Western Nations Mobilize Against China’s Oversupplied, Subsidized Steel Threat

Economic

China–U.S. Trade War

Summary:

Western countries are joining forces to protect their domestic steel industries from China’s heavily subsidized and oversupplied steel, amid warnings that global production will significantly exceed demand by 2027....

Global Steel Oversupply Sparks Coordinated Western Response

In response to mounting global steel overcapacity, Western governments have begun coordinating efforts to shield their domestic industries from an influx of underpriced steel products primarily from China. The urgency of the matter was underscored during the OECD Steel Committee meeting in Paris, where officials reached consensus on collective action to defend local manufacturing against unfair market distortions caused by excessive production and state subsidies.

According to the OECD, global steelmaking capacity is projected to exceed demand by 38% equivalent to 721 million tonnes by 2027. Over half of this supply is attributed to China, the world’s dominant steel producer. The scale of the imbalance has raised alarm across the United States, the European Union, Canada, and other OECD countries, especially as China is reported to offer subsidies up to ten times higher than the OECD average.

Policy Reactions: Tariffs, Quotas, and Strategic Barriers

In light of this projection, Western countries have escalated their defensive trade measures. The United States has imposed a 50% import tariff on foreign steel, while the European Union raised its tariff level from 25% to 50% and implemented tighter import quotas. Canada, meanwhile, maintains strict tariffs and quota systems targeting steel from non-FTA countries.

These protective policies reflect a significant departure from prior liberal trade norms. As Peter Brennan from UK Steel observed, “Free trade in steel is dead.” He emphasized that governments are now compelled to intervene to defend their strategic industries against the vast subsidized output emanating from China.

Labor Market At Risk: Economic And Employment Impacts

The ripple effect on employment is substantial. Eurometal representatives estimate that as many as 3 million jobs across the EU's industrial sectors could be at risk if subsidized steel continues to undermine the competitiveness of domestic producers. This concern adds urgency to Western coordination efforts and elevates the issue to the realm of economic security.

Some analysts have begun to draw parallels between this emerging collaboration and the unified Western response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. These coordinated trade defenses, they argue, could signal the early stages of a broader "Alliance of Democracies" aimed at defending global market fairness and strategic autonomy in industrial sectors.

China’s Rebuttal And Strategic Calculations

Beijing has rejected the overcapacity accusations, claiming that global supply-demand imbalances are being misinterpreted and that Western protectionist policies are unjustified. Nonetheless, major Chinese steelmakers have reportedly begun scaling back production in the first half of the year an implicit acknowledgment of global pressure, despite official denials.

China’s defense also hinges on the argument that its production helps meet legitimate demand from developing nations and that its exports are an integral part of global infrastructure development. Whether this argument holds under economic scrutiny or serves as a rationalization for flooding markets remains contested.

Causal Dynamics Behind Steel Protectionism

The move toward coordinated protectionism among Western countries is causally tied to perceived economic threats posed by China’s industrial policy, rather than merely correlational responses to cyclical market fluctuations. The magnitude of subsidies and the volume of steel exports from China have triggered not just trade friction but broader concerns over national security and supply chain independence.

These measures are also deeply connected to internal political pressures domestic manufacturers, labor unions, and policymakers have all demanded firmer trade defenses, especially in the wake of economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Multilateral Challenges and Unresolved Divisions

Looking ahead, the United States is slated to host the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity in 2026, an event expected to accelerate international alignment on steel policy. However, Western officials concede that significant divisions remain. There is currently no unified strategy on how to implement multilateral controls or enforce compliance in a fragmented global trade environment.

The lack of cohesion threatens to dilute the effectiveness of collective action. Unless a shared mechanism is established, the danger persists that individual countries might adopt conflicting strategies that weaken overall resistance to market distortion.

The battle over global steel is no longer just an economic issue it has evolved into a test of political will and strategic unity among democratic nations. As China continues to dominate global output with the backing of heavy subsidies, Western countries are increasingly inclined to build a coordinated front to protect not just their steel industries, but the very principles of equitable trade. Whether this nascent alignment will mature into a robust multilateral framework remains to be seen, but the groundwork is clearly being laid.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Tokyo Refutes Beijing’s Claims Over Taiwan Policy Shift

Tensions between Japan and China intensified on November 22 as Japan publicly rejected China’s accusations that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi had altered Tokyo’s long-held stance on the Taiwan Strait crisis. In response to a letter submitted by Beijing to the United Nations, Japan labeled the claims as “completely groundless,” emphasizing that Prime Minister Takaichi’s comments earlier this month were hypothetical in nature and did not represent a shift in official policy.

The accusation stemmed from Takaichi’s parliamentary address on November 7, in which she stated that a hypothetical Chinese assault on Taiwan located just over 100 kilometers from Japanese territory could constitute a threat to Japan’s survival. China responded forcefully, warning that any Japanese military involvement in the Taiwan Strait would be considered an act of aggression. It further pledged to seek international support in countering such actions.

Diverging Interpretations Fuel Diplomatic Confrontation

The current standoff underscores a widening gap in interpretation. While Beijing perceives Takaichi’s statement as a provocative signal of potential armed intervention, Japan insists it was a theoretical security scenario, consistent with its post-WWII pacifist constitution and security commitments. Senior Japanese government spokesperson Maki Kobayashi reiterated that Japan has "repeatedly explained" the context to Chinese counterparts and remains committed to maintaining open channels of communication.

However, despite Japan’s calls for dialogue, China has made it clear that no meeting between Prime Minister Takaichi and Premier Li Qiang was planned at the G20 Summit in Johannesburg. Their visible lack of engagement on November 22, captured in official photographs where the two leaders stood apart without interaction, reflected the diplomatic freeze.

Diplomatic Fallout Disrupts Economic Ties

The diplomatic impasse has already begun to reverberate through economic channels. In response to political tension, Chinese tourists have canceled trips to Japan, and Beijing has imposed bans on Japanese seafood imports a retaliatory measure previously linked to other geopolitical disputes.

Although economic interdependence between the two nations remains significant China is Japan’s largest trading partner and a crucial supplier of rare earth minerals vital to Japan’s auto industry these recent disruptions expose underlying vulnerabilities. Kobayashi acknowledged this, stating that while China remains a key rare earth source, Japan has been actively working to reduce its reliance. She noted that “peace and stability in trade relations are essential to national security,” underlining Tokyo’s strategic recalibration.

Causal Tensions Behind China’s Reactions

It is critical to distinguish between causality and correlation in this dispute. China’s sharp reaction appears causally tied to the perception of Japan drifting closer to U.S.-led strategic alignments in East Asia. While Japan frames its Taiwan-related comments as routine national security assessments, China interprets them as early signs of a policy transformation one that may embolden regional containment strategies against Beijing.

The cancellation of a scheduled trilateral cultural ministers' meeting between China, Japan, and South Korea further illustrates the consequences of this perception gap. Whether this is a correlation with broader U.S.-China tensions or a direct outcome of Takaichi’s comments remains a point of debate, but the escalation has had tangible diplomatic costs.

Japan’s dismissal of China's allegations marks a significant moment in the increasingly fraught relationship between Asia’s two largest economies. As strategic calculations around Taiwan and regional security continue to shift, both Tokyo and Beijing face the challenge of managing national interests without allowing rhetoric to derail crucial diplomatic and economic frameworks. While Japan advocates for dialogue and denies any deviation from its longstanding positions, China’s response suggests a deepening mistrust that may shape East Asian geopolitics in the months to come.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Macron Stresses Lack Of Readiness For Russia’s Reintegration Into G8

Speaking at the G20 Summit in Johannesburg on November 22, French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated his opposition to reinstating Russia within the Group of Eight (G8). Macron’s statement serves as a clear response to ongoing speculation regarding possible reintegration of Moscow into the Western-dominated economic forum, particularly amid evolving diplomatic discussions related to the war in Ukraine.

Despite mounting reports particularly from outlets like the Wall Street Journal that suggest the United States is exploring a conditional roadmap involving Russia’s reentry into the G8, Macron firmly stated that “the conditions are not ready.” He emphasized that such a decision demands unanimity among all current G7 members and clarified that France, although currently chairing the G7, does not intend to dictate terms to other countries. This illustrates a principled position that prioritizes collective consensus over unilateral leadership within multilateral frameworks.

Proposed U.S. Deal Sparks Cautious Reactions

The conversation regarding Russia’s return was sparked by U.S. proposals reportedly containing a 28-point peace initiative aimed at resolving the Ukraine conflict. The draft includes not only a phased lifting of sanctions structured on a country-by-country basis but also outlines prospective areas of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. These include shared development in artificial intelligence, energy collaboration, and rare earth mineral extraction in the Arctic.

Though the proposal appears strategically calibrated to offer long-term incentives for diplomatic compromise, its reception in Europe remains cautious. Macron’s remarks suggest that France, and possibly other G7 members, see the overture as premature in the absence of substantial changes in Moscow’s behavior or concrete de-escalation in Ukraine.

Kremlin’s Reserved Response

In Moscow, the proposal has been met with an equally measured stance. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov noted that Russia has yet to receive the U.S. proposal through any official diplomatic channels. His comments hint at a degree of skepticism regarding the proposal’s seriousness or its readiness for formal consideration. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed that Russia would issue a formal response once it obtains the official version of the document.

This cautious rhetoric from both Moscow and Paris underscores the tentative nature of the potential thaw. Although the suggested areas of cooperation point to long-term mutual strategic interests especially in technologically and resource-driven sectors neither side appears ready to shift from their current positions without clear and credible diplomatic groundwork.

Analyzing Political Alignment And Causal Factors

Macron’s resistance should be understood as more than symbolic. His remarks reflect a deeper alignment with existing G7 principles that tie membership to compliance with democratic norms and international law. France’s position appears causally linked to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and perceived violations of sovereignty, rather than a merely correlational alignment with U.S. initiatives.

The geopolitical calculus behind this resistance also signals broader concerns. Reintegration of Russia into the G8 without tangible concessions could fracture internal G7 unity, undermine sanctions credibility, and embolden further regional assertiveness. Macron’s emphasis on consensus and procedural legitimacy highlights the institutional norms that continue to underpin G7 operations, especially at a time of growing multipolar tension.

President Emmanuel Macron’s rejection of Russia’s immediate return to the G8 reflects a pragmatic and collective-minded approach to global diplomacy. While Washington may be exploring engagement strategies with Moscow, France remains committed to multilateral legitimacy and conditional progress. This posture signals that, absent significant shifts on the ground in Ukraine or formal diplomatic consensus, any talk of reintegration remains firmly hypothetical.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Strategic Escalation Against Venezuela

The United States is poised to enter a new phase of intervention concerning Venezuela, as confirmed by four American officials. Under the direction of President Donald Trump, the administration appears to be intensifying its approach, blending military presence with potential covert operations in the Caribbean region. This multifaceted response signals Washington’s renewed commitment to curbing what it alleges is a state-linked narcotics trafficking network operating under the leadership of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

The mobilization of U.S. naval forces underscores the seriousness of the Trump administration’s intent. On November 16, the U.S. Navy’s largest aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, joined a fleet that includes at least seven warships, a nuclear-powered submarine, and F-35 fighter jets in the Caribbean. Officially, these assets support anti-narcotics operations, yet the scale of the deployment exceeds the usual requirements for interdiction missions, suggesting broader strategic preparedness.

Since September, U.S. military forces have carried out no fewer than 21 strikes against vessels suspected of trafficking drugs in both the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean, resulting in the deaths of at least 83 individuals. Although Washington defends these actions as part of its war on drugs, human rights organizations have condemned them as extrajudicial killings. This response raises significant concerns regarding proportionality and adherence to international humanitarian law.

Alleged Links Between Maduro and Transnational Crime

At the core of this initiative is the Trump administration’s claim that Venezuela's top leadership is entangled in international drug trafficking. U.S. authorities have officially designated Cartel de los Soles a Venezuelan group allegedly composed of military officials as a foreign terrorist organization due to its purported role in smuggling narcotics into the U.S. President Trump has publicly accused Maduro of heading this cartel, an accusation that the Venezuelan president has categorically denied.

Such a designation is not merely symbolic. According to U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the terrorist label “opens up a whole new range of options,” implying expanded legal and military tools available for U.S. action. These may include financial sanctions, intelligence operations, and even targeted strikes under the umbrella of counterterrorism.

Diplomatic Channels Remain Open

Despite the escalation in rhetoric and military presence, Washington has not ruled out diplomatic engagement. Two U.S. officials confirmed that talks between Caracas and Washington are ongoing. President Trump himself stated that he remains open to diplomatic negotiations, illustrating a dual-track policy: one of pressure and deterrence, paralleled by conditional dialogue.

Further signaling its resolve, the U.S. in August increased the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million doubling the previous offer. This move adds financial incentive to the existing political and military pressure, targeting not only Maduro but also those within his inner circle who may consider defection or cooperation.

Nonetheless, this aggressive strategy has drawn concern from American allies. Some have warned that Washington's tactics may contravene international law, especially if covert operations or military actions are conducted without multilateral consensus or adherence to established legal frameworks.

Causal Versus Correlational Links in Strategy

It is important to distinguish the nature of the relationship between Maduro’s regime and the drug trade as framed by U.S. policymakers. The Trump administration presents a causal link asserting that Maduro’s leadership is directly responsible for narcotics trafficking. However, independent investigations have yet to publicly confirm the full extent of this connection, leaving room for debate on whether the observed overlap between political power and drug networks is a matter of correlation or direct orchestration.

The United States, under President Trump, appears to be pursuing a hybrid approach to Venezuela leveraging military strength, legal classification tools, financial incentives, and diplomatic overtures. This strategy reflects a broader American effort to reassert control over narcotics inflow while also challenging the legitimacy of Maduro’s regime on the world stage. However, the implications for international law, regional stability, and the human cost of intensified military actions remain subjects of critical scrutiny.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Political

Contingency Planning Signals Legal Vulnerability

On November 22, Bloomberg reported that the Trump administration is actively developing contingency plans in case the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates key tariffs imposed under emergency economic powers. Officials from both the Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative are reportedly reviewing fallback legal options to uphold tariffs critical to President Trump’s economic doctrine.

The alternative measures being considered include invoking Sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act, which provide the president with unilateral authority to impose tariffs. However, these tools present practical and legal limitations. Compared to the broad and flexible powers Trump has leveraged under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, these alternatives are narrower in scope and slower in execution, and could be challenged in court on different grounds.

Supreme Court Skepticism Raises Stakes

While the administration hopes for a favorable ruling, signs from recent court hearings suggest skepticism among justices regarding the use of IEEPA to justify sweeping tariff measures. The law, passed in 1977 to address national security threats, makes no explicit reference to tariffs. Its application to trade policy under Trump has therefore drawn legal scrutiny.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the logistical and legal implications of reversing the tariffs, particularly how the U.S. government might handle refund claims from importers who have already paid duties. Over $100 billion in tariffs could be at stake if the Court rules against the administration, though the timeline for a ruling remains unclear.

High Tariffs Remain Core to Trump’s Economic Agenda

Despite the legal uncertainty, the administration remains steadfast in its tariff-first trade strategy. A senior official told Bloomberg that tariffs will remain “central to the president’s economic plan” regardless of the Court’s decision. This determination reflects not just policy continuity but also a willingness to explore unconventional legal pathways to preserve the tariff regime.

President Trump echoed this resilience in a November 19 statement: “We’re waiting for the ruling. We hope it will go our way, but if it doesn’t, we’ll find a way. You know, we always find a way.” This language highlights the administration’s readiness to pivot legally and politically should it lose the current legal battle.

Global and Domestic Ramifications

The Court’s ruling could have wide-ranging consequences. If tariffs are upheld, it would affirm an expansive interpretation of presidential economic authority, reinforcing the legal basis for future unilateral trade actions. Conversely, if the tariffs are overturned or narrowed, it could trigger a wave of legal challenges and refund claims from affected importers.

For foreign governments and multinational companies, the legal ambiguity adds another layer of uncertainty to U.S. trade policy. A reversal could destabilize market expectations and require recalibration of export strategies, especially for countries previously targeted by Trump's tariffs.

Legal Maneuvering Reflects Deep Stakes in Trade Policy

The Trump administration’s quiet efforts to prepare a “Plan B” on tariffs reveal both its recognition of legal risk and its unwavering commitment to trade protectionism. While the Supreme Court has yet to rule, the mere existence of these contingency measures signals a readiness to maintain tariff authority through alternative laws if necessary.

As the legal confrontation unfolds, businesses and governments alike are bracing for ripple effects that could redefine U.S. trade enforcement. Whether through the courts or legal rerouting, the Trump administration appears determined to ensure that tariffs remain a defining feature of its economic playbook.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Commodity

Explosive Growth Fueled by Gold Price Rally

Thailand’s pawn industry is experiencing an unprecedented boom, closely tied to the dramatic rise in global gold prices. According to the Bangkok Post (November 21), pawnshops across the country especially those dealing in gold are reporting their highest profits in 20 years.

Leading private player Easy Money revealed that its total outstanding pawn loans reached 27 billion baht in the first ten months of 2025. The company expects this figure to rise to 29–30 billion baht by year-end, reflecting a 30% increase from 2024. Chairman Sittiwit Tangthanakiat attributed the surge directly to elevated gold prices, which have encouraged more customers to pawn their gold assets for liquidity without having to sell them permanently.

Financial Reports Reinforce the Gold-Pawn Connection

This pattern is confirmed by other firms in the sector. AURA, a financial company specializing in gold-backed lending, saw its gold-related receivables skyrocket from 1.9 billion baht in 2022 to 5.2 billion baht in early 2025. The company’s leadership echoed Easy Money’s view that rising gold valuations are the primary catalyst behind the growing appeal of pawn-based borrowing.

The boom isn’t limited to private enterprises. State-operated pawnshops, overseen by Thailand’s State Enterprise Policy Office (SEPO), have also reported a sharp rise in demand. SEPO Director Tibordee Wattanakul explained that most pledged assets are gold, prompting state-run outlets to double their loan limits from 100,000 to 200,000 baht to keep pace with market dynamics.

Alternative Credit Channel for a New Borrower Class

The profile of the modern pawnshop customer is also shifting. Many borrowers are now younger, self-employed individuals, such as online sellers and freelance workers, who lack access to traditional bank credit. These customers often turn to pawnshops to secure working capital for inventory purchases or short-term business expenses.

Experts highlight that gold’s liquidity and stable valuation during times of economic uncertainty make it an ideal asset for collateral. When gold prices rise, borrowers can receive higher loan amounts without needing to part with their assets, making pawnshops an attractive financial alternative during market volatility.

Sustainability and Expansion of the Pawn Model

Easy Money CEO Suthee Panaworn announced that the company plans to list on the Stock Exchange of Thailand within three years to fund further expansion. He expressed optimism about long-term industry prospects, predicting sustained growth over the next 5–10 years as Thai household income and asset ownership levels continue to rise.

Panaworn emphasized the model’s resilience, noting that most customers possess valuable assets and stable income streams that allow them to reclaim their pledges. This balance of liquidity and security supports the ongoing sustainability of the pawn-based lending system.

The Thai pawn sector’s resurgence offers a telling case study in how traditional financial models can thrive under modern economic pressures. Amid rising living costs and limited access to formal credit, pawnshops especially those dealing in gold are proving essential for financial inclusion. With gold prices showing no signs of retreat and consumer borrowing needs evolving, Thailand’s pawn industry is not just surviving it is redefining itself for a new generation of borrowers.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Trump Hints at Flexibility but Reasserts Pressure on Ukraine

On November 22, President Donald Trump confirmed that his 28-point peace plan to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict is not his final offer, signaling that negotiations remain open. While this admission suggests potential flexibility, it also underscores growing tension surrounding the plan’s content particularly its reported inclusion of territorial concessions from Ukraine to Russia.

When pressed by CNN on whether this was his definitive proposal, Trump replied, “No, it’s not my final offer,” implying that adjustments could be made. Yet, he doubled down on his expectation that Ukraine must eventually accept terms. "One way or another, we have to end it," he said, adding that if President Zelensky refuses the plan, "he can keep fighting hard."

This approach places Zelensky in a political bind: accept a peace plan that could involve ceding land and military reductions, or risk losing U.S. support while continuing a protracted war.

Territorial Concessions Spark Fears of Appeasement

The draft proposal, leaked shortly before U.S. and Ukrainian officials were set to meet in Geneva on November 23, reportedly includes significant compromises. These involve Ukraine renouncing aspirations to join NATO, reducing its military capabilities, and potentially giving up key territories currently claimed by Russia.

Such provisions have drawn heavy criticism from European allies and members of the U.S. Congress, who argue the plan risks legitimizing Russia’s aggression and setting a dangerous international precedent.

President Zelensky, in a nationwide address, described the plan as forcing Ukraine to choose between dignity and the loyalty of its allies. His words reflected deep concern that the West, led by Washington, may be pushing for a premature peace at Ukraine’s expense.

Russia Welcomes the Proposal, Europe Pushes Back

Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed receipt of the U.S. proposal and praised it as a potential foundation for a final agreement. He also cited a prior summit with Trump in Alaska as a moment when both sides agreed to maintain "flexibility" in talks. However, he acknowledged that detailed discussions with the U.S. had yet to occur.

Europe’s response has been cautious and measured. Leaders were reportedly caught off guard by the proposal’s pro-Russian tone and by the lack of Ukrainian or European input in the drafting process. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz emphasized that peace must come through consensus not just with Ukraine, but with Europe as a whole since the war’s consequences are continental.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed tentative support for the proposal but stressed that "much work remains to be done." His office confirmed he had spoken with Trump on November 22 and agreed to cooperate moving forward.

Eight Nordic and Baltic leaders also held direct talks with Zelensky the same day. While welcoming U.S. involvement, they voiced serious reservations about certain clauses in the proposal, particularly the suggestion to limit Ukraine’s armed forces.

European Unity Hinges on Kyiv’s Sovereignty

European leaders underscored that any resolution involving NATO or EU commitments must receive the consent of all member states. They reiterated that while U.S. efforts are appreciated, Ukraine’s agency and territorial integrity remain non-negotiable pillars of any agreement.

The European statement, cited by CNN, warned against externally imposed limits on Ukraine’s sovereignty. It emphasized that the current proposal’s security guarantees, military restrictions, and territorial clauses could undermine Ukraine’s long-term ability to defend itself.

Strategic Ambiguity Risks Undermining Peace Prospects

Trump’s refusal to clearly reject the idea of Ukraine ceding land to Russia and his decision to impose a vague deadline of November 27 has only heightened geopolitical tension. By suggesting that peace hinges on Ukrainian compliance with American-crafted terms, the U.S. risks isolating its allies and emboldening Moscow.

While the Geneva talks may refine or soften elements of the 28-point plan, the fundamental question remains: Can a durable peace be achieved without eroding Ukraine’s sovereignty or rewarding aggression? As things stand, Trump’s approach is unlikely to unify stakeholders and may instead deepen divisions between Washington, Kyiv, and its European allies.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites