作者： admin

A fresh global survey conducted by leading U.S. analytics and advisory firm Gallup has revealed a striking shift in global perceptions of international leadership: for the third time in modern history, China holds a higher global approval rating for its leadership than the United States, with the 5-point gap marking the widest advantage for China recorded in nearly two decades.

The end-of-2025 survey gathered responses from over 130 countries and regions worldwide, calculating median approval rates across all participating areas. It found that 36% of respondents approved of China’s global leadership, compared to just 31% who approved of U.S. leadership. This result marks a sharp reversal from 2024, when U.S. leadership held a 7-point advantage: U.S. approval plummeted 8 percentage points from 39% in 2024 to 31% in 2025, while China’s approval rose 4 points over the same period, climbing from 32% to 36%.

The only previous occasions Gallup recorded China leading the U.S. in global leadership approval were during the George W. Bush administration (2001–2009) and Donald Trump’s first presidential term (2017–2021). To capture a more nuanced view of global sentiment, Gallup calculated results using “net approval”—the share of approving respondents minus the share of disapproving respondents. For 2025, the U.S. posted a median net approval score of negative 15, the lowest figure the firm has ever recorded for the country.

Most notably, the drop in U.S. approval was most severe among America’s closest traditional allies. Across 31 NATO member states, median approval of U.S. leadership fell 14 percentage points to just 21%. Germany saw the sharpest single-country decline globally, with approval dropping 39 points, followed closely by Portugal with a 38-point drop.

Gallup emphasizes that the 2025 survey was completed before two major 2026 geopolitical developments: the U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations in January, and the outbreak of armed conflict between the U.S. and Iran in late February. Experts warn that if the poll were conducted today, U.S. approval would likely fall even further.

“If the survey was conducted now, after the U.S. attacks on Iran and Venezuela, it is likely that the global U.S. approval ratings would be even lower, given that most people around the world would agree that the U.S. actions are illegitimate and violate international law,” explained Zhu Zhiqun, professor of political science and international relations and director of Bucknell University’s China Institute.

The Iran conflict has already exposed deep rifts within the U.S.-led alliance system. U.S. European allies have publicly criticized Washington for launching military action without prior consultation, while Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states face direct economic risk from Iranian retaliatory measures. Abram Paley, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted in a late March analysis that the conflict could reshape long-term security partnerships in the region.

“Depending on the outcome of this conflict, some Gulf countries may develop concerns about U.S. reliability as an economic and security partner,” Paley wrote. “If this happens, some GCC countries might then choose to reinforce their partnership options beyond the United States by strengthening ties with Russia and China — perhaps economically at first, but potentially also strategically.”

Gallup’s long-term data shows that U.S. leadership approval has fluctuated dramatically across different presidential administrations. The highest U.S. global approval rating on record, 49%, was recorded in 2009 during Barack Obama’s presidency, while the previous low of 30% was registered during the first and final years of Trump’s first term.

The survey’s research team framed the 2025 results as a reflection of a fundamental, long-term restructuring of the global order. “The shifting perceptions of U.S. leadership over the past two decades reflect a world that has moved toward a more multipolar order,” the report concluded.

Zhu echoed that conclusion, noting that the latest poll provides clear empirical evidence of a permanent shift away from unipolar global governance. “The latest Gallup poll is further evidence that the world has become multipolar now, and the era of the U.S. dominance in global affairs is over,” he said.

In a landmark ruling that has sent shockwaves across India, nine sitting police officers have received death sentences for the brutal 2020 custodial killing of a father and son in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, a case that reignited national debate over endemic police brutality in the country.

The two victims, 58-year-old P Jeyaraj and his 38-year-old son Benicks, were taken into custody in June 2020 for the alleged offense of violating national Covid-19 lockdown rules by keeping their small mobile phone retail shop open past the mandated curfew. Within days of their detention, both men were dead while still in police custody.

During Monday’s sentencing hearing, the presiding judge laid bare the horrific details of the abuse the pair suffered. The judge confirmed that Jeyaraj and Benicks were stripped naked and systematically tortured in front of each other by the accused officers, in a clear violation of every principle of lawful detention. In scathing remarks directed at the convicted officers, the judge stated that the assault was carried out with explicit intent to kill, calling the incident a blatant abuse of the state authority entrusted to the men.

The judge rejected any calls for leniency, noting that all nine officers are formally educated, and that their age or personal family circumstances could not justify a reduced sentence. “They attacked unarmed civilians who posed no threat to them. They do not deserve forgiveness,” the judge added.

Last month, all nine officers were formally found guilty of murder by the court. Under Indian legal procedure, the convicted personnel retain the right to file an appeal against both the conviction and their death sentences with a higher judicial bench.

In total, 10 police officers were arrested immediately following the deaths in 2020. One of the accused died from complications related to Covid-19 later that same year, leaving nine to stand trial.

When news of the custodial deaths first emerged four years ago, the incident sparked widespread public protests across Tamil Nadu. State opposition legislators were among the first crowds to take to the streets to demand accountability for the deaths. High-profile public figures, including Congress party opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and star Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan, added their voices to the calls for justice via social media platforms, amplifying the national outcry.

Beyond the immediate calls for punishment, the 2020 killings pushed the long-simmering issue of custodial abuse and police brutality in India back to the center of national public discourse. Human rights organizations have documented that hundreds of people die in police or judicial custody across India every year, with many of these deaths linked to systematic torture. Rights advocates note that the use of abuse to force confessions from suspects has become a normalized, entrenched part of policing culture in many parts of the country.

Earlier in 2024, a group of independent United Nations human rights experts issued a public call for India to implement sweeping, comprehensive reforms to bring its national policing practices in line with binding international human rights standards. Tuesday’s sentencing marks one of the most high-profile convictions of police personnel for custodial killing in recent Indian history, with activists watching closely to see whether the ruling will pave the way for broader systemic changes.

Tensions between the United States and Iran escalated dramatically this week after former and current U.S. President Donald Trump issued explicit threats to carry out large-scale strikes against Iranian civilian infrastructure, drawing sharp condemnation from Iranian officials and even pushback from some members of the U.S. political and policy community.

Trump first made the incendiary remarks during an Easter Sunday interview with Fox News, where he issued an ultimatum to Iranian leadership: unless Tehran reached a new deal with Washington on his timeline and fully reopened the Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m. ET that same day, he would order widespread bombings across the country. “You’re going to see bridges and power plants dropping all over their country,” Trump stated, adding that he was also “considering blowing everything up and taking the oil.” The threat followed an aggressive, profanity-laced post on his Truth Social platform, where he demanded Iran “open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.”

In response to the threats, top Iranian diplomatic officials have labeled Trump’s statements as open incitement to war crimes and potential genocide, citing international law to back their claims. Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, outlined the legal case against the threatened strikes in a social media post Monday, noting that deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure such as power plants and bridges are explicitly classified as war crimes under Article 8(2)(b) of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, as well as Article 52 of Protocol I to the 1977 Geneva Conventions.

Gharibabadi emphasized that as the highest-ranking U.S. official, Trump bears individual criminal responsibility for his open threat to violate international humanitarian law, a liability that holds before both the ICC and any competent national court. He also warned that if Trump follows through on the attack, his name will be “etched in history as a supreme war criminal,” and confirmed that Iran would deliver a “decisive, immediate, and regret-inducing response” to any aggression.

Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, echoed that condemnation, calling Trump’s threats evidence of “a criminal mindset.” Speaking to reporters Sunday, Baghaei called the comments “an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide.” He added that threatening attacks on a nation’s critical energy infrastructure amounts to putting the entire civilian population at deliberate risk of harm.

The threats come amid an ongoing U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran that began on February 28, which has already caused extensive damage to Iranian civilian and public service facilities. Iran’s deputy health minister confirmed Monday that more than 360 healthcare, education, and research centers have been damaged or destroyed in strikes to date, with dozens of medical personnel killed in the attacks.

Critics within the United States have also joined Iranian officials in decrying Trump’s threatened strikes as unlawful war crimes. U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, criticized the administration’s underlying strategy, which reportedly calls for striking civilian sites to spark public unrest and force regime change. “But just think about the insanity of this plan: kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to cause a national panic,” Murphy wrote on social media. “Bombing to induce political panic IS A WAR CRIME.”

Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, went further, arguing that any congressional lawmaker who supports additional war funding for the conflict or opposes efforts to reassert congressional war powers limits on the administration would be complicit in the threatened and already committed war crimes. He called Trump an “unhinged and unfit Commander in Chief.”

The sharp escalation of rhetoric comes as quiet diplomatic efforts, partially mediated by Pakistan, are underway to negotiate a 45-day ceasefire that would create space for longer-term talks to end the ongoing conflict. Axios has reported that the ongoing diplomatic push is viewed by mediators as “the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states.”