Showing posts sorted by date for query XIAOMI. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query XIAOMI. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, November 29, 2025

Ozymandias on the Potomac: American Decline in the Fossil Fuel Age

By the time Donald Trump leaves office in 2029, this country will be distinctly on the imperial decline amid fast-paced changes that will make electric vehicles universal and solar-powered electricity an economic imperative.



U.S. President Donald Trump speaks alongside coal and energy workers during an executive order signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House on April 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)















LONG READ


Alfred W. Mccoy
Nov 28, 2025
TomDispatch

At the dawning of the British Empire in 1818, the romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley penned a memorable sonnet freighted with foreboding about the inevitable decline of all empires, whether in ancient Egypt or then-modern Britain.

In Shelly’s stanzas, a traveler in Egypt comes across the ruins of a once-monumental statue, with “a shattered visage lying half sunk” in desert sands bearing the “sneer of cold command.” Only its “trunkless legs of stone” remain standing. Yet the inscription carved on those stones still proclaims: “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” And in a silent mockery of such imperial hubris, all the trappings of that awesome power, all the palaces and fortresses, have been utterly erased, leaving only a desolation “boundless and bare” as “the lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Taken too literally, those verses might lead us to anticipate some future traveler finding fragments of St. Paul’s Cathedral scattered on the banks of the Thames River in London or stones from the Washington Monument strewn in a kudzu-covered field near the Potomac. Shelley is, however, offering us a more profound lesson that every empire teaches and every imperialist then forgets: Imperial ascent begets an inevitable decline.

Imperial Washington

Indeed, these days Donald Trump’s Washington abounds with monuments to overblown imperial grandeur and plans for more, all of which add up to an unconvincing denial that America’s global imperium is facing an Ozymandias-like fate. With his future Gilded Age ballroom meant to rise from the rubble of the White House’s East Wing, his plans for a massive triumphal arch at the city’s entrance, and a military parade of tanks and troops clanking down Constitution Avenue on his birthday, who could ever imagine such a thing? Not Donald Trump, that’s for sure.

In a celebration of his “works” that are supposedly making the “mighty despair” in foreign capitals around the world, his former national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien, has recently argued in Foreign Affairs that the president’s “policy of peace through strength” is reversing a Democrat-induced decline of U.S. global power. According to O’Brien, instead of crippling NATO (as his critics claim), President Trump is “leading the biggest European rearmament of the postwar era”; unleashing military innovation “to counter China”; and proving himself the “indispensable global statesman by driving efforts to bring peace to… long-standing disputes” in Gaza, the Congo, and, quite soon, Ukraine as well. Even in North America, according to O’Brien, Trump’s attempt to acquire Greenland has forced Denmark to expand its military presence, putting Russia on notice that the West will compete for control of the Arctic.

As it happens, whatever the truth of any of that may be, the policy elements that O’Brien cites are certain to prove largely irrelevant to the ceaseless struggle for geopolitical power among the globe’s great empires. Or, to borrow a favorite Trumpian epithet from the president’s “cornucopia of crudeness,” in the relentless, often ruthless world of grand strategy, none of those factors amounts to a hill of “shit.”

Indeed, O’Brien’s epic catalogue of Trump’s supposed foreign policy successes cleverly avoids any mention of the central factor in the rise and fall of every dominant world power for the past 500 years: energy. While the United States made genuine strides toward a green energy revolution under President Joe Biden, his successor, the “drill, baby, drill” president, has seemed determined not just to destroy those gains, but to revert to dependence on fossil fuels “bigly,” as Trump would say. In a perplexing paradox, President Trump’s systematic attack on alternative energy at home will almost certainly subvert America’s geopolitical power abroad. How and why? Let me explain by dipping my toes in a bit of history.

For the past five centuries, the rise of every global empire has rested on an underlying transformation (or perhaps revolution would be a more accurate word for it) in the form of energy that drove its version of the world economy. Innovation in the basic force behind its rising global presence gave each successive hegemonic power — Portugal, Spain, England, the United States, and possibly now China — a critical competitive advantage, cutting costs and increasing profits. That energy innovation and the lucrative commerce it created infused each successive imperium with intangible but substantial power, impelling its armed forces relentlessly forward and crushing resistance to its rule, whether by local groups or would-be imperial rivals. Although scholars of imperial history often ignore it, energy should be considered, as I argued in my book To Govern the Globe, the determinative factor in the rise and fall of every global hegemon for the past five centuries.

Iberia’s Mastery of Muscle

In the fifteenth century, the Iberian powers — Portugal and Spain — manipulated the ocean winds and maximized the energy output of the human body, giving them new forms of energy that allowed their arid lands and limited populations to conquer much of the globe. By replacing the square sail of lumbering Mediterranean ships with a triangular sail, agile Portuguese vessels like the famed caravela de armada doubled their capacity to tack close to the wind, allowing them to master the world’s oceans.

By 1500, Portuguese warships had navigation instruments that allowed them to cross the widest bodies of water, sails to beat into the strongest headwinds, a sturdy hull for guns and cargo, and lethal cannons that could destroy enemy fleets or breach the walls of port cities. As a result, a small flotilla of Portuguese caravels soon conquered colonies on both sides of the South Atlantic Ocean and seized control of Asian sea lanes from the Red Sea to the Java Sea.

For the next three centuries, such sailing ships would transport 11 million African captives across the Atlantic to work as slaves in a new form of agriculture that was both exceptionally cruel and extraordinarily profitable: the sugar plantation. The output of Europe’s free yeoman farmers was then constrained by the limits of the individual body and the temperate climate’s short six-month growing season. By contrast, enslaved laborers, massed into efficient teams in tropical latitudes, were driven year-round to the brink of death and beyond to extract unprecedented productivity and profits from those plantations. Indeed, even as late as the nineteenth century, the U.S. southern slave plantation was, according to an econometric analysis, 35% more efficient than a northern family farm.

After developing the sugar plantation, or fazenda, as a new form of agribusiness on small islands off the coast of Africa in the fifteenth century, the Portuguese brought that system to Brazil in the sixteenth century. From there, it migrated to European colonies in the Caribbean, making that cruel commerce synonymous with the slave trade for nearly four centuries. So profitable was the slave plantation for its owners that, unlike almost every other form of production, it did not die from natural economic causes but would instead require the full force of the British navy to do it in.

The Dutch Harness the Winds

But the true masters of wind power would prove to be the Dutch, whose technological prowess would allow their small land, devoid of natural resources, to conquer a colonial empire that spanned three continents. In the seventeenth century, the Dutch drive for scientific innovation led them to harness the winds as never before, building sailing ships 10 times the size of a Portuguese caravel and windmills that, among other things, replaced the tedious hand sawing of logs to produce lumber for shipbuilding. With giant sails spanning over 90 feet, a five-ton shaft generating up to 50 horsepower, and several sawing frames with six steel blades each, a windmill’s four-man crew could turn 60 tree trunks a day into uniform planks to maintain the massive Dutch merchant fleet of 4,000 ocean-going ships.

By 1650, the Zaan district near Amsterdam, arguably Europe’s first major industrial area, had more than 50 wind-driven sawmills and was the world’s largest shipyard, launching 150 hulls annually (at half the cost of English-built vessels). Many of these were the Dutch-designed fluitschip, an agile three-masted cargo vessel that cut crew size, doubled sailing speed, and could carry 500 tons of cargo with exceptional efficiency.

Through its commercial acumen and mastery of wind power, tiny Holland defeated the mighty Spanish empire in the Thirty Years War (1618-48), then fought the British to a standstill in three massive naval wars, while building an empire that reached around the world — from the Spice Islands of Indonesia to the city of New Amsterdam on the island of Manhattan.

When Coal Was King

As Holland’s commercial empire began to fade, however, Great Britain was already launching an energy transition to coal-fired steam energy that would leave the wind and muscle power of the Iberian age in the dust of history. And the industrial revolution that went with it would build the world’s first truly global empire.

The Scottish inventor James Watt perfected the steam engine by 1784. Such machines began driving railways in 1825 and the Royal Navy’s warships in the 1840s. By then, an armada of steam engines was transforming the nature of work worldwide — driving sawmills, pulling gang plows, and sculpting the earth’s surface with steam shovels, steam dredges, and steam rollers. Between 1880 and 1900, the number of steam engines in the United States would triple from 56,000 units to 156,000, accounting for 77% of all American industrial power. To fuel that age of steam and steel, Britain’s coal production climbed to a peak of 290 million tons in 1913, while worldwide production reached 1.3 billion tons.

Coal was the catalyst for an industrial revolution that fused steam technology with steel production to make Britain the master of the world’s oceans. From the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 until the outbreak of World War I in 1914, tiny Britain with just 40 million people would preside over a global empire that controlled a quarter of all humanity directly through colonies and another quarter indirectly through client states. In addition to its vast territorial empire, Britannia ruled the world’s waves, while its pound sterling became the global reserve currency, and London the financial center of the planet.

America’s Petrol-Powered Hegemony

Just as Britain’s imperial age had coincided with its coal-driven industrial revolution, so Washington’s brand-new world order focused on crude oil to feed the voracious energy needs of its global economy. By 1950, in the wake of World War II, the U.S. petrol-powered economy was producing half the world’s economic output and using that raw economic power for commercial and military dominion over most of the planet (outside the Sino-Soviet communist bloc).

By 1960, the Pentagon had built a nuclear triad that gave it a formidable strategic deterrent, as five nuclear-powered submarines armed with atomic warheads trolled the ocean depths, while 14 nuclear-armed aircraft carriers patrolled the world’s oceans. Flying from 500 U.S. overseas military bases, the Strategic Air Command had 1,700 bombers ready for nuclear strikes.

As American automobile ownership climbed from 40 million units in 1950 to 200 million in 2000, the country’s oil consumption surged from 6.5 million barrels daily to a peak of 20 million. During those same decades, the federal government spent $370 billion to cover the country with 46,000 miles of interstate highways, allowing cars and trucks to replace railroads as the ribs of the nation’s transportation infrastructure.

To drive the carbon-fueled economy of Washington’s world order, there would be a dramatic, five-fold increase in the global consumption of liquid fossil fuels during the last half of the twentieth century. As the number of motor vehicles worldwide kept climbing, crude oil rose from 27% of global fossil-fuel consumption in 1950 to 44% by 2003, surpassing coal to become the world’s main source of energy.

To meet this relentlessly rising demand, the Middle East’s share of global oil production climbed from just 7% in 1945 to 35% in 2003. As the self-appointed guardian of the Persian Gulf whose vast oil reserves represented some 60% of the world’s total, Washington would become embroiled in endless wars in that tumultuous region, from the Gulf War of 1990-91 to its present-day interventions in Israel and Iran.

Whether thanks to Britain’s coal-fired factories or America’s auto traffic, all those carbon emissions were already producing signs of global warming that, by the 1990s, would set alarm bells ringing among scientists worldwide. From the “pre-industrial” baseline of 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1880, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere kept climbing to 410 ppm by 2018, resulting in the rising seas, devastating fires, raging storms, and protracted droughts that came to be known as global warming.

As evidence of the climate crisis became undeniable, the world’s nations responded with striking unanimity by signing the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement to cut carbon emissions and surge investments into alternative energy that soon yielded significant breakthroughs in both cost and efficiency. Within four years, the International Energy Agency predicted that dramatic drops in the cost of solar panels meant that solar energy would soon be “the new king of the world’s electricity markets.” Indeed, as technology slashed the cost of battery storage and solar panels, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported in 2024 that the solar generation of electricity had become 41% cheaper than fossil fuels, while offshore wind was 53% cheaper — a truly significant disparity that will, as technology continues to slash the cost of solar energy, render the use of coal and natural gas for electricity an economic irrationality, if not an utter absurdity.

In the game of empires, seemingly small margins can have large consequences, often marking the difference between dominance and subordination, success and failure — whether the 35% advantage of enslaved over free labor, the 50% cost advantage for Dutch sailing craft over British ones, and now a 41% savings for solar over fossil fuels. Moreover, the day is fast coming when fossil-fuel electricity will cost more than twice as much as alternative energy from solar and wind power.

To assure America’s economic future, the administration of President Joe Biden began investing trillions of dollars in alternative energy by building battery plants, encouraging massive wind and solar projects, and continuing a consumer subsidy to sustain Detroit’s transition to electric vehicles. In January 2025, however, Donald Trump entered the White House (again) determined to roll back the global green revolution. After quitting the Paris climate accord and labeling climate change a “hoax” or “the green new scam,” President Trump has halted construction of major offshore wind projects, ended the subsidy for electric vehicle purchases, and opened yet more federal lands for coal and oil leases. Armed with extraordinary executive powers and a single-minded determination, he will predictably delay, if not derail, America’s transition to alternative energy, missing market opportunities and undercutting the country’s economic competitiveness by chaining it to overpriced fossil fuels.

China’s Green-Energy Ride to Global Power

While Washington was demolishing America’s green energy infrastructure, Beijing has been working to make China a global powerhouse for alternative energy. Ten years ago, its leaders launched a “Made in China 2025” program to storm the heights of the global economy by becoming the world leader in 10 strategic industries, eight of which involved some aspect of the green-energy transformation, including “new materials,” “high-tech ships,” “advanced railways,” “energy-saving and new energy vehicles,” and “energy equipment.” Those “new materials” include China’s virtual monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are absolutely critical to the manufacturing of the key components for renewable energy — specifically, wind turbines, solar panels, energy storage systems, electric vehicles, and hydrogen extraction. In sum, Beijing is already riding the green energy revolution in a serious bid to become the world’s “leading manufacturing superpower” by 2049, while erasing America’s economic edge and its global hegemony in the bargain.

So, you might ask, have any of those seemingly pie-in-the-sky plans already become an economic reality? Given China’s recent progress in key energy sectors, the answer is a resounding yes.

Under its economic plan, China has already come to dominate the world’s solar power industry. In 2024, it cut the wholesale price of its solar panel exports in half and nearly doubled its exports of panel components. To replace its old export “trio” of clothing, furniture, and appliances, Beijing has mandated a “new trio” of solar panels, lithium batteries, and electric cars. And to put what’s happening in perspective, imagine that, in just the month of May, China installed enough wind and solar energy to power a country as big as Poland, reaching an impressive figure that represents half the world’s “total installed solar capacity.” By 2024, China was already producing at least 80% of the world’s solar panel components, dominating the global market, and undercutting would-be competitors in Europe and the U.S. Driving all that explosive growth, China’s investment in clean energy has reached nearly $2 trillion, representing 10% of its gross domestic product, and has been growing at three times the rate of its overall economy, meaning it would soon account for a full 20% of its entire economy.

With similar determination, its electric vehicles (EVs) are now beginning to capture the global car market. By 2024, 17.3 million electric cars were made worldwide, and China produced 70% of them. Not only are Chinese companies opening massive robotic assembly plants worldwide to crank out such cars by the millions, but they are also making the world’s cheapest and best cars — with the YangWang U9-X hitting a world speed record of 308 miles per hour; BYD’s latest plug-in hybrid models, priced at only $13,700 and capable of traveling a record 1,200 miles on a single charge and single tank of gas; the YangWang U8 with a capacity to literally drive across water; and the Xiaomi SU-7 displaying a high-tech driver interface that makes a Tesla look like a Ford Pinto.

Since an EV is just a steel box with a battery, technology will soon allow low-cost electric vehicles to completely eradicate gas guzzlers, enabling China to conquer the global car market — with full electric cars like the self-driving BYD Seagull sedan already priced at $8,000, models like BYD’s Han with a 5-minute charge time that’s faster than pumping a tank of gas, and sedans like the Nio ET7 with a standard range on a single charge of 620 miles. And most of that extraordinary technological progress has happened in less than four years, essentially the time remaining in Donald Trump’s second term in office.

An Agenda for America’s Economic Future

By discouraging alternative energy and encouraging fossil fuels, President Trump is undercutting America’s economic competitiveness in the most fundamental way imaginable. Amid an historic transformation in the world’s energy infrastructure (comparable in scope and scale to the coal-fired industrial revolution), the United States will spend the next three years under his watch digging coal and burning oil and natural gas, while the rest of the industrial world follows China as it pursues technological innovation to the furthest frontiers of the human imagination. Indeed, the latest annual report from the world’s energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency, states bluntly that the transition away from fossil fuels is “inevitable” as the world, “led by a surge in cheap solar power in… the Middle East and Asia,” installs more green energy capacity in the next five years than it has in the last 40 combined.

By the time Donald Trump leaves office in 2029, this country will be distinctly on the imperial decline amid fast-paced changes that will make electric vehicles universal and solar-powered electricity an economic imperative. And just as the Dutch used energy technology to capture their imperial moment in the seventeenth century, so the Chinese will undoubtedly do the same in this century.

After all, how can the United States produce competitive products, even for domestic consumption (much less export), if our costs for energy, the basic component of every economic activity, become double those of our competitors? Simply put, it won’t be possible.

If, however, when Donald Trump’s term in office is done, this country moves quickly to recover its capacity for economic rationality, it should be able to regain some version of its place in the world economy. For once the United States rejoins the green energy revolution, it can use its formidable engineering ingenuity to accelerate the development of this transformative technology — simultaneously reducing the CO2 emissions that are choking the planet and securing the livelihoods of average American workers in the bargain.


© 2023 TomDispatch.com


Alfred W. Mccoy
Alfred W. McCoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is the author of "In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power". Previous books include: "Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation" (University of Wisconsin, 2012), "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (American Empire Project)", "Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State", and "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade".
Full Bio >





Saturday, November 22, 2025

Memory chip crunch set to drive up smartphone prices


By AFP
November 20, 2025


While AI-led demand is surging, chip-makers are also winding back spending on capacity, which is keeping prices elevated - Copyright AFP STR


Katie Forster

Shoppers could face higher prices for phones, laptops and other gadgets next year, manufacturers and analysts warn, as AI data centres hoover up memory chips used in consumer electronics.

The world’s biggest tech companies are ploughing head-spinningly huge sums into building the hardware that powers artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT.

Their insatiable demand is snarling up a supply chain kept tight on purpose by chipmakers who are keen to avoid price drops that dent profits, experts say.

In 2026, supply chain pressure for memory chips “will be far greater than this year”, Lu Weibing, president of Chinese electronics giant Xiaomi, said this week.

“Everyone will likely observe that retail prices for products will see a significant increase,” he told an earnings call.

William Keating, head of semiconductor and tech consulting firm Ingenuity, expects the same.

“All companies that manufacture PCs, smartphones, servers etc will be impacted by the shortage,” Keating told AFP.

“End result: consumers will pay more.”

In high demand are key chips known as DRAM and storage components called NAND, which are found in everyday gadgets but are also needed to help process the vast amounts of data crunched by generative AI.

That’s driving up memory chip prices, which in turn is turbocharging revenue for the firms that produce them such as South Korea’s Samsung and SK hynix, and Micron and SanDisk in the United States.

“AI-related server demand keeps growing, and this demand significantly exceeds industry supply,” Kim Jae-june of Samsung Electronics said last month.

– ‘Keep prices high’ –

Samsung said Sunday that it plans to build a new semiconductor plant in South Korea to meet the soaring demand, while SK hynix recently reported its best-ever quarterly performance, “driven by the full-scale rise in prices of DRAM and NAND”.

Industry analysts TrendForce have lowered their 2026 global production forecasts for smartphones and notebook laptops.

“The memory industry has begun a robust upward pricing cycle,” which “forces downstream brands to hike retail prices,” TrendForce said.

Cars may also be affected, although Keating noted that a smaller portion of their tech relies on memory chips.

Last week China’s largest contract chipmaker SMIC said customers were hesitant to place orders owing to uncertainty over how many phones, cars, or other products the memory chip industry can supply.

The cause of the shortage is two-fold.

AI-driven demand is greater than anticipated, but memory chip makers have also been “drastically cutting” spending on expanding capacity in recent years, Keating explained.

“Keep capacity tight, keep prices high is basically their mantra,” he said.

“They’ve done this deliberately to ensure that there’s no repeat of the most recent memory price collapse, which cost the memory makers tens of billions in losses.”

Price jumps for memory chips “are huge and the trend is continuing”, said Stephen Wu, founder of the Carthage Capital investment fund.

“Consumers and enterprises should expect higher memory prices, longer lead times, and more take-or-pay contracts through at least early 2026,” Wu said.

Thursday, November 20, 2025

 Memory chip crunch set to drive up smartphone prices



By AFP
November 20, 2025


While AI-led demand is surging, chip-makers are also winding back spending on capacity, which is keeping prices elevated - Copyright AFP STR


Katie Forster

Shoppers could face higher prices for phones, laptops and other gadgets next year, manufacturers and analysts warn, as AI data centres hoover up memory chips used in consumer electronics.

The world’s biggest tech companies are ploughing head-spinningly huge sums into building the hardware that powers artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT.

Their insatiable demand is snarling up a supply chain kept tight on purpose by chipmakers who are keen to avoid price drops that dent profits, experts say.

In 2026, supply chain pressure for memory chips “will be far greater than this year”, Lu Weibing, president of Chinese electronics giant Xiaomi, said this week.

“Everyone will likely observe that retail prices for products will see a significant increase,” he told an earnings call.

William Keating, head of semiconductor and tech consulting firm Ingenuity, expects the same.

“All companies that manufacture PCs, smartphones, servers etc will be impacted by the shortage,” Keating told AFP.

“End result: consumers will pay more.”

In high demand are key chips known as DRAM and storage components called NAND, which are found in everyday gadgets but are also needed to help process the vast amounts of data crunched by generative AI.

That’s driving up memory chip prices, which in turn is turbocharging revenue for the firms that produce them such as South Korea’s Samsung and SK hynix, and Micron and SanDisk in the United States.

“AI-related server demand keeps growing, and this demand significantly exceeds industry supply,” Kim Jae-june of Samsung Electronics said last month.

– ‘Keep prices high’ –

Samsung said Sunday that it plans to build a new semiconductor plant in South Korea to meet the soaring demand, while SK hynix recently reported its best-ever quarterly performance, “driven by the full-scale rise in prices of DRAM and NAND”.

Industry analysts TrendForce have lowered their 2026 global production forecasts for smartphones and notebook laptops.

“The memory industry has begun a robust upward pricing cycle,” which “forces downstream brands to hike retail prices,” TrendForce said.

Cars may also be affected, although Keating noted that a smaller portion of their tech relies on memory chips.

Last week China’s largest contract chipmaker SMIC said customers were hesitant to place orders owing to uncertainty over how many phones, cars, or other products the memory chip industry can supply.

The cause of the shortage is two-fold.

AI-driven demand is greater than anticipated, but memory chip makers have also been “drastically cutting” spending on expanding capacity in recent years, Keating explained.

“Keep capacity tight, keep prices high is basically their mantra,” he said.

“They’ve done this deliberately to ensure that there’s no repeat of the most recent memory price collapse, which cost the memory makers tens of billions in losses.”

Price jumps for memory chips “are huge and the trend is continuing”, said Stephen Wu, founder of the Carthage Capital investment fund.

“Consumers and enterprises should expect higher memory prices, longer lead times, and more take-or-pay contracts through at least early 2026,” Wu said.

burs-kaf/dan


Smartphone sharing demands a new approach to cybersecurity



 Does your partner know the password to your phone? Probably. A study by Griffith University researchers reveals that 70 per cent of Australians share access to their phone with their partner, despite dominant cybersecurity guidelines 




Griffith University

70% share access 

image: 

70% share access

view more 

Credit: ACCAN

 

A study by Griffith University researchers reveals that 70 per cent of Australians share access to their phone with their partner, despite dominant cybersecurity guidelines advising the opposite.

Professor of Criminology and Criminal JusticeMolly Dragiewicz, who led the study with Dr Jeffrey Ackerman and research assistant Marianne Haaland, said the most common reasons for smartphone sharing were positive, but that does not guard against negative impacts.

“People usually share for convenience, out of trust, and to help each other,” Professor Dragiewicz said.

“However, if one partner turns out to be abusive later on, shared access can be dangerous.”

In fact, 20 per cent of identity theft perpetrators identified by Australian police are current or former intimate partners or individuals related to an ex-partner.

In addition, technology-facilitated abuse is a common component of coercive control.

The report’s findings show that younger people are more likely to share, suggesting this is a growing issue. 

Professor Dragiewicz argues that the one-user/one-device threat model created for commercial and government contexts is inadequate for addressing interpersonal cybersecurity risks.

Phone and app design can help to reduce the risks by using Safety by Design, as recommended by the Australia’s eSafety Commissioner.

“Cybersecurity advice and design based on not sharing your device or credentials are a really bad fit with how people actually use their phone.

The first step in Safety by Design is understanding how technology is used in real life,” Professor Dragiewicz said.

The study was made possible by a grant from the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN).

Thursday, September 04, 2025

OPINION

Chinese checkers


Mahir Ali 
September 3, 2025
DAWN


AFICIONADOS of spectacular martial displays will no doubt find today’s military parade in Beijing considerably more impressive than the one that marked 250 years of the US Army (as well as Donald Trump’s birthday) in Washington not too long ago.

Narendra Modi won’t be there, perhaps because saluting China’s military prowess just five years after border clashes, and barely four months after Chinese technology gave Pakistan an edge in the post-Pahalgam hostilities, would not have played well at home. But at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Tianjin over the weekend, he was holding hands with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping on what was the Indian prime minister’s first visit to China in seven years.

Apart from talks with Xi, he spent more than 45 minutes in Putin’s limousine. Obviously, we don’t know what they discussed. There was never much of a chance that Modi (if he was so inclined) could sway the Russian president from his aggression against Ukraine. The Chinese leader, meanwhile, held out the prospect of partnership in place of rivalry, and Modi expressed no disagreement.

This could be notched up as yet another triumph for the first seven months of Trump’s presidency. The non-alignment that India’s first PM judiciously favoured has left its marks, notwithstanding all of the relatively recent hostility against ‘Nehruvian socialism’.

While maintaining cordial ties with three US administrations, Jawaharlal Nehru was also attached to the idea of friendship with the Soviet Union and China. There have been fractures over the decades with Washington and Beijing, but the Moscow connection has survived the demise of the USSR.

China knows how to play the long game.


Russia, however, wasn’t a key source of crude oil until the sanctions following its attack on Ukraine. The irony is that until last year the US pretty much encouraged India to purchase Russian crude to maintain oil prices, and had no objection to the refined product being sold on to Europe or America, so that they could claim they weren’t buying it from Russia. The largest refinery belongs to Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries, which helps to explain why a sudden halt to Russian imports would be a non-starter for the crony capitalism that has helped to sustain the BJP regime.

Previous US presidents wooed India as a counter-balance to China, as part of a strategy that has only persuaded the latter to extend its military prowess. Trump presumably knows that China imports more Russian crude than India, yet his aides have described the Ukraine conflict as ‘Modi’s war’ and derided India as a ‘laundromat’ for Russia. That’s absurd, given that Moscow would be disinclined to shift its aggressive stance as long as Beijing and Delhi are on board. The Ukraine war would not screech to a halt if India stopped purchasing Russian oil.

It might be different if China withdrew its support from Russia, but that too is unlikely. Inadvertently or otherwise, the US has facilitated rapprochement between India and China. ‘Hindi-Cheeni bhai bhai’ might remain a historical memory, but the South Asian region would no doubt benefit from unexpected bonhomie between the world’s two most populous powers. The days of ‘Howdy Modi’ and ‘Namaste Trump’ seem to be long gone.

Around the time of Trump’s second inauguration, a global poll indicated that India was among the very few Global South nations that saw his return to power as positive. Opinions have been shifting, though, and even the 52 per cent of Indians who approved of Trumpianism in June might be differently inclined after the 50pc tariffs threatening to strangle India’s economy.

That’s yet an­­ot­her obstacle in the path of India’s economic illusions, and it re­­m­ains to be seen whe­ther a prospective partnership with China mi­­ght prove transformative. But Modi is also struggling domestically, after the disappointing last election and credible accusations of fraud. That may seem Trumpian in some ways, but the US and India are very different entities.

Both Modi and Trump benefit from largely ineffectual oppositions. That might change, and the aftermath could remain troublesome. It must be said, though, that Modi’s reported refusal to chat with Trump over the phone was more assertive than Pakistan’s deference to Washington. Neither side has offered a credible explanation for why the war stopped. Whatever the details, the outcome stretches beyond regional circumstances.

China’s transcendence might be a long time coming, but, unlike Trump, Xi knows how to play the long game. Could a better world order emerge?

It’s not impossible, but the scant mention in the Tianjin agenda of the genocide in Gaza and beyond serves as yet another reminder that trade trumps transgressions against human rights. China’s trajectory as a US rival remains shrouded in mystery, but Trump might solve it sooner than we expect.

mahir.dawn@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, September 3rd, 2025



Multilateral world order


Zahid Hussain 
 September 3, 2025 
DAWN
The writer is an author and journalist.

IT was the largest gathering of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, with leaders of Eurasian nations seeking to establish a more just and equitable multilateral system as an alternative to a crumbling West-dominated world order. The recently concluded SCO summit in the Chinese city of Tianjin brought together countries with competing interests in times of great turmoil in global governance.

Initially formed as a security cooperation group over two decades ago, the SCO has evolved into a formidable forum for trade and economic development. Described as ‘SCO-Plus’, the conference was attended by more than 20 heads of state and government, as well as leaders of international organisations. The Tianjin summit reinforced China’s leading role in the emerging multilateral international order.

In his speech, President Xi Jinping called for “equal and orderly multipolarisation”. The Chinese leader stressed the need for the organisation to work towards a “more just and equitable global governance system” and urged regional leaders to shun a “Cold War mentality”.

It was pointed out that member states faced complicated security and development challenges in a “chaotic and intertwined” world. These remarks set the tone of the conference. His speech indicated China’s emphasis on geo-economics and connectivity.

As per media reports, “The organisation covers approximately 24 per cent of global land area and 42pc of the world’s population, with member states accounting for roughly one-quarter of global GDP and trade increasing nearly 100-fold in two decades.” China’s trade with SCO members, observers and dialogue partners reportedly totalled $890 billion in 2024. Donald Trump’s reckless trade war has massively increased SCO’s potential, as the bloc provides an alternative to America’s economic domination.

The Tianjin summit reinforced China’s leading role in the emerging international order.

The conference also brought the leaders of Pakistan and India face-to-face for the first time after their four-day conflict in May that had pushed the two nuclear-armed nations close to a wider conflagration. The tension was palpable with the two leaders not even shaking hands, let alone any possibility of meeting on the sidelines. Pakistan’s offer for a dialogue on all disputed matters between the two countries had gone unheeded by the Indian prime minister.

Without taking names, both leaders accused the other of perpetrating terrorist activities in their respective countries. New Delhi has hardened its position and does not want any bilateral talks with Islamabad after it was humiliated during its military action against Pakistan. India’s belligerence remains the main source of tension, hampering regional economic and trade cooperation. There seems to be no change in its stance despite foreign policy setbacks.

However, the conference provided an opportunity for China and India to ease the tensions in their relationship. It was the first trip of the Indian prime minister to China in seven years. Relations between the world’s two most populous nations remained strained after bloody border clashes in 2019 following India’s unilateral and illegal decision to annex the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir and declare Ladakh as federal territory.

Although a ceasefire has been in place for some time, other issues have continued to strain their relationship. India has been part of a US-led anti-China coalition in the Indo-Pacific region. But the latest dispute with the Trump administration on trade tariffs seems to have forced India to mend fences with China. Interestingly, the 50 per cent tariff on exports to the US had come into force just before the summit. Once America’s so-called strategic ally, India now faces some of the highest tariffs imposed by the US. This factor, together with political reasons, has caused relations to sour between Washington and Delhi.

Although the Chinese and Indian leaders agreed they were not “rivals but partners in development”, unresolved issues remain between them, which can widen the existing trust deficit. These include the border dispute, which the Chinese president indicated should be put aside to focus on improved trade and economic relations.

Interestingly, despite their strained relations over the past years, trade between the two countries in 2024-2025 totalled $118bn, though with India’s trade deficit with China reaching $99.2bn.

The thaw in their relations has already resulted in the resumption of direct flights between the two countries and improved business environment. But China’s strategic relations with Pakistan continue to cast a shadow over any further breakthrough.

The summit also reinforced Russia’s return to the global stage after being ostracised by the West for invading Ukraine. President Putin blamed the West for triggering the war. The Russian president has also been invited to the military parade in Beijing this week to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War (World War II) and the founding of the United Nations. “It is a milestone prompting us to remember the past and create a better future together,” declared President Xi.

The gathering of leaders and observers from across Eurasia reflected the emerging alignment in the shifting sands of regional geopolitics. The bloc represents the emerging power of the Global South, which is challenging the unjust Western international global order.

The Tianjin Declaration, issued after the two-day parleys, reaffirmed the commitment to sustainable international peace and called for joint efforts to counter traditional and new security challenges. While resolving to fight against terrorism, separatism and extremism, the conference recognised the leading role of sovereign states and their competent authorities in countering terrorist and extremist threats.

The conference also adopted a 10-year SCO Development Strategy, which “defines the priority tasks and main directions for deepening multifaceted cooperation in the interests of ensuring peace and stability, development and prosperity in the SCO space”.

After the summit concluded, President Xi had a bilateral meeting with Pakistan’s prime minister and his delegation in Beijing, reaffirming the strategic and economic partnership between the two countries. They also agreed to initiate the second phase of CPEC. The SCO provides a great opportunity for Pakistan’s economic development.

zhussain100@yahoo.com

X: @hidhussain

Published in Dawn, September 3rd, 2025



To dump West, embrace BRICS

India has 800m on food dole, signalling the contradiction between its right-wing government shored up by big money and people’s priorities.

Jawed Naqvi 
September 2, 2025
DAWN

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.



BY habit, the choreographed Indian crowd began to chant “Modi Modi” at an event for the Indian prime minister’s two-day visit to China. The Chinese hosts, on the other hand, greeted him with a knowledgeable display of Indian classical music, something Indians would struggle to reciprocate if it ever came to that. There’s a trade deficit, and there’s evidently a cultural deficit too. Three sari-clad Chinese women performed Vande Mataram, an Indian nationalist favourite, in Rag Desh on the sitar and santoor as the third kept rhythm on the tabla. But there are more urgent reasons than China’s showcasing its soft power to woo a pro-America Narendra Modi, on an emotional rebound, to make a compelling case for BRICS. Dumping the Western capitalist model that has spawned wars and exploitative sanctions is a need that preceded the dismantling of the USSR.

Western perfidy targets friend and foe alike if business interests clash. The malaise is older than Donald Trump. Among my early observations in this regard was the West’s betrayal of Kuwait before Saddam Hussein was hustled into completing the job. 

The story goes back to the 1987 stock market crash when the Thatcher government was in the process of selling its remaining 31.5 per cent stake in BP. The crash threatened to derail this massive sale, potentially costing the treasury billions. The Kuwait Investment Office, the investment arm of the Kuwaiti sovereign wealth fund, stepped in to bail out the UK. It began purchasing BP shares on the open market. Initially, the UK government was pleased. The KIO’s buying provided crucial support to the BP share price, helping to ensure the success of the government’s own share sale. In a short time, the KIO had acquired a 21.6pc stake in BP, making it by far the largest shareholder. The UK government’s stake was now zero.

Suddenly, Margaret Thatcher’s government was uncomfortable with a controlling stake being held by a foreign government, even a friendly one. A 21.6pc stake gave Kuwait significant power and the idea of a major British icon falling under effective control of an OPEC member state was politically toxic, even for a pro-market government like Thatcher’s.

Thatcher formally instructed the KIO to reduce its holding. They were ordered to sell down their stake to no more than 9.9pc. The government made it clear that if Kuwait did not comply voluntarily, it would use its legal and regulatory powers to force the issue, potentially damaging diplomatic relations and Kuwait’s other investments in the UK. Kuwait, a close ally that relied on Western protection, ultimately complied to maintain good relations.

What happened with Pakistan’s prestigious BCCI bank was not entirely dissimilar. The CIA acknowledged using the major international bank as a conduit to secretly fund the Afghan mujahideen. The job done, the bank turned into an object of envy for the West. To quote Shakespeare, the West was mocking the very meat it had fed upon. BCCI was not the cleanest bank and lent itself to narratives of corruption, fraud, drug peddling and money laundering. But here’s the rub. Major Western banks have paid billions in penalties for knowingly laundering drug money. They never had to shut down.

A US Senate investigation found that a Western bank had systemically laundered at least $881 million for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels over years. The bank moved bulk cash from its Mexican subsidiary to the US, bypassing money laundering controls. The concerned bank avoided criminal prosecution and paid a $1.9bn fine, a sum widely criticised as a ‘slap on the wrist’ given the scale of the crimes and the bank’s profits. In the 2008 financial crisis and mortgage-backed securities fraud, multiple American banks paid tens of billions in penalties for packaging and selling toxic mortgage-backed securities they knew were likely to fail, while simultaneously betting against them. This fraud triggered the global financial crisis. But they were politically protected unlike Pakistan’s bank. The BCCI had dared to challenge Western monopoly and suffered for it. BCCI was the first truly major global bank from the developing world. Its rapid growth, aggressive strategy, and ability to woo clients away from traditional Western banks caused resentment and unease. This meant it had fewer powerful friends in the financial capitals of London and New York to defend it when trouble started.

In a similar vein, the ongoing targeting of Huawei and other prominent Chinese tech firms like ZTE, TikTok and Xiaomi is indeed a central piece of this pattern. Adding Huawei to the analysis of the Indian situation reveals a spectrum of tactics used by Western powers, primarily the US, when dealing with rising non-Western competitors.

The botched efforts that have been made to dismantle states like Russia, Venezuela and Iran to lay them open to Western carpetbaggers are well known. Much of the Middle East from Libya to Yemen has suffered for that and more.

Capitalism is driven by private profit and has congenital aversion to social welfare. India has 800m on food dole, signalling the contradiction between its right-wing government shored up by big money and people’s priorities.

Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani, two leading Indian tycoons, are in trouble with the US, one for alleged bribery to woo American investors, the other for defying Donald Trump’s fiat against importing Russian oil. The two led the pack of Gujarati businessmen in 2013 to nominate Modi as their prime ministerial candidate for the 2014 elections. Modi thanked them and did what he does best.

He saw Uttar Pradesh burst into a communal frenzy on election eve to give himself an easy ride to power. The Adani-Ambani crony conundrums are serious issues and Indians should address them with political power rather than leaving them open to Western manipulation. BRICS is just the platform to gear up for the fight, preferably with fewer Modi chants.

jawednaqvi@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, September 2nd, 2025