博客

On April 13, 2026, during the second day of his five-day official visit to China — his fourth trip to the country since taking office — Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez delivered a landmark address to faculty, students and university administrators at Beijing’s Tsinghua University, where he laid out a clear call for global leaders to embrace an emerging multipolar world order and reject outdated, dangerous zero-sum geopolitical thinking.

Opening his argument with a centuries-old historical lesson, Sanchez drew on the experience of 16th-century Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci, who arrived in China in 1583 carrying a European-produced world map that placed Europe at the center of the globe and pushed Asia to its geographic periphery. When Chinese cartographers questioned the lopsided framing that placed China on the margins, Ricci redrew the map with the Pacific Ocean at its center, a reworking that Sanchez framed as a timeless lesson for modern geopolitics.

“Four hundred years have passed, but unfortunately, there are still people who see the world through that original, distorted map,” Sanchez told the Tsinghua audience. “That view is not only wrong, but very dangerous. It traps us in the past and limits our imagination of possibilities.”

Sanchez emphasized that the current global shift is not a simple transfer of hegemonic power from one bloc to another, but a broad expansion of global multipolarity that touches both geopolitical influence and shared prosperity. Today, he noted, dynamic progress is unfolding simultaneously across regions with distinct cultural traditions and political systems — from China to Africa to Latin America — without requiring validation or permission from any single dominant power.

“A multipolar world is not an assumption or an ideal, but a new reality. We cannot change it; we can only deny it or embrace it,” Sanchez said, confirming that Spain has made the deliberate choice to embrace this new reality with realism, a sense of shared responsibility, and optimistic hope for the future. He added that if Spain, China and Europe built shared prosperity in past decades, there is no reason the three actors cannot replicate that success in the modern era.

Acknowledging that differences and healthy competition exist between nations, Sanchez stressed that lasting human progress stems from building common ground rather than deepening existing divides. He outlined that Spain seeks a bilateral relationship with China rooted in unwavering mutual respect: cooperating on shared global priorities whenever possible, competing constructively when necessary, and managing unavoidable differences through deliberate, respectful dialogue.

To help a multipolar world order function effectively and equitably, Sanchez proposed three core actionable priorities for global leaders. First, he called for a fundamental reshaping of modern multilateralism, advocating for comprehensive United Nations reform that would expand the authority of the UN General Assembly, increase the representativeness of the UN Security Council, and build a more inclusive, democratic global decision-making mechanism.

Second, Sanchez highlighted the urgent need to build fair, reciprocal global trade relations, expressing hope that China would continue expanding market access to help address existing trade imbalances across global markets. Third, he stressed that major global powers bear a greater responsibility to address shared transnational challenges, including climate change mitigation, global public health, artificial intelligence governance, nuclear nonproliferation and safety, and global poverty eradication. He noted that global investment in these critical areas has fallen by 23% since the start of 2026, a trend that puts all nations at risk.

Sanchez also underscored the critical role of a unified European Union in maintaining global stability, noting that “Without a united EU, there will be no stable global order, just as without China’s participation, the world cannot achieve true stability and prosperity.”

Closing his address, Sanchez invoked a recent image of four NASA astronauts observing Earth from outer space: a single, borderless blue planet that is unique and irreplaceable. “Humanity itself is a miracle, the only miracle in the world. Our responsibility is to make this miracle continue through mutual understanding and cooperation,” he said.

A deeply divisive bill that would impose sweeping new criminal penalties on a wide range of speech related to Israel is currently moving through France’s national parliament, triggering fierce public backlash and reigniting long-simmering debates over the boundaries of political expression in the country.

The legislation, scheduled for its first reading in the National Assembly on April 16, has already earned unusual cross-party support, with backing even from far-right political factions. But the broad political consensus behind the bill has not quelled public opposition: more than 500,000 people have signed a public petition demanding the legislation be scrapped, and organized protests against the measure have spread across multiple French cities as critics warn it poses an unprecedented threat to core free speech protections.

The proposal is the brainchild of sitting French MP Caroline Yadan, a prominent lawmaker who publicly identifies as an “unconditional” supporter of Israel. Yadan represents the 8th constituency for French citizens living overseas, a district where Israeli residents make up a substantial share of the voting electorate, and she has centered her entire political tenure on advancing policies that defend Israeli actions and interests. She has already openly broken with French President Emmanuel Macron over his official recognition of the Palestinian people’s right to statehood, and publicly condemned Macron in October 2024 after the president called for a halt to French weapons deliveries to Israel amid Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza. Yadan, who is Jewish, has defended the bill with an unsubstantiated claim that “For fifteen years, Jews have been killed in France ‘in the name of Gaza.’”

If enacted, the bill would introduce a series of far-reaching new criminal offenses. It would make it a crime to deny Israel’s right to exist, and explicitly criminalize comparisons between the Israeli state and Nazi Germany — a legal protection that is not extended to France itself. The legislation also expands existing terrorism-related statutes to cover what the text labels “implicit” provocation, broadening the definition of “apology for terrorism” to include the “minimising or trivialising” of terror attacks.

Under the bill’s first article, anyone found guilty of speech interpreted as justifying or reframing acts designated as terrorism could face up to five years in prison and substantial financial fines. This broad language could even criminalize framing such acts as “resistance,” or providing contextual background that courts deem insufficiently condemnatory. Critics note the new wording would allow courts to treat attempts to explain the political root causes of violence as criminal acts, opening the door to widespread prosecution of dissenting political speech.

Marc Trevidic, a former French anti-terrorism judge, has issued a sharp public warning about the dangerous implications of the bill’s vague wording. “Implicit provocation to terrorism: do you realize what that means? Becoming a censor of other people’s thoughts, trying to guess what a person really meant,” Trevidic said.

One high-profile provision expands existing French laws on crimes against humanity, explicitly classifying any comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany as “outrageous trivialization” of the Holocaust, a criminal offense under the new legislation. The bill’s preamble makes its core intent unambiguous: it explicitly states that framing the Israeli state as equivalent to the Nazi regime must be treated as a criminal act, effectively shielding Israel from one of the most politically charged forms of criticism directed at the country’s policies.

The legislation builds on France’s already strict existing speech regulations, which have criminalized Holocaust denial under the 1990 Gayssot Act for decades. But legal experts and free speech advocates note the new measures go far beyond existing prohibitions, extending criminal liability into a broad swathe of mainstream political expression. As the first parliamentary vote approaches, the clash between the bill’s cross-party backers and mass public opposition has put France’s commitment to free expression under unprecedented national scrutiny.

Following the collapse of face-to-face negotiations with Iranian representatives in Islamabad, former U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a targeted naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, launching what analysts warn is a dangerous new chapter in ongoing tensions between Washington and Tehran that risks deepening global energy market volatility and locking the U.S. into a protracted Middle Eastern conflict.

The 21-nautical-mile-wide strait, which at its narrowest point is split evenly between the 12-nautical-mile territorial claims of Iran and Oman, has long functioned as a critical global chokepoint: an estimated 20% of the world’s daily oil and liquified natural gas shipments pass through its waters, making its open access non-negotiable for global energy security. Until February of this year, freedom of navigation through the waterway remained largely unchallenged, even after both nations formally extended their territorial claims in the second half of the 20th century, with both committing to uphold the right of innocent passage for international vessels.

In recent weeks, however, Tehran has drastically altered the status quo. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has established a de facto toll collection regime, requiring all transiting ships to submit formal documentation, secure government-issued clearance codes, pay fees as high as $2 million per vessel, and travel only through a single IRGC-escorted controlled corridor. Tehran has also laid unmarked mines across sections of the strait, raising major safety concerns for commercial shippers, while U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirms it has already begun mine-clearing operations — a move Tehran says violates an existing two-week ceasefire agreement.

Global maritime bodies have already condemned Tehran’s actions: the secretary general of the International Maritime Organization has labeled the toll regime a violation of international law, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent that could upend global shipping norms, and has urged all nations to refuse payment of the fees. CENTCOM has clarified that the U.S. blockade, set to enter into force on April 13, will only target vessels entering or departing Iranian ports, rather than blocking all transiting traffic through the strait — a key distinction that will shape future assessments of the policy’s legality under international maritime law.

This is not the first time the U.S. has intervened to secure open passage through the strait. During the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Washington deployed military forces to keep the waterway open, a mission that ended in the accidental downing of an Iranian civilian airliner that killed all 290 people on board. While the Reagan administration ultimately paid $61.8 million in compensation to the victims’ families, it never accepted formal responsibility for the incident. Tehran first made a formal claim to full control over the strait in 2011 but never moved to enforce it, and the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal did not address the question of freedom of navigation at all.

Today, Tehran has made its sovereignty claim over the strait a non-negotiable condition for any future peace deal, alongside demands for an end to all uranium enrichment restrictions, a halt to the dismantling of nuclear facilities, war reparations, and the release of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets held abroad. Analysts say Tehran’s demand for permanent, exclusive sovereignty over the waterway makes a negotiated breakthrough far less likely, particularly as the U.S. has rejected any compromise on the issue.

The Trump administration’s new blockade announcement comes as a fragile two-week ceasefire is set to expire, and the president has openly confirmed he is considering resuming limited military strikes against Iranian targets following the collapse of the Islamabad talks. A major obstacle for the U.S. policy so far is the lack of allied support: the United Kingdom, which Trump claimed would contribute minesweepers to the operation, has already ruled out participation in a unilateral U.S. blockade. Instead, London is leading a separate multilateral initiative, hosting talks with roughly 40 countries to develop a coalition focused on protecting freedom of navigation independent of U.S. military action.

Legal experts note that a multilateral coalition operating under the framework of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would hold far stronger legal standing than a unilateral U.S. blockade. Notably, the U.S. and Israel have never signed UNCLOS; Iran signed the treaty but never ratified it, while Oman remains a full party. Under UNCLOS articles 37–44, all straits used for international navigation between two areas of the high seas — a classification that most legal jurists agree the Strait of Hormuz falls into — guarantee unimpeded transit and freedom of navigation for all foreign vessels. Bordering states are prohibited from hampering passage, discriminating against foreign ships, or suspending innocent transit under the convention.

Tehran rejects the application of the UNCLOS transit regime, arguing it is not binding customary international law, and instead enforces its 1993 domestic law, which requires all vessels to secure prior Iranian authorization for innocent passage on national security grounds. Legal scholars widely dismiss this position: decades of international judicial precedent, including a landmark ruling by the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice’s 1949 Corfu Channel decision against Albania, have repeatedly upheld the right of unimpeded innocent passage through international straits. The UN Security Council reinforced this principle in its March 2026 Resolution 2817, which reaffirmed the right of free navigation through the strait and deplored Tehran’s actions; 13 of the 15 Security Council members voted in favor, while Russia and China abstained without exercising their veto power.

The economic and humanitarian costs of the current standoff are already mounting. After Iran first restricted access in early March, Brent crude prices surged past $120 per barrel, and jumped an additional 7–8% immediately following Trump’s blockade announcement. A senior Columbia University energy economist warns that elevated energy prices will likely persist through the end of 2026 even if hostilities end, as shippers will avoid the Persian Gulf until they are confident any ceasefire is durable, and damaged energy infrastructure will take months to fully repair. Currently, more than 230 loaded oil tankers are stranded inside the strait unable to exit, and around 80% of food imports to Gulf Cooperation Council states have been disrupted. The strait also handles more than 30% of global urea exports for the fertilizer industry, putting food security at risk far beyond the Middle East.

While Tehran’s legal position is widely regarded as untenable, the regime shows no sign of backing away from its sovereignty claim. Many analysts argue the only viable alternative to full-scale conflict is to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), though the path forward faces significant procedural hurdles: Iran has never accepted the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction, so a case would require either Iranian consent or a formal treaty basis, neither of which is currently available. Even if a case is accepted and the ICJ issues an interim injunction ordering both Iran to end its toll and mine-laying operations and the U.S. to suspend its blockade, offering both sides a face-saving off-ramp, experts warn Tehran could simply ignore the ruling, much as Beijing rejected a 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling against its nine-dash line claims in the South China Sea.

Critics warn that allowing Iran to establish a precedent of unilateral sovereignty over an international strait would have dangerous global ripple effects: observers note Beijing could quickly follow suit by declaring similar sovereignty claims over the Taiwan Strait, exposing all nations bordering the East and South China Seas to coercive control over critical global shipping lanes. Echoing Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, analysts warn that for global powers to remain neutral in the face of Tehran’s actions is to side with aggression: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen to be on the side of the oppressor.”