South Korea's Minister of Health and Welfare Cho Kyu-hong said at a press conference on the 8th local time that after comprehensively considering the suggestions of frontline interns and the situation on the front line of medical care, the government decided that from that day on, all interns and residents who resigned would not be given administrative sanctions such as revoking their medical licenses. Cho Kyu-hong also said that for interns and residents who have returned to work and those who have resigned and are preparing to re-register for internship courses in September, the government will make special cases to try to minimize the internship gap and not affect the relevant doctors from obtaining specialist medical licenses. Cho Kyu-hong said that the government believes that in order to minimize the diagnosis and treatment gaps for critically ill and emergency patients and ensure the smooth training process of interns and residents, it is in the public interest, so it has made a decision not to punish interns and residents who resigned. It is hoped that major hospitals will complete the resignation processing of doctors who have not returned to work before July 15 and determine the scale of vacancies. Previously, large general hospitals in South Korea, such as Seoul National University Hospital, Yonsei University Severance Hospital, and Seoul Asan Medical Center, suspended or limited their medical services in an effort to cancel all penalties against interns and residents.

On July 8, Ukrainian President Zelensky, who was visiting Poland, and Polish Prime Minister Tusk signed a bilateral security agreement in Warsaw, the capital of Poland. The agreement clearly states that Poland will provide support to Ukraine in air defense, energy security and reconstruction. After signing the agreement, Tusk said that the agreement includes actual bilateral commitments, not "empty promises." Previously, the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other countries as well as the European Union signed similar agreements with Ukraine.

Apple is planning to revamp its smartwatch as its 10th birthday nears. The improvements include larger displays and thinner builds, Bloomberg reported. The revamped watches may also get a new chip, which could enable some AI enhancements. The Apple Watch is about to turn 10, so Apple is planning a birthday revamp, including larger displays and thinner builds, Bloomberg reported. Both versions of the new Series 10 watches will have screens similar to the large displays found on the Apple Watch Ultra, the report said. The revamped watches are also expected to contain a new chip that may permit some AI enhancements later on. Last month, Apple pulled back the curtain on its generative-AI plans with Apple Intelligence. Advertisement It hopes the artificial-intelligence features will prove alluring enough to persuade consumers to buy new Apple products. The announcement has been generally well received by Wall Street. Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote in a Monday note that the "iPhone 16 AI-driven upgrade could represent a golden upgrade cycle for Cupertino." "We believe AI technology being introduced into the Apple ecosystem will bring monetization opportunities on both the services as well as iPhone/hardware front and adds $30 to $40 per share," he added. Apple's stock closed on Friday at just over $226 a share, up 22% this year and valuing the company at $3.47 trillion. That puts it just behind Microsoft, which was worth $3.48 trillion at Friday's close. The tech giants have been vying for the title of the world's most valuable company in recent months — with the chipmaker Nvidia briefing claiming the crown last month. Apple also announced some software updates for the watch at its Worldwide Developers Conference last month. The latest version of the device's software, watchOS 11, emphasizes fitness and health, introducing tools that allow users to rate workouts and adjust effort ratings. WatchOS 11 will also use machine learning to curate the best photos for users' displays. Apple has previously used product birthdays to release new versions of devices. The iPhone X's release marked the 10th anniversary of the smartphone. However, it's not clear exactly when Apple plans to release the revamped watches, Bloomberg said. The company announced the Apple Watch in September 2014, with CEO Tim Cook calling it "the most personal product we've ever made." Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment made outside normal working hours.

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.

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