作者: admin

  • Malians tell of torture and killings by army, Russian fighters

    Malians tell of torture and killings by army, Russian fighters

    Across windswept refugee camps in eastern Mauritania’s arid Hodh Chargui region, hundreds of thousands of Malians who fled years of unrelenting violence have shared harrowing firsthand accounts of murder, torture and collective cruelty at the hands of Malian government troops and Russian paramilitary fighters. These testimonies, collected by Agence France-Presse from 10 displaced civilians, paint a grim picture of widespread civilian harm that has followed the Malian junta’s deepening military partnership with Russian forces.

    For 62-year-old Cherifa — a pseudonym used to protect her from retaliation — the grief of losing her son remains raw and unhealed. Last summer, her son left their home to trade goods across central Mali, only to encounter a joint patrol of Malian soldiers and fighters from the Russia-controlled Africa Corps, the rebranded successor to the infamous Wagner Group mercenary force. Herders hiding in nearby dunes watched as the patrol detained Cherifa’s son and four other traveling companions, tied them up, beheaded them, and burned all their merchandise, Cherifa recounted. No community members dared return to collect the bodies for 24 hours, terrified of ambushes or hidden explosive traps.

    “His death is my greatest pain,” Cherifa said, her voice shaking as she sat in her spartan brick shelter in the refugee camp. “They pour their hatred on innocent, defenceless people.”

    Nomadic Fulani and Tuareg communities have borne the brunt of these abuses, according to multiple testimonies, with residents regularly targeted on unproven accusations of ties to jihadist insurgents or separatist movements. Mali’s ruling military junta, which seized control of the country in a 2020 coup, has turned to Russian paramilitaries to counter a decade-long jihadist insurgency that has destabilized large swathes of the Sahel nation. Rights organizations have repeatedly condemned the violent tactics employed by the joint forces, and data from conflict tracking project Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) analyzed by AFP underscores the scope of civilian harm.

    Since the junta took power in 2020, government military operations have killed more than 8,500 people, nearly half of whom are civilians. When Russian fighters accompany Malian troops, 60 percent of those killed are unarmed civilians; when Russian forces operate independently, that share jumps to 90 percent.

    Fear hangs over every conversation in the Mauritanian refugee camps, where even mentioning Russian fighters — still most commonly referred to by their former Wagner branding — triggers visible anxiety. Nedoune, a 50-year-old Tuareg herder, shared his own experience of arbitrary detention and torture that began when he was spotted fetching water two years ago in Mali’s northern Timbuktu region.

    After being beaten, bound, and forced to accompany the fighters for two days as they rounded up civilians and burned nomadic camps to the ground, Nedoune was transferred to a detention facility in central Mali, where he was tortured for four consecutive days during interrogations about alleged jihadist activity. “They pour water on your body, then put wires in your ears and send an electric current until you pass out,” he explained, his expression blank as he recalled that they burned all his belongings and slaughtered his entire herd. He was only released after his family paid a ransom of 310,000 CFA francs, roughly $550. Nedoune also witnessed other detainees being killed: he watched through a gap in his turban as one man was beaten nearly to death before his throat was cut and his body dumped from a moving military vehicle.

    Medical teams working with Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which provides care to traumatized refugees in border towns like Fassala, say they have collected even more alarming accounts of brutality. “We have testimonies of torture, including people who say they were buried alive,” said MSF coordinator Mayoury Savant. “We also see sexual violence, affecting both women and men.”

    More than 300,000 Malians have now fled across the border into Mauritania’s Hodh Chargui region to escape the ongoing violence. The conflict that has torn Mali apart since 2012 includes a jihadist insurgency by groups aligned with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, separatist unrest, and clashes between criminal gangs, but refugees say the worst abuse has come from joint Malian-Russian operations. In recent months, a fresh wave of refugees has arrived after jihadist groups issued ultimatums ordering civilians to leave targeted areas within 24 hours or face execution.

    Human rights groups have now brought a case before the African Union demanding accountability for the alleged abuses committed by Malian and Russian forces. Late last month, coordinated attacks by Tuareg separatists and jihadist fighters delivered a major setback to the junta, culminating in separatists capturing the key northern town of Kidal. For many refugees in Mauritania, most of whom support the Tuareg separatist movement, the subsequent withdrawal of Russian fighters from northern bases has sparked cautious hope that they may soon be able to return to their homes.

    Thirty-year-old Fatima, who fled her Timbuktu region village three years ago after government airstrikes, says many women who stayed behind have suffered unspeakable harm. “Everything happened to them except death… we know some were tortured,” she said. “Before the Russians came, we lived in peace. If they take back Timbuktu and the other towns, I can go home.”

  • AFL 2026: Essendon defender Mason Redman has launched to the defence of coach Brad Scott

    AFL 2026: Essendon defender Mason Redman has launched to the defence of coach Brad Scott

    As AFL club Essendon grapples with one of the most underwhelming opening stretches in recent club history, key defender Mason Redman has publicly stood behind embattled head coach Brad Scott, insisting Scott remains the right leader to turn the club’s flagging season around.

    The Bombers have claimed just one victory from their first 10 matches of the 2026 campaign, leaving the side deep in the lower reaches of the premiership ladder and putting Scott under intense public and fan pressure. With two critical matches looming against Richmond and the West Coast Eagles in the coming fortnight, another slip-up—especially against an injury-ravaged Tigers side—would amplify the already growing scrutiny on Scott, just months after Essendon president Andrew Welsh publicly anointed the coach as the man who would lead the club to its next premiership.

    Speaking to reporters ahead of the annual Dreamtime at the ‘G clash, Redman made clear the playing group has not lost faith in Scott’s direction. “I think as players we’ve never wavered off the track we’re on,” Redman said. “Obviously performances haven’t necessarily been at the level we’ve wanted them to be this year, sitting at 1-9. Brad fills us with belief week in, week out and he’s the man for the job so yeah that’s how I see it.”

    Redman also addressed ongoing speculation surrounding star contracted midfielder Zach Merrett, who has been linked to a second move away from the club after an unsuccessful trade request to Hawthorn last season. Rumors have swirled in recent weeks that Merrett could renew his push for an exit, but Redman said he sees no indication that the club will entertain offers for the former captain, who remains on a binding contract with the Bombers. “I haven’t seen anything of the sort, I am sure Zach will cross that bridge when he gets to it,” he said. “Of course, he’s a contracted player so I imagine we’ll be looking at keeping him.”

    The defender’s vote of confidence comes after a tight but ultimately losing effort against Fremantle last Sunday, where both Redman and Scott earned praise for their intensity around the contest. Rather than blaming the club’s current system or coaching staff for the poor start, Redman said it is the playing group’s collective responsibility to lift their individual performance, especially the club’s established leaders. “It falls on us as individuals,” he explained. “Me personally, I’ve got a contest that I’ve got to be better at as a leader, the young guys have to look to us as leaders of the football club. We’ve got to be cracking in, leading the way. We’ve got guys like Sully Robey, putting his head over the ball, first-year guy, super impressive. We’ve got to get in behind that and get after it.”

  • Wall Street guru struck speechless by Trump insider stock trades

    Wall Street guru struck speechless by Trump insider stock trades

    On a live Monday broadcast of CNBC’s Squawk on the Street, one of Wall Street’s most high-profile media personalities, Jim Cramer, was left visibly stunned and speechless for 10 full seconds when a co-host brought up the staggering wave of stock trading executed by former President and current U.S. President Donald Trump in the first quarter of 2026. After Cramer’s prolonged incoherent mumbling left viewers confused, fellow co-host David Faber stepped in to clarify that the program was not experiencing any technical glitches — Cramer, it turned out, had simply been rendered speechless by the revelation of Trump’s controversial trading activity.

    The scope of Trump’s trading first came to light last week, when ethics disclosures published by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics confirmed that Trump completed more than 3,700 separate stock transactions between January and March 2026. Among these trades, more than 30 individual purchases each exceeded $1 million in value. The Financial Times first highlighted a striking connection: many of the top stocks Trump traded are owned by major corporations whose chief executives accompanied Trump on his official diplomatic trip to China just one week before the disclosures were released, including industry giants Tesla, Nvidia, Apple, Meta, Visa, Citi, Boeing, Qualcomm, and GE Aerospace.

    Independent journalists and ethics watchdogs have since uncovered multiple clear patterns that raise urgent red flags for potential illegal insider trading. In a detailed analysis published Monday, reporter Judd Legum documented multiple instances where Trump purchased shares in a company either immediately before or on the exact same day that he publicly praised the firm to move its share price. For example, Trump bought tens of thousands of dollars in stock of biotech manufacturer Thermo Fisher Scientific on the exact same day he toured one of the company’s production facilities. He acquired hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Apple shares the same day he delivered a public speech lauding the firm as “a great company” and praising then-CEO Tim Cook. Just one day after purchasing a large stake in Micron Technology, Trump called the company “one of the hottest companies” during a national Fox News interview. Nine days after acquiring millions of dollars in Dell stock, Trump urged a crowd of supporters at a Georgia rally to “go out and buy a Dell computer.”

    Legum’s analysis emphasized that Trump has systematically dismantled every remaining ethical guardrail designed to prevent sitting U.S. presidents from using their public office for personal financial gain. Unlike previous presidents who have placed their assets in qualified blind trusts to remove themselves from active investment decision-making, Trump transferred his holdings to a trust controlled directly by his son, Donald Trump Jr., after returning to the White House. This structure leaves no legal or practical barriers to Trump directing trading activity based on non-public information he accesses as president.

    Investigative journalist Ryan Grim argued that Cramer’s stunned on-air reaction was entirely understandable, noting that many of the companies whose stock Trump traded have already directly profited from Trump’s controversial foreign policy decisions, including the ongoing military conflict with Iran that the Trump administration initiated. “Cramer here is having what should be the normal reaction to Trump actively insider trading on his own decisions,” Grim noted. “Just sputtering speechlessness.”

    New York Representative Dan Goldman, a Democrat, has already sounded the alarm over the trading activity, calling it “blatant and criminal insider trading.” In a social media post, Goldman warned all parties involved that records of the trades will eventually be subject to congressional investigation, noting that congressional Republicans have signaled they will ignore the scandal. “Anyone involved in these trades should preserve their records for my investigation in January 2027,” Goldman added.

    The stock trading scandal is not the only ethics controversy engulfing the Trump administration this week. On the same day Cramer’s viral on-air reaction made headlines, 93 House Democrats filed an official legal challenge to block a $1.77 billion taxpayer-funded settlement between the Trump administration and the Internal Revenue Service that critics say is a blatant grift to create a slush fund for Trump’s political allies.

    The settlement grew out of a $10 billion lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS after his personal tax returns were leaked during the 2024 campaign. As part of a deal to dismiss the lawsuit, the Trump administration created what it calls an “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which the acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche has framed as a mechanism to compensate what the administration calls “victims of lawfare” allegedly carried out by the Department of Justice during the prior Biden administration.

    But Democrats and ethics watchdogs have condemned the deal as an unprecedented abuse of power, noting that Trump is currently the head of the executive branch that oversees the IRS — meaning he is effectively both the plaintiff and the defendant in the lawsuit he arranged to “settle.” “No president can concoct a fake case for $10 billion in damages against the government so he can be plaintiff and defendant and then ‘settle’ his bogus case against himself as a judge,” said Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, calling the deal “pure fraud and highway robbery.” Raskin added that the fund is nothing more than a racket to divert taxpayer money to Trump’s most loyal supporters, including those convicted of violent felonies during the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol insurrection.

    The amicus brief filed by Democrats with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where the case is being heard by Judge Kathleen Williams, seeks to have the entire settlement thrown out. The filing notes that the fund could be used to compensate roughly 1,600 individuals already charged or convicted of crimes connected to the Capitol attack, including seditious conspiracy, assault on law enforcement, and other violent felonies.

    Richard Neal, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, called the entire scheme “another self-enrichment scheme on the backs of hard-working taxpayers.” “Reporting detailing Trump’s interest in a billion-dollar slush fund for the J6 criminals and permanent immunity from any further IRS scrutiny only deepens the stench of corruption,” Neal added. Lawyers for the Democrats, Matt Platkin and Norm Eisen, noted that “it’s against the law for the president to in effect sue himself — and then settle for a huge sum. The court has the power to put a stop to these shenanigans and should do so.”

    This latest controversy follows a pattern of ethics violations from Trump since his return to the White House, where he issued blanket pardons to hundreds of January 6 rioters on his first day in office. According to the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, dozens of those pardoned rioters have since been charged or convicted of additional serious crimes, including child sex offenses, rape, grand theft, burglary, illegal weapons possession, and threats against public officials.

    Progressive advocacy groups and legal ethics experts have joined Democrats in condemning both the stock trading scandal and the IRS settlement. “Donald Trump and his compromised Department of Justice have created a slush fund to make payouts to Trump supporters and cronies,” said Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman, co-presidents of the public interest group Public Citizen. “This scheme amounts to the creation of a January 6 payment fund.”

    Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and public affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, argued that the scandal lays bare the true nature of the Trump administration’s priorities at a time when many U.S. households are struggling with economic instability. “While Americans struggle with rising costs fueled by his economic mismanagement and war with Iran, Donald Trump is teaching a masterclass in grift,” Edkins said. “He’s negotiated with himself to create a $1.7 billion tax-dollar slush fund with no oversight, no transparency, and no accountability. In simple terms, Trump is stealing $1.7 billion in taxpayer dollars to hand out to himself, his cronies, his donors, or anyone he deems sufficiently loyal—including supporters who were convicted by juries of assaulting police officers on January 6, 2021. This is truly unprecedented corruption, and American taxpayers will foot the bill.”

  • ‘We’re here solely to play football,’ insists North Korean coach

    ‘We’re here solely to play football,’ insists North Korean coach

    In a landmark moment marking the first visit by a North Korean sports team to South Korea in eight years, the head coach of Naegohyang Women’s FC has doubled down on a singular focus: competitive football, not political or cross-border fanfare. The team will face off against South Korea’s Suwon FC Women on Wednesday in a high-stakes semi-final match of the Asian Women’s Champions League, hosted at Suwon Sports Complex.

    The rare inter-Korean football clash has sparked unprecedented public enthusiasm across South Korea. When general admission tickets went on sale last week, all 7,087 available seats sold out in just a few hours. Upon the team’s arrival at Incheon International Airport on Sunday, Naegohyang players and officials were immediately surrounded by crowds of journalists and local supporters holding handwritten welcome messages. Organizers estimate that around 3,000 spectators from South Korean civic groups, backed by Seoul’s Unification Ministry, will be in the stands to cheer on both squads.

    However, structural political divisions prevent any official away contingent for the North Korean side. Since the 1950-1953 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty, the two Koreas remain technically at war, and North Korean citizens are generally barred from entering South Korea. At a crowded pre-match press conference on Tuesday, head coach Ri Yu Il pushed aside repeated questions about whether he expected South Korean fans to support his team, emphasizing that off-pitch dynamics are irrelevant to his squad’s goals.

    “I’m not sure whether similar questions will continue to come up, but we are here solely to play football,” Ri told reporters. “Simply put, we will focus only on each match. Therefore, the issue of the supporters is not something I, as a coach, or our players need to concern ourselves with. We will concentrate exclusively on the game.” When asked about Naegohyang’s 3-0 group stage victory over Suwon earlier in the tournament, Ri dismissed the idea that the result would give his side any decisive advantage. “Just because they played in the group stage, it would be absolutely wrong to say that one team is stronger or weaker than another based solely on those results,” he said. “For us, our focus is simply on doing our best to achieve a good result in tomorrow’s match.”

    Suwon captain Ji So-yun, a former Chelsea midfielder, acknowledged that the hype around the match is unlike anything she has experienced in women’s football. Ji framed the upcoming game as a hard-fought competitive battle, noting that Naegohyang’s squad is widely considered nearly as strong as North Korea’s full national women’s team, one of the top-ranked sides in the world. “When North Korean players compete, they tend to be very physical and there is also a lot of verbal confrontation on the pitch,” Ji said. “So our players should not back down. If they challenge us, we will challenge them back. If they kick us, we will kick them back.”

    Context around the historic match reflects longstanding political divisions on the Korean peninsula. Under South Korea’s current President Lee Jae Myung, who has adopted a far more conciliatory stance toward Pyongyang than his conservative predecessor, Seoul has repeatedly proposed unconditional dialogue with North Korea — proposals that Pyongyang has yet to respond to. The Seoul government has allocated $200,000 to support the civic groups organizing cross-border cheering efforts, and local media reports that organizers have worked with authorities to establish cheering guidelines: under South Korea’s national security law, public displays of the North Korean national flag are banned, so groups have instead planned to wave unified flags depicting the entire Korean Peninsula, as was done in previous cross-border sporting events.

    Women’s football is a consistent strength for North Korean international sport, with the country’s senior women’s national team holding 11th place in the current FIFA World Rankings — a stark contrast to the men’s national side, which sits at 118th. The winner of Wednesday’s semi-final will advance to Saturday’s tournament final, also hosted in Suwon, where they will face the winner of the other semi-final between Australia’s Melbourne City and Japan’s Tokyo Verdy Beleza.

  • Aussie budget retailer Oz Goods Depot collapses into liquidation, leaves shoppers in refund limbo

    Aussie budget retailer Oz Goods Depot collapses into liquidation, leaves shoppers in refund limbo

    Australia’s budget e-commerce sector has been hit by a fresh business failure, with online discount retailer Oz Goods Depot announcing it has entered liquidation and will cease all operations immediately, leaving thousands of customers with unfulfilled orders locked out of refunds and direct support.

    The shutdown was formally confirmed in an official notice published by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) this Friday, which outlined that a shareholder general meeting held on May 15 passed a formal resolution to wind up the company. Industry insolvency expert Anthony John Warner from CRS Insolvency Services has been officially appointed to oversee the liquidation process.

    Operating as a dedicated Australian online discount retailer, Oz Goods Depot positioned itself as a one-stop shop for affordable home goods, stocking everything from garden furniture and large home appliances to pet supplies and everyday lifestyle essentials. Before its collapse, the retailer said it had fulfilled more than 25,000 orders across the country.

    In a public statement posted to the retailer’s website ahead of the formal liquidation filing, the company’s ownership team framed the decision to close as a difficult but necessary call. “After an incredible journey, Oz Goods Depot has made the difficult decision to cease trading and wind down operations,” the statement read. “We are proud to have shipped more than 25,000 orders to customers across Australia, and we sincerely thank every customer who supported us along the way.”

    As part of the formal wind-down, all unshipped and unfulfilled orders have been immediately cancelled, with no plans to complete outstanding purchases. The retailer confirmed that all business operations and customer support services have ceased, meaning customer service inboxes are no longer monitored or responded to. Instead of offering direct refunds, the company has advised affected customers to first reach out to their banks or payment providers to pursue payment reversals. Customers who cannot resolve their claims through payment providers have been told they can submit a formal debt claim to the appointed liquidator via a dedicated email contact.

    Notably, the liquidator cannot issue direct refunds to customers due to the company’s insolvent status, and submitting a claim only formalizes the recording of customer debt for the liquidation process. By Tuesday this week, all of Oz Goods Depot’s social media pages had already been taken down, cutting off another key channel for customers seeking support.

    The sudden collapse has already sparked widespread frustration from impacted buyers, who have taken to review platforms to share their experiences of lost funds and poor communication. One customer who paid for a garden shed reported receiving only a curt notification weeks after placing their order that the business was closing, with no path to a refund. Another customer said they had waited more than five weeks for a refund after being told their ordered product was out of stock, with no updates from the retailer before the shutdown announcement. Dozens of other customers have shared similar accounts of unfulfilled orders, unprocessed refunds, and a total lack of communication from the brand in the lead-up to its closure.

  • British Steel crisis derails China’s tariff-bypass strategy

    British Steel crisis derails China’s tariff-bypass strategy

    A cross-border industrial acquisition that began as a strategic expansion move has erupted into a full-blown political dispute between China and the United Kingdom, after the British government tabled a formal nationalization bill to take permanent public control of the formerly Chinese-owned British Steel, based in eastern England.

    The story traces back to 2020, when Hebei-based private Chinese steel manufacturer Jingye Group stepped in to acquire the insolvent British steelmaker for £70 million (approximately $91 million). At the time, the deal was framed as a win-win: it rescued a failing historic British industrial asset, saved thousands of local jobs, and gave Jingye a much-needed production foothold in Europe. A core strategic motivation for the acquisition was to bypass steep 25% U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel that the Trump administration first imposed in 2018 under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, citing national security grounds.

    Despite injecting a total of £1.2 billion into British Steel over the following years, Jingye failed to reverse the company’s persistent annual losses, which were estimated to hit roughly £250 million per year. Industry analysts cite two key structural headwinds: the UK’s sky-high industrial energy costs, and persistent market pressure from the flood of low-cost Chinese steel already flowing into European markets. The final blow came in March 2025, when the Trump administration expanded its tariff regime to impose 25% levies on all global steel and aluminum imports — including those from the UK — after detecting that Chinese steel producers were using foreign acquisitions to evade U.S. trade barriers.

    Shortly after the new tariffs took effect, Jingye announced that its flagship Scunthorpe steelworks was losing £700,000 per day and was no longer financially viable. The firm rejected a proposed £500 million UK government rescue package, prompting Parliament to rush through emergency legislation on April 12 that allowed the government to seize temporary control of the plant’s blast furnaces to prevent an immediate shutdown and protect 2,700 local jobs. On May 14, the government took the next step by introducing the formal Steel Industry (Nationalization) Bill, which grants ministers the authority to nationalize steel assets like British Steel if they meet a public interest test. The bill held its first parliamentary reading the same day, establishing a legal pathway for permanent public ownership when deemed necessary.

    “Revitalizing our steel sector is a top priority for this country, and this is an important first step to safeguard our steelmaking capability,” said UK Industry Minister Chris McDonald. “It will allow us to secure the future of British Steel and explore possible options to modernize the industry.” McDonald added that the fast tracking of the bill through Parliament demonstrates the current government’s unwavering commitment to protecting Britain’s domestic steel production capacity.

    The nationalization plan has drawn sharp pushback from China. “The British government should uphold fairness, impartiality and non-discrimination, act cautiously in its decisions, and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises,” a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Commerce said in an official statement. The spokesperson noted that the UK government has already controlled British Steel for more than a year since taking over from Jingye, and any permanent action must fully account for the substantial investment the Chinese firm has made in the UK’s steel industry, as well as its broader contributions to the British economy and local communities. Beijing has called on London to respect both Jingye’s position and fundamental market principles to negotiate “a fair, just solution acceptable to both sides,” and warned that China will take all necessary firm measures to protect the legal rights of Chinese firms.

    The dispute has also sparked debate among industry analysts in China about the risks of Chinese corporate expansion in strategic Western sectors. A Jiangxi-based industrial columnist, writing under the pen name Ganjiang Top List, noted that the British acquisition fit into a broader strategy Chinese steel firms adopted after 2018 to build “non-dollar channels” for global exports, positioning European steel assets as natural springboards for Chinese industrial chains going global, given the region’s advanced manufacturing expertise and lack of domestic capital for industrial upgrades. “British Steel was not acquired by Jingye for production alone, but for connection,” he explained, noting the acquisition created a local export hub for Chinese parts and engineering services serving Europe’s automotive, rail, and energy equipment sectors. While Jingye attempted to cut costs by transferring its digital production management platform to British Steel, those efforts ultimately could not overcome the sector’s headwinds. The columnist argued that Chinese firms must adjust their overseas expansion strategies: instead of pursuing controlling stakes in strategically sensitive key sectors, they should rely on technical service partnerships, short-term leasing, and non-controlling cooperation models to maintain market access while reducing political exposure. He added that beyond the direct capital loss, the failed acquisition has damaged the broader reputation of Chinese firms investing in Western markets.

    To understand the significance of British Steel to British national identity, one must look back at its long and turbulent history. As the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, Britain built its 19th-century global empire on the back of its iron and steel industry, which powered the construction of railways, ships, bridges, machinery and military hardware, making the sector a core symbol of British industrial power. By the 1980s and 1990s, China’s rapid industrial expansion began to challenge Britain’s position, and after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, it pulled far ahead to become the world’s largest steel producer. Decades of rapid domestic infrastructure and manufacturing growth left China with massive chronic overcapacity, flooding global markets with low-cost steel that added intense pressure to already struggling British producers, which already grappled with high labor costs, expensive energy, aging production facilities, and repeated cycles of nationalization and privatization.

    British Steel itself was originally founded as a nationalized entity in 1967, when the UK government consolidated the country’s major steel producers into public ownership. It grew to become one of Europe’s largest steelmakers, but by the late 20th century it was struggling with falling demand, labor unrest, aging infrastructure and rising foreign competition. It was privatized in 1988, changed hands multiple times, and collapsed into insolvency in 2019 before Jingye’s rescue a year later. Even under Chinese ownership, losses continued: the firm posted a £227 million post-tax loss in 2023, down from £367 million in 2022, and losses deepened through 2024.

    The nationalization move has been supported by hardline British political figures, who have raised suspicions about Chinese influence in the strategically critical sector. Gary Smith, general secretary of the UK’s GMB trade union, raised concerns last April about what he called “industrial vandalism” at the site, while senior Conservative Party figure Iain Duncan Smith has openly accused Beijing of inappropriate interference. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has gone as far as to argue that Chinese firms should be entirely excluded from “very sensitive” UK industries.

    In response, the Chinese Embassy in the UK has pushed back against what it calls the politicization of a purely commercial transaction. “At a time when the United States is using tariffs against countries including Britain and pursuing unilateralist and protectionist trade bullying, some British politicians are attacking China’s government and Chinese companies instead of criticizing Washington,” the embassy’s spokesperson said. “What exactly are they trying to achieve?” The spokesperson emphasized that British Steel was already insolvent and facing years of losses before Jingye’s 2020 acquisition, and that the Chinese firm’s investment kept the plant operational and protected thousands of British jobs. “Any words or actions that politicize commercial issues and engage in malicious hype will damage Chinese enterprises’ confidence in investing in the UK and harm China-UK economic and trade cooperation,” the spokesperson warned.

    A major sticking point in ongoing tensions is the question of compensation. Earlier this year, reports indicate Jingye is seeking roughly £1 billion in compensation from the UK government, matching its claimed £1.2 billion total investment since 2020. British local media, however, reports that the UK government has proposed a settlement valued at less than £100 million. The scale of Jingye’s investment itself is also disputed: public filings show that as of 2023, Jingye and its affiliates had provided £735.7 million in loans to British Steel, and charged tens of millions of pounds in interest on those loans. A Jingye spokesperson has defended the £1.2 billion figure, explaining that it includes both equity investment and low- or zero-interest loans issued to support ongoing operations.

    One Chinese industrial columnist based in Henan has argued that the UK’s move risks long-term damage to bilateral trade for short-term domestic political gain, noting that seizing foreign assets via legislation will erode Britain’s reputation as a safe destination for foreign direct investment. She warned that “Today’s China is not the China of 1840,” referencing the First Opium War when Britain defeated Qing China and forced it to pay heavy reparations, adding that modern Chinese firms hold strong legal, financial and moral leverage in the dispute.

  • Hungary’s Magyar kicks off his first foreign trip as prime minister to ally Poland

    Hungary’s Magyar kicks off his first foreign trip as prime minister to ally Poland

    Fresh off a historic political upset that ended 16 years of Viktor Orbán’s nationalist-populist rule, Hungary’s new center-right Prime Minister Péter Magyar is traveling to Poland this week to draw lessons from Warsaw’s own recent experience undoing authoritarian-leaning governance. The trip comes as Magyar’s Tisza party sets out to dismantle the political and economic infrastructure Orbán built during his more than a decade and a half in power, a mission that has sparked widespread optimism across Europe.

    Magyar’s landslide election victory last month — which delivered Tisza a two-thirds parliamentary supermajority, an unprecedented result in Hungary’s post-Communist era — has drawn consistent comparisons to Poland’s 2023 general election, where Donald Tusk’s center-right coalition ousted the national-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party after eight years in power. Like Tusk, Magyar has made restoring eroded democratic institutions, holding corrupt former officials accountable, and rolling back executive overreach his top policy priorities.

    Magyar’s diplomatic itinerary kicked off with a flight to the southern Polish city of Kraków on Tuesday, followed by an overland journey by train to Warsaw, and a final leg to the Baltic coastal city of Gdańsk. Since being sworn in on May 9, the new prime minister has moved quickly to consolidate his mandate, demanding that dozens of senior officials appointed by Orbán’s administration step aside, and threatening to remove remaining holdouts via constitutional amendment — a power Tisza’s supermajority makes fully achievable.

    Topping Magyar’s target list are key institutional leaders he has labeled “Orbán’s puppets”: ceremonial but constitutionally powerful President Tamás Sulyok, Hungary’s attorney general, and the heads of both the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court. All are appointees of the previous government, and many retain their seats through long terms that extend years into the future; Sulyok’s term runs until 2029, while Constitutional Court head Péter Polt, a widely acknowledged Fidesz loyalist, will remain in office until 2037.

    Warsaw-based Center for Eastern Studies analyst Andrzej Sadecki notes that while retaining control of key state institutions by former regime allies is the same core challenge Tusk faced after taking power in Poland, Magyar holds a critical advantage his Polish counterpart did not. “The situation is much easier for Magyar because he has a constitutional majority. This makes it much easier for him to introduce deep changes,” Sadecki told the Associated Press. Unlike Tusk, who had to negotiate as head of a fragile coalition government, Magyar’s Tisza party won an absolute 53% of the national vote, securing enough seats to pass constitutional amendments without cross-party support. Sadecki framed the election outcome as far more than a routine change of government, calling it “a watershed moment” for Hungarian democracy.

    One of Magyar’s first policy pushes mirrors Tusk’s early actions in Poland: overhauling a state-controlled media ecosystem that operated as a partisan mouthpiece for the previous ruling government. For 16 years, Orbán built an expansive, state-aligned media network that consistently amplified Fidesz’s messaging while defaming, discrediting, and intimidating political opposition. In the wake of his election victory, Magyar slammed Orbán-era public broadcasters as “a factory of lies,” announcing he would suspend all news programming until the outlet can be restructured to meet objective journalism standards.

    Tusk’s government took an almost identical approach less than a month after taking office, overhauling the primetime newscast on Poland’s state television network and replacing senior leadership at all public media outlets. That move drew legal criticism even from some liberal groups, with the Warsaw-based Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights noting that the rapid restructuring “raises serious legal doubts.” But József Péter Martin, executive director of Transparency International Hungary, argues the systemic failure of Hungarian public media under Orbán justifies a full restructuring — and that the process can be completed within the bounds of the rule of law.

    Restoring full judicial independence, by contrast, is shaping up to be one of Magyar’s most difficult long-term challenges, mirroring ongoing struggles faced by Tusk’s administration in Poland. During PiS’s eight years in power, the party overhauled Poland’s court system by appointing loyalist judges to higher courts, punishing dissident judges with disciplinary action, and stacking the Constitutional Court with ideological allies who could block unfavorable legislation through prolonged constitutional review. Tusk’s efforts to reverse these changes have been repeatedly blocked by two successive PiS-aligned Polish presidents, and full judicial independence has yet to be restored.

    In Hungary, similar structural barriers stand in Magyar’s way. Despite repeated calls for his resignation, Orbán ally President Sulyok has publicly stated he has no intention of stepping down early. Martin argues that while rank-and-file Hungarian judges and prosecutors largely uphold their professional duties, replacing the senior leadership of the constitutional and supreme courts is critical to restoring public trust in judicial impartiality. Critically, Martin added that these posts should not be filled with Tisza loyalists, which would simply replace one partisan capture with another, but rather with independent figures fully committed to upholding the Hungarian constitution and public interest.

    The new Hungarian government also faces pressure from voters to hold former Orbán administration officials accountable for alleged corruption and abuse of power — nearly 3.4 million Hungarians cast ballots for Tisza, with many naming accountability as a top priority. In Poland, prosecutors have already opened multiple corruption investigations against former PiS officials, including former Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, who stands accused of diverting public funds intended for violence victims for personal and political gain. Prosecution of Ziobro stalled after he was granted asylum in Orbán’s Hungary earlier this year, though he has since claimed to have relocated to the United States, where Polish authorities are seeking his extradition.

    To meet voter expectations for accountability, Magyar has pledged to launch a new specialized body, the National Asset Recovery and Protection Office, tasked with investigating and recouping public funds allegedly misappropriated during Orbán’s tenure. Martin emphasized that restoring the rule of law and independent judiciary is the “initial and most essential step” to enabling successful prosecution of past abuses, adding that Magyar’s campaign pledge to join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office would be a major step forward. “If all this is done, then I think there is a good chance that the corrupt perpetrators of the former regime, under an independent judiciary, can be held accountable,” Martin said. The report was contributed to by AP correspondent Ciobanu, reporting from Warsaw, Poland.

  • ‘We’re here solely to play football,’ insists North Korean coach

    ‘We’re here solely to play football,’ insists North Korean coach

    Eight years after the last North Korean sports delegation crossed the border into South Korea, a historic inter-Korean football matchup is set to capture global attention on Wednesday, when North Korea’s Naegohyang Women’s FC takes on South Korea’s Suwon FC Women in the semi-finals of the Women’s Asian Champions League. The long-awaited visit has already sparked extraordinary public interest: all 7,087 general admission tickets sold out within hours of being released last week, and when the North Korean squad arrived at Incheon International Airport on Sunday, players and officials were immediately surrounded by crowds of journalists and local supporters holding handwritten welcome signs.

    At a pre-match press conference held Tuesday at Suwon Sports Complex, head coach Ri Yu Il pushed back repeatedly on questions about whether his team expected cheers from South Korean fans, emphasizing that the squad’s sole priority is the game itself. “We are here solely to play football,” Ri told reporters. “Simply put, we will focus only on each match. Therefore, the issue of the supporters is not something I, as a coach, or our players need to concern ourselves with. We will concentrate exclusively on the game.”

    Unlike typical international club matches, this clash has unique logistical and political constraints. North Korean citizens are generally barred from entering South Korea, meaning there will be no official away fan section for Naegohyang. Around 3,000 spectators from South Korean civic groups, backed by $200,000 in funding from Seoul’s unification ministry, are expected to attend and cheer for both squads. Organizers have had to navigate strict South Korean national security laws that prohibit public display of the North Korean national flag, a hurdle that mirrors approaches taken in past inter-Korean events: groups will instead wave unification flags depicting the entire Korean Peninsula.

    Throughout the press conference, both Ri and team captain Kim Kyong Yong remained composed and showed no visible emotion, with all responses translated by a North Korean interpreter. Kim framed the match as an opportunity to honor support from home, saying “We will give our all to repay the trust and expectations of our people and our parents and families.”

    Looking ahead to the semi-final, Ri downplayed the significance of Naegohyang’s 3-0 win over Suwon in the competition’s group stage earlier this year, noting that past results rarely predict future outcomes in knockout football. “Just because they played in the group stage, it would be absolutely wrong to say that one team is stronger or weaker than another based solely on those results,” Ri said. “For us, our focus is simply on doing our best to achieve a good result in tomorrow’s match.”

    Women’s football is a standout sport for North Korea on the international stage: the country’s senior women’s national team currently ranks 11th in the FIFA global rankings, far outperforming the men’s side which sits at 118th. North Korean women’s sides have consistently competed at the highest levels of Asian and international competition.

    The visit takes place against a tense diplomatic backdrop: North Korea has so far not responded to repeated calls for unconditional dialogue from South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who has adopted a far more conciliatory stance toward Pyongyang than his conservative predecessor. The two Koreas remain technically at war, as the 1950-1953 Korean conflict ended in an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty.

    The winner of Wednesday’s semi-final will advance to Saturday’s tournament final, also hosted in Suwon, where they will face the winner of the other semi-final between Australia’s Melbourne City and Japan’s Tokyo Verdy Beleza.

  • Kylie Minogue says cancer experience ‘still with me’

    Kylie Minogue says cancer experience ‘still with me’

    Global pop icon Kylie Minogue has bared her soul in a revealing new three-part Netflix documentary, confronting two decades of lingering trauma from her breast cancer diagnosis and opening up about the harsh media mistreatment that marked the early days of her career.

    Twenty years after receiving the life-altering news that she had breast cancer, the Australian superstar said the emotional weight of that experience continues to shape her life to this day. When recalling the moment she got her diagnosis, Minogue described an overwhelming state of disbelief that left her scrambling to process uncharted territory. “Where do I even start? Shock,” she told BBC London in an interview about the project. “You’re trying to understand something you’ve never thought about before. It’s a crash course. It’s very deep and extended and it’s still with me today in many ways.”

    Having called London her home for more than 30 years, Minogue also pulled back the curtain on the unflattering side of her early rise to fame, when she made the transition from starring on the hit Australian soap opera *Neighbours* to building her global music career. Revisiting old interview footage from that era for the documentary remains a distressing experience, she said, recalling the relentless, unkind scrutiny that left her feeling deeply humiliated as a teenage newcomer to the spotlight. “When I see some of that footage back, I’m still as confounded as I was even as a 19-year-old,” she shared. “Sometimes it felt like just humiliation and having to sit within that frame and handle it.”

    Minogue noted that the aggressive, demeaning treatment she endured as a young star would be unlikely to unfold the same way in the modern entertainment industry, but she acknowledged that contemporary public figures face a new set of intense pressures stemming from social media platforms.

    For years, Minogue repeatedly turned down offers to make an in-depth documentary about her life and career, saying she was never ready to confront her most painful memories on screen. This time, however, she realized the moment had come to lay her full story bare. “I’ve been asked many times and I always said no,” she explained. “If not now, when?”

    Completing the project required her to push past lingering anxiety and embrace vulnerability to revisit chapters of her life she had long avoided. “In the end, I just had to take the plunge and really open myself up a little more,” she said.

    Beyond looking back at past struggles, the pop star also shared her plans for the future: she hopes to return to acting down the line while continuing to create new music, a craft she described as both “a best friend” and “a saviour” that has carried her through her hardest days. Minogue also left fans with an exciting tease, hinting that she could return to perform at London’s iconic Hyde Park following her standout 2024 set at the venue. “I’ll see you again at Hyde Park,” she said, before adding with a playful smile, “I said that like I’m assuming I’m going to play Hyde Park again. Maybe I will. It was amazing.”

    The documentary marks the most comprehensive look at Minogue’s decades-long career and personal journey ever created, giving fans an unprecedented glimpse into the resilience that has defined one of pop music’s most enduring stars.

  • Richard Marles accuses Coalition of creating submarine ‘capability gap’

    Richard Marles accuses Coalition of creating submarine ‘capability gap’

    A sharp political clash over Australia’s national defence policy has erupted after Defence Minister Richard Marles launched a scathing attack on the former Liberal-National Coalition government, accusing it of neglecting critical planning for the nation’s ageing Collins-class submarine fleet and leaving a dangerous capability gap that the current Albanese Labor government is now forced to address. The confrontation came during a major policy address delivered by Marles at the Lowy Institute on Tuesday, where he positioned the Albanese government as the true steward of Australian national defence while dismantling the long-held public perception that conservative parties are the more competent actors on security issues.

    At the center of the dispute is the government’s scaled-back, reworked approach to the A$11 billion life-of-type extension (LOTE) program for Australia’s six Collins-class conventionally powered submarines, which are set to remain in service until the delivery of nuclear-powered submarines secured under the trilateral AUKUS security pact with the United States and the United Kingdom. Following an independent defense review, the Albanese administration has abandoned the original full fleet overhaul plan inherited from the Coalition, instead adopting a flexible, conditions-based strategy that cuts back unnecessary engineering overhauls, reduces scheduling risks, and focuses upgrades exclusively on high-priority capabilities including core weapons systems and combat infrastructure.

    The oldest of the fleet, HMAS Farncomb – launched almost 30 years ago – will be the first vessel to enter the LOTE program later this month, with work split between shipyards at Osborne in South Australia and Henderson in Western Australia, carried out by the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC). The work will retain and restore the submarine’s core base components while modernizing critical combat and weapons systems. Upgrades to the fleet’s optronics systems were previously shelved by the current government to align with the tailored, risk-mitigated approach. Marles also confirmed the revised program will accelerate modernization work on HMAS Rankin, the newest submarine in the Collins-class fleet.

    “This approach will reduce engineering risk by sustaining existing systems where appropriate, while continuing to upgrade critical capabilities that keep our fleet operationally effective,” Marles said in his address. “It will ensure our Collins-class submarines remain a potent, highly capable undersea deterrent for Australia today and for years to come.”

    Beyond the submarine program, Marles used the speech to outline the government’s broader defence agenda, highlighting progress on accelerating the delivery of new Mogami-class frigates and major investments in Ghost Bat and Ghost Shark, two domestically developed autonomous defense vehicles. He pushed back aggressively against decades of Conservative branding on defence, arguing that Labor has always been Australia’s natural party of national defence, pointing to the legacy of former Labor prime ministers including Chris Watson, Andrew Fisher, John Curtin, and Gough Whitlam in building Australia’s independent defence capacity and national sovereignty.

    “Labor’s historical focus on defence comes from the fact that our armed forces, national security, and defence capability sit at the very heart of Australian national sovereignty,” Marles said. “The character of any nation is defined in large part by what it is able to do militarily. Sovereignty is the foundation of nationhood, of the idea of Australia itself – and Labor has always been the party of the Australian project.”

    He went on to criticize the conservative vision of Australian federation, noting that original conservative leaders sought only to unite six British colonies into a single British entity focused on free trade, with little interest in advancing an independent Australian national identity. Turning to the Coalition’s nine years in office under prime ministers Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, and Scott Morrison, Marles called the previous government “the worst defence government in Australia’s history”, pointing to its failure to address the rapid expansion of Chinese naval capabilities in the Indo-Pacific. He added that the current government maintains “serious concerns” over recent Chinese actions against Philippine civilian and government vessels in the South China Sea.

    “For decades, the Liberals have enjoyed a huge brand advantage when it comes to defence policy,” Marles said. “But the gap between perception and reality is sometimes a chasm. All leaders face the danger of believing their own publicity – and in defence, that has made the Liberals fundamentally lazy.”

    On the future submarine program, Marles reiterated that the previous government’s mismanagement had left a critical capability gap for Australia’s most important maritime military platform. “By this point, careful, long-range planning for extending the life of the Collins-class fleet should have been well underway,” he said. “Unfortunately for Australia, the Liberals failed to prepare and implement a thoughtful, coherent LOTE plan for the submarines.”

    The debate comes as global security uncertainty intensifies following the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East, which Marles said has placed new, urgent focus on Australia’s defence capabilities, national resilience, and sovereign independence. In 2024, the Collins-class fleet was officially listed as a “Product of Concern” by the federal government, triggering increased direct ministerial oversight of the upgrade program to address delays and capability risks.