On June 17, 2026, China’s State Council Information Office officially released a landmark white paper in Beijing titled *More Just and Equitable Global Governance: China’s Principles, Proposals and Actions*, laying out the country’s long-held stance, actionable proposals, and ongoing commitments to reforming and improving the global governance system. The document comes at a time of rising global fragmentation, growing governance deficits, and intensifying cross-border challenges that demand coordinated collective action from the international community. Its core goal is to clarify China’s approach, build broader consensus among nations, and strengthen collective capacity to address shared global risks, ultimately laying the groundwork for a more inclusive and fairer global governance framework. As the white paper emphasizes, global governance is a collective undertaking that shapes the long-term well-being of all people around the world. The pursuit of a just and equitable system has been a shared aspiration of communities across every region for decades, and China has consistently positioned itself as an active participant, dedicated contributor, and responsible builder of the global governance order. Central to China’s modern approach to global governance is the vision of a global community with a shared future for mankind, put forward by President Xi Jinping in the new era. Under this guiding vision, China advocates for a global governance system rooted in the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. It also promotes true multilateralism, with the aim of nurturing an equal and orderly multipolar world and driving economic globalization that is universally beneficial and inclusive to all nations. In 2025, President Xi Jinping launched the Global Governance Initiative (GGI), a framework crafted to address the two defining questions of the current era: what kind of global governance system the world needs, and how to reform and improve existing governance structures to meet modern challenges. Since its introduction, the initiative has garnered remarkable international support: nearly 160 countries and international organizations have backed the proposal, and more than 60 nations have joined the GGI’s Group of Friends. The white paper notes that the international community recognizes the GGI sends a powerful, clear message: the world must reaffirm its commitment to multilateralism, unite divided forces, and work collectively toward a fairer global future. Aligned with the growing global push for greater democracy in international relations, the GGI has renewed international confidence in the practice of multilateralism, at a moment when multilateral institutions face unprecedented pressure and skepticism. It provides a clear, practical roadmap for upgrading global governance, offering much-needed stability and positive momentum to a world grappling with geopolitical turbulence, economic uncertainty, and overlapping transnational crises. The white paper underscores that the core foundation for effectively implementing the GGI is unwavering respect for the authority and central role of the United Nations in global affairs. For the initiative to succeed, major powers must step up to their international responsibilities, and all countries must come together in cooperative partnership to address the growing deficits in peace and development across the globe. All nations, the document stresses, should firmly uphold the international system centered on the United Nations, protect the international order rooted in international law, and abide by the basic norms of international relations grounded in the purposes and principles of the UN Charter — rejecting attempts to fragment the global order through exclusionary blocs and frameworks that serve narrow national interests. Structured into five core sections, in addition to a preface and concluding chapter, the white paper opens by outlining the severe, complex challenges facing the contemporary world. It moves on to explain how the GGI responds to these pressing modern challenges, before detailing China’s existing contributions to advancing more inclusive global governance. It then lays out the vision for guiding global governance reform toward a more prosperous and equitable future, and closes by calling for collective action at this critical juncture in global history. The release of the white paper comes as China prepares to host the inaugural Xiong’an Global Governance Forum, marking another key step in advancing dialogue and cooperation on global governance reform among the international community.
分类： politics
-
Equatorial Guinea government resigns after failing to meet targets
The entire cabinet of Equatorial Guinea has stepped down after the government was formally accused of failing to meet its policy targets, enabling systemic corruption, and stalling long-planned economic diversification efforts, according to Vice-President Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue.
Vice-President Obiang Mangue — who is the son of long-ruling President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, the world’s longest-serving incumbent head of state — confirmed that Prime Minister Manuel Osa Nsue Nsua submitted the collective resignation of all government ministers this week. The outgoing administration, which was only appointed in early 2024, delivered less than 10 percent of its stated policy goals, the vice-president confirmed in a public post on X, the social platform formally known as Twitter.
While the vice-president did not outline specific unmet targets in his announcement, an official statement from the ruling Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea (PDGE) laid out the full scope of presidential dissatisfaction. According to the party’s statement, President Obiang Nguema Mbasogo identified endemic corruption, misappropriation of public funds for personal gain, and widespread stagnation in national development projects as core failures of the outgoing administration. The president also criticized the cabinet for failing to advance policies to diversify the national economy, particularly a lack of progress supporting growth in the domestic agricultural sector, a key step to reduce the country’s reliance on imported goods that can be produced locally.
For decades, Equatorial Guinea’s economy has been almost entirely dependent on oil and gas exports, which generate the vast majority of the country’s total export revenue and government budget. Despite its significant national oil wealth, widespread poverty remains pervasive across the country of 1.8 million people, with most residents seeing little benefit from the nation’s natural resource reserves. In recent years, the economy has also faced growing headwinds driven by declining oil production and shifting global demand for fossil fuels, making economic diversification a higher priority for policymakers.
President Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has held uninterrupted control of the West African nation since 1979, and has drawn longstanding international criticism for concentrating political power in the hands of his family, with multiple close relatives holding key senior government positions. The vice-president framed the mass resignation as a commitment to accountability in public governance, noting on X that “the principle that responsibility in public management must be accompanied by results” demanded the cabinet’s exit. He added that the low level of policy delivery achieved by the outgoing cabinet was “clearly insufficient in relation to the expectations and commitments undertaken.”
Local political observers expect President Obiang Nguema Mbasogo to announce a new full cabinet appointment in the coming days to replace the outgoing administration, with formal nominations expected to be made public shortly after the resignation is formalized.
-
Taiwan’s foreign minister says Chinese pressure on countries over the island is a ‘new normal’
MOMBASA, Kenya and TAIPEI, Taiwan — A fresh incident of Taiwan being blocked from a major international conference has underscored what Taiwan’s top diplomat describes as a persistent, growing pattern of Chinese pressure to shut the self-ruled island out of global engagements. On Wednesday, Taiwan Foreign Minister Lin Chia-Lung publicly condemned the recent detention and exclusion of two Taiwanese delegates from the Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, Kenya, an incident Taipei attributes directly to coercive pressure from Beijing on Kenyan organizers.
According to Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry, the two delegates were detained for more than 20 hours after Kenyan authorities seized their passports and mobile phones, barring them from entry on the grounds that their Taiwan-issued passports were not legally recognized. In response to the incident, the entire remaining Taiwanese delegation withdrew from the high-stakes conference, which gathers global stakeholders to tackle pressing ocean governance challenges ranging from climate change-driven ocean degradation to biodiversity loss and plastic pollution.
Kenyan officials have defended their decision to block the delegates, aligning with Beijing’s longstanding “One China” policy that claims Taiwan as an inalienable province of China. “Our foreign policy recognizes only one China,” Korir Sing’oei, Principal Secretary of Kenya’s Foreign Ministry, told reporters. “Any person purporting to hold a Taiwanese passport would ordinarily not be allowed through our borders for lacking proper documentation and would not in any event be part of a formal state meeting convened by Kenya government.”
Lin pushed back sharply against Kenya’s justification, arguing that Nairobi had “unilaterally distorted and unwarrantedly expanded” its interpretation of the One China principle to exclude Taiwan’s delegates. “The obstruction of our delegates from attending the meeting is absolutely wrong, and we strongly condemn and protest against it,” Lin stated during an event hosted by the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents’ Club Wednesday.
The Mombasa incident is far from an isolated case, Lin emphasized: Beijing’s campaign to pressure third-party countries to restrict Taiwan’s access to international forums has become “the new normal” for cross-strait and global diplomatic engagement. The Chinese government has for decades pushed to limit Taiwan’s participation in multilateral bodies, barring the island from full membership in the World Health Organization and forcing it to compete under the altered name “Chinese Taipei” at the Olympic Games. In recent months, however, Lin said Beijing has ramped up these coercive efforts, particularly targeting developing and emerging economies in the Global South that are increasingly vulnerable to Chinese economic influence.
“Some Global South countries are manipulated by the Chinese government in every way,” Lin said, adding that “some democratic countries are trying to fight against it.”
A high-profile earlier incident this year laid bare the extent of Beijing’s pressure: In April, Taiwan’s president was forced to postpone a planned visit to Eswatini — one of the 13 countries that still officially recognize Taipei — after three neighboring nations reversed earlier approvals for his plane to fly through their airspace, a move widely attributed to Chinese coercion. The president eventually traveled to the African kingdom days later aboard a chartered plane provided by Eswatini’s monarch.
The 2024 Our Ocean Conference, hosted for the first time by an African nation, has been framed by organizers as a landmark moment for African leadership in global ocean stewardship. The event draws hundreds of delegates from across the African continent, the United States, the European Union, and small island developing states that are disproportionately impacted by rising ocean levels and climate change. China has not yet issued any public comment on the accusations of pressure related to the Kenya incident.
Cross-strait relations have been defined by separate governance since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, when defeated Nationalist Party forces retreated to Taiwan after the Communist Party seized control of mainland China. The island has since transitioned from decades of martial law to a full multi-party democracy, but Beijing has never renounced its claim to Taiwan and has repeatedly stated it reserves the right to use military force to annex the island if it formally declares independence.
-
Philippine Senate president allied with Duterte removed ahead of his daughter’s impeachment trial
After a bitter two-week leadership deadlock that exposed deep political rifts at the heart of the Philippine government, a close ally of incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has claimed the top leadership post in the Philippine Senate, ousting an ally of former President Rodrigo Duterte just months ahead of the impeachment trial of Duterte’s daughter, sitting Vice President Sara Duterte.
Sherwin Gatchalian secured the Senate presidency in a final vote Wednesday, earning the backing of 13 of the chamber’s 24 senators. His challenger, Alan Peter Cayetano — a long-time loyalist of the former Duterte political bloc — formally conceded defeat shortly after the vote result was finalized. The standoff began in early May when both Gatchalian and Cayetano claimed the Senate presidency, each citing conflicting legal interpretations of legislative quorum rules to legitimize their separate faction votes.
The deadlock broke abruptly Wednesday when one senator previously aligned with Cayetano defected to the pro-Marcos bloc, handing Gatchalian’s side the clear majority needed to formalize his leadership. The shake-up comes against a backdrop of intensifying political conflict between the Marcos administration and the Duterte camp, a once-formidable alliance that collapsed into open hostility in recent months, laying bare the persistent institutional vulnerabilities that have long marked Philippine democracy.
“It’s a relief,” noted Jean Franco, a political science professor at the state-run University of the Philippines, in the wake of the resolution. But she cautioned that the country’s democratic system, “with its weak and fragile institutions,” continues to face mounting challenges.
Observers have widely framed the Senate leadership fight as a proxy battle for the broader power struggle between Marcos and Vice President Sara Duterte, the country’s two highest-elected officials. The pair governed as coalition partners for years, but their relationship has fractured dramatically, a split that mirrors the deep partisan divisions that have roiled Philippine politics for decades.
Tensions escalated sharply after the 2023 handover of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to face trial for alleged crimes against humanity stemming from his administration’s brutal anti-drug crackdown, which left thousands of mostly low-income drug suspects dead between 2016 and 2022. Sara Duterte has publicly blamed Marcos for orchestrating the arrest and transfer of her father, who has repeatedly denied authorizing extrajudicial killings throughout his time in office. Duterte’s ICC trial is scheduled to open in November.
In a twist that fueled the initial leadership deadlock, Cayetano claimed the Senate presidency on May 11 after Sen. Ronald dela Rosa — Duterte’s former national police chief and an alleged co-perpetrator in the ICC’s crimes against humanity case — emerged from months of hiding to cast the deciding vote for Cayetano. Hours after Cayetano’s win, the ICC unsealed an arrest warrant for dela Rosa, prompting him to return to hiding, where he remains at large.
The pro-Duterte bloc has suffered additional setbacks in recent weeks: another of Cayetano’s key allies, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, was arrested on June 1 on a plunder charge linked to alleged massive kickbacks from a government flood control infrastructure project. Estrada has denied all wrongdoing and was released after posting bail.
Control of the Senate carries profound political stakes for the Marcos administration, as the chamber is set to convene the impeachment trial of Sara Duterte in July. The impeachment case was advanced last month by the House of Representatives, which is currently dominated by Marcos allies. Duterte faces multiple charges, including allegations of unexplained wealth and public statements threatening to assassinate President Marcos. She has denied all accusations, with her supporters arguing the charges are politically manufactured to derail her already-announced plan to run for the Philippine presidency in 2028, when Marcos’s current six-year term concludes.
-
Spain’s former PM Zapatero faces questioning by judge in corruption probe
MADRID – Former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has appeared before a National Court judge in Madrid this Wednesday, marking his first in-person court appearance since formal investigations were launched against him last month over a series of alleged financial crimes. The 65-year-old Socialist leader, who held the premiership between 2004 and 2011, faces accusations of influence peddling, money laundering, and other financial misconduct connected to a 53 million euro ($61.5 million) public bailout granted to defunct carrier Plus Ultra Airlines in 2021.
The bailout funds, which were drawn from the European Union’s COVID-19 economic recovery program, were approved a full decade after Zapatero left public office. Plus Ultra, which specialized in routes connecting Spain to South America, counted Venezuelan investors among its major stakeholders, a detail that carries added context given Zapatero’s well-documented post-premiership work facilitating diplomatic dialogue with the government of Venezuela, which has faced widespread diplomatic isolation from Western nations following a crackdown on opposition political movements.
Beyond the airline bailout probe, presiding judge José Luis Calama is also examining separate allegations of tax fraud and contraband trafficking tied to 1.3 million euros worth of jewelry uncovered by police during a May search of Zapatero’s Madrid office. The unreported jewelry was found locked in a secure safe during the law enforcement raid.
Zapatero has issued public statements vigorously rejecting all wrongdoing tied to the airline bailout case. Regarding the seized jewelry, he has stated that the pieces were either inherited from family or received as formal gifts over the course of his political career.
The former prime minister remains a prominent influential figure within Spain’s Socialist Party, which is currently led by incumbent Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Over the past two years, Sánchez’s administration has been repeatedly shaken by a string of public corruption scandals that have eroded public trust in the party.
Under Spanish judicial procedure, the investigative judge assigned to the case is tasked with reviewing evidence to confirm whether criminal suspicion warrants advancing the matter to a formal trial. If sufficient evidence is uncovered, a separate judge will oversee the full trial proceedings. Judicial observers note that the full investigative and trial process can extend for months, or even multiple years, depending on the complexity of the case.
-
A far-right backlash is surging in Latin America as crime fears fuel Bukele-style crackdowns
At the opening of the 2020s, Latin America appeared to be on an irreversible leftward trajectory. Fueled by widespread public anger over deep-seated systemic inequalities that were drastically worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, progressive leaders won power across most of the region’s largest economies, from Brazil and Chile to Colombia and Peru. But just a few years later, a sharp conservative political backlash is gaining momentum across the continent.
While overall homicide rates across most of Latin America have fallen compared to 10 years ago, sharp upticks in violent crime in key nations and a region-wide surge in non-violent offending, particularly gang-led extortion, have created a perfect political opening for right-wing populists. These candidates have mobilized voters by leaning into hardline, heavy-handed promises to crack down on both organized crime and irregular migration, borrowing a playbook popularized by El Salvador’s authoritarian President Nayib Bukele. Their inflammatory rhetoric framing migrants as inherent criminals has earned the public backing of former U.S. President Donald Trump, and energized alienated voter bases, even as human rights observers warn these policies risk widespread abuses and undermine democratic institutions.
Enrique Roig, vice president of the Washington-based non-profit Human Rights First and a former U.S. State Department official, notes that a new coordinated cross-regional right wing has emerged, aligned with the U.S. MAGA movement that has also weaponized public anxiety over crime to drive political mobilization. “It’s easier to sell locking people up than it is to deal with the reasons why mainly young men join gangs in countries like El Salvador,” Roig explained.
Adam Isacson, director of defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, points out that while populist politics have found traction across the ideological spectrum in recent years, only right-wing candidates have been able to offer short-term security fixes that promise voters they will “feel safer in six months” — even if that requires trading democratic norms and human rights protections. Left-leaning proposals, by contrast, center on long-term, structural solutions such as community violence intervention programs, improved police training, and comprehensive judicial and prison reform that take years to deliver tangible results.
“It’s absolutely what you’re supposed to be doing, but people’s patience runs out,” Isacson said. “So, there come the Bukeles of the world saying, ‘You want to feel better? We got this.’”
Across the region, right-wing candidates aligned with this tough-on-crime agenda have already surged to front-runner status or won office. In Colombia, where large swathes of rural territory have fallen back into armed conflict between government forces and rebel groups, pro-Trump businessman Abelardo de la Espriella has led polls ahead of the upcoming presidential runoff election, modeling his platform explicitly on Bukele’s agenda. In Peru, where extortion cases have grown fivefold over the past half-decade, Keiko Fujimori — daughter of disgraced authoritarian former President Alberto Fujimori — advanced to the June 7 presidential runoff on a hardline law-and-order platform, vowing to deploy the military to prisons and border regions. In Costa Rica, voters reeling from record drug-linked homicides elected conservative populist Laura Fernández in February on the same tough-on-crime platform, while in Honduras, businessman Nasry Asfura won December’s election after Trump endorsed him as a partner to fight “narco-communists.”
Data from InSight Crime, a think tank focused on organized crime across the Americas, shows that the combined average homicide rate for Latin America and the Caribbean dropped by more than 5% in 2025 compared to 2024, with the regional median rate hitting 17.6 per 100,000 people. But the trend masks dangerous exceptions in key cocaine-producing and transit nations. Colombia and Peru, the world’s two largest cocaine producers, along with neighboring Ecuador, which has become a key trafficking gateway to European markets, have all seen sharp spikes in drug-related killings. In 2025, Peru recorded 2,400 homicides and Colombia reported 14,780, the highest annual totals for both countries since at least 2020. Ecuador saw a staggering 31% year-over-year rise in killings, hitting 9,216 total homicides.
Much of this soaring violence in Ecuador stems from the expansion of transnational cartels from Mexico, Colombia, and the Balkans, which expanded their operations during the pandemic and recruited local gang members to control trafficking routes. Disputes over territory have even spilled into the country’s prison system, where more than 1,000 inmates have been killed in targeted attacks since 2021. While Ecuador recorded 16,100 reported extortion cases in 2025, down from 23,000 in 2024, experts widely note the crime is drastically underreported across the region.
In Chile, long considered one of Latin America’s most stable and safe countries, the shift in political tides has been particularly dramatic. Four years ago, voters rejected ultra-conservative candidate José Antonio Kast to elect Gabriel Boric, a young progressive former student activist who campaigned on addressing Chile’s long-standing social inequalities. But last year, widespread public fear over rising crime — amplified by popular narratives linking the surge to the country’s growing Venezuelan migrant population — handed Kast a historic victory.
Venezuelan transnational criminal groups such as the Tren de Aragua gang have exploited the mass migration wave out of Venezuela to expand human trafficking and extortion networks across the region following the pandemic. In Chile, this has led to an unprecedented surge in carjackings, kidnappings, and gang shootouts. Chile’s Interior Ministry data shows the national homicide rate rose 30% between 2021 and 2022, peaking at 6.7 per 100,000 people. While the rate has declined slightly since, it remains well above pre-pandemic levels, and other violent crimes continue to climb: kidnappings have risen nearly 180% over the past four years.
During his campaign, Kast visited Bukele’s notorious mega-prisons in El Salvador and adopted the Salvadoran leader’s hardline playbook, handily defeating his left-wing opponent in December. He pledged to build a massive border wall, toughen prison conditions for gang members, and deport hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants. Voters largely overlooked his hardline stances against abortion and same-sex marriage, as well as his public defense of Augusto Pinochet’s brutal military dictatorship, in exchange for his promise of rapid public safety gains.
In Peru, Keiko Fujimori has similarly leveraged public anxiety over rising violent crime to stage a political comeback, four years after she lost the presidency to left-wing leader Pedro Castillo, who is now imprisoned on corruption charges. Campaigning under the slogan “Peru with Order,” Fujimori won the largest share of the vote in April’s first round of voting, and entered the June 7 runoff in a technical tie with Roberto Sánchez, Castillo’s political heir.
Experts warn that growing public support for these authoritarian-leaning security policies — a tradition long tied to 20th-century right-wing dictatorships across the region — has grown alongside collapsing public trust in state institutions and rising disillusionment with democratic governance. Eduardo Moncada, director of the Institute of Latin American Studies at Columbia University, explains the prevailing public mindset: “democracy hasn’t been able to keep me and my family safe, so maybe democracy is part of the problem.”
This shift poses a major existential challenge to the region’s left-wing governments, which have overseen sluggish economic growth, grappled with high-profile corruption scandals, and failed to deliver on landmark promises of social reform in recent years. Even progressive leaders have been forced to shift with the changing political tide: Chile’s progressive Jeannette Jara and Peru’s Sánchez have both softened their stances on security policy, while Uruguayan President Yamandú Orsi has called Bukele’s authoritarian security model “worthy of further study.” Guatemala’s center-left government declared a national state of emergency to crack down on gang violence this year and has accepted security assistance from the Trump-aligned U.S. administration targeting drug traffickers.
But for newly elected leaders who campaigned on rapid hardline security change, the realities of governing large, cash-strapped democracies have quickly tempered their ambitions — a reality that stands in stark contrast to Bukele’s El Salvador, where his ruling party holds a legislative supermajority that allows him to enact policy without opposition.
Ecuadoran President Daniel Noboa, elected in 2023, campaigned on a promise to lock gang leaders in floating prison barges and build a network of mega-prisons. But after taking office, he abandoned the floating prison plan entirely, and it took his administration until November of last year to open the first mega-prison. Beatriz García Nice, a policy analyst at the Washington-based Stimson Center, explained that “Building mega-prisons hasn’t been that easy or that straightforward because the country is in a very bad state financially and because President Daniel Noboa still sees himself as a democrat.”
Nearly three months into Kast’s tenure as Chile’s president, public opinion has grown skeptical: most voters report they cannot see any difference between his security crackdown and the policies of his left-wing predecessor. After promising to immediately round up and expel the country’s more than 300,000 undocumented migrants, his government has only organized two deportation flights. Kast’s public rhetoric has softened noticeably, and he sparked widespread outrage last month when he described his mass deportation promise as “a metaphor.” Even during a June 1 address rolling out new security measures — including a ban on social benefits for people convicted of attacking police — he sought to lower supporters’ inflated expectations.
“Governing, as many of you know, means taking responsibility for reality, especially when it’s difficult,” Kast said. “I’m proceeding step by step because this isn’t something that happens overnight.”
-
Trump to wrap G7 summit facing skepticism at home and jitters overseas over his plan to end Iran war
EVIAN-LES-BAINS, France — On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump concluded formal working sessions of the Group of Seven summit at the scenic Alpine lakeside resort, capping off days of diplomatic talks dominated by his push to win global backing for a still-unseen tentative nuclear agreement with Iran. Even as allied leaders and domestic stakeholders openly question the pact’s lack of detail, Trump has framed the unsigned deal as a historic breakthrough that will permanently block Iran from developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The G7 gathering of the world’s leading industrialized nations wrapped up its formal agenda with focused discussions on two pressing global priorities: the long-term governance of artificial intelligence and strategies to stimulate sustained inclusive economic growth across major economies. Before departing for Washington D.C., Trump is set to attend a lavish one-on-one dinner hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles outside Paris, an honor marking the upcoming 250th anniversary of American independence that Trump has openly welcomed.
The core controversy overshadowing Trump’s final summit day remains the Iran deal. Neither the White House nor Iranian officials have publicly released the full text of the agreement, which is scheduled for a formal signing ceremony this Friday at a luxury resort on Switzerland’s Lake Lucerne. Despite the lack of transparency, Trump lauded the still-unpublished memorandum to reporters, saying “It’s a great document. Here’s what it says: Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. It won’t have one to buy, to develop — it will not have a nuclear weapon. And I would say that’s about 99.9% of what I wanted.”
Skepticism runs deep on multiple fronts. Key U.S. ally Israel has openly expressed unease over the terms of the agreement, while Republican lawmakers in Trump’s own party have raised doubts that the deal goes far enough to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The international community is also waiting for concrete proof that the pact will deliver on a critical secondary promise: reopening and permanently securing the Strait of Hormuz, the vital maritime chokepoint that Iran has effectively closed to commercial oil traffic since the outbreak of the recent conflict. Before the war, roughly 20% of the world’s traded oil and natural gas passed through the strait.
Complicating the agreement further, U.S. and Iranian officials have publicly offered conflicting interpretations of the deal’s terms. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated that Israel’s ongoing military presence in southern Lebanon, where Israeli forces have been targeting Iran-backed Hezbollah militants, would count as a violation of the pact. “Without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they occupied during this war, the war has not fully come to an end,” Araghchi said. For his part, Trump acknowledged Tuesday that an Israeli strike on Hezbollah would not automatically derail the deal, but criticized Israel’s prolonged military campaign, noting “Israel’s fighting Hezbollah too long, and too many people are being killed.” Israeli strikes in Lebanon have killed nearly 4,000 people, hundreds of whom are civilians, and forced more than 1 million people to flee their homes since March 2.
Beyond the Iran nuclear debate, Trump scheduled a series of key bilateral meetings on his final G7 day, including a sit-down with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that comes at a fraught moment for U.S.-India ties. Tensions have risen in recent weeks after three Indian sailors were killed in a U.S. military strike on a commercial tanker in the Gulf of Oman, carried out as part of Washington’s blockade of Iranian oil shipments. New Delhi has formally protested the incident, and relations have already been complicated by Trump’s back-and-forth tariffs on Indian goods over India’s continued purchases of discounted Russian oil, as well as Indian concerns that Trump’s recent trade truce negotiations with China could weaken India’s position as a rival manufacturing hub. The two leaders enjoyed a close relationship during Trump’s first term in office, but the dynamic has shifted significantly since his return to the White House.
Trump also planned to hold one-on-one talks with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, one of three Middle Eastern leaders invited to the summit by host Macron. On Tuesday, G7 leaders held a working lunch with el-Sissi, Qatar’s ruling emir, and the president of the United Arab Emirates focused on developing alternative energy supply routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz. French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Pascal Confavreux explained that discussions centered on planning and financing overland infrastructure to redirect Gulf energy exports away from the closed chokepoint.
For Trump, the high-profile Versailles dinner is a particularly anticipated stop. The U.S. president openly shared his excitement for the event, saying that the opulent historic venue, the former royal residence of French kings from Louis XIV to Louis XVI, was enough to convince him to extend his post-summit stay in France. “I’m a fan of beautiful places, and I was leaving in the afternoon, and then the French president who happens to be a very nice man, invited me to dinner at Versailles,” Trump said. “And Versailles is not gold leaf — Versailles is the real deal. And I said I’d like to do it.”
The reporting was contributed by AP correspondents based in Evian-les-Bains, Geneva and Washington, with original reporting from Madhani in Geneva.
-
Germany and Poland to sign a new defense deal as balance of power in Europe shifts
Against a backdrop of rising Russian aggression on Europe’s eastern frontier and growing global uncertainty over long-term United States military commitment to the continent, Germany and Poland are preparing to sign a landmark bilateral defense agreement on Wednesday, marking a new era of pragmatic security cooperation between two neighbors with a long and fraught shared history.
Shifting regional dynamics have reshaped the relationship between Berlin and Warsaw in recent years. After Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and Poland’s liberal-led government took office in 2023 replacing the nationalist Law and Justice administration, bilateral ties have moved beyond historical friction to focus on shared security priorities. With Washington weighing a partial drawdown of its troop presence in Europe, Poland has pushed for leading European powers to take greater responsibility for defending NATO’s eastern flank. For its part, Germany is working to revitalize the Bundeswehr, its long-neglected military, with the explicit goal of building the most powerful conventional land force on NATO’s European side, positioning Berlin as a central backbone of European defense in the coming decade.
Poland’s strategic importance has grown exponentially since the start of the war in Ukraine: the country has emerged as a critical logistics and supply hub for Kyiv, while its rapidly expanding economy and massive increases in defense spending have made it an indispensable partner for Germany and other core European allies. “We Germans need a strong Poland as an equal partner,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated following a December meeting with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Berlin, adding that this partnership is a fundamental German national interest.
The upcoming defense agreement will outline concrete cooperative frameworks across multiple key security domains, including joint protection infrastructure for the Baltic Sea region, coordinated military mobility and cross-border infrastructure projects, cyber defense collaboration, and joint development of new defense technologies. Justyna Gotkowska, deputy director of the Warsaw-based Center for Eastern Studies think tank, noted that NATO’s collective defense plans permanently bind Germany to the security of Central and Eastern Europe, assigning Berlin a core role in defending the Baltic region alongside Poland and other neighboring states. “Germany is largely responsible for the defense of the Baltic states, and without cooperation with Poland, that will not happen,” Gotkowska explained. Military analysts widely view the Baltic states as the most probable target for a Russian attack on NATO territory in any future conflict.
While the agreement will reaffirm both nations’ existing mutual defense obligations under NATO and EU treaties, it differs from recent bilateral defense pacts each country has signed with France and the United Kingdom. Instead of including formal political mutual defense declarations, the German-Polish deal is an inter-ministerial agreement focused exclusively on practical military coordination. This structure was chosen to overcome lingering domestic political obstacles in Poland: when asked in June why Poland would not sign a full political treaty with Germany, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski explained that Polish President Karol Nawrocki, who was elevated to office with support from the nationalist Law and Justice party, would never approve such an agreement. Sikorski noted “hell would break loose here” if a full political treaty moved forward.
Historical tensions remain a persistent stumbling block. During its time in government, Law and Justice demanded $1.3 trillion in World War II reparations from Germany for Nazi Germany’s occupation of Poland, a claim Berlin has repeatedly rejected. The reparations issue is expected to reemerge as a polarizing political topic ahead of Poland’s 2025 general election, forcing Tusk to walk a fine line: the prime minister has already demanded Germany speed up compensation payments for surviving occupation victims, and he cannot afford to be seen by Polish voters as soft on Germany or aligned with Berlin’s interests at Poland’s expense.
Even as security cooperation deepens, questions remain about Poland’s place in Europe’s core security decision-making. To date, Germany has prioritized closed-door negotiations on Ukraine policy and other major security issues with its traditional Western European partners France and the United Kingdom, often excluding Warsaw from key talks. After the June 2024 London summit that brought Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy together with leaders from Germany, France, and the UK to discuss potential future peace negotiations with Russia, Tusk publicly confirmed he had complained to Merz about Poland’s exclusion. “Any arrangements made without our participation will not be respected or binding for us,” Tusk told reporters in Warsaw.
Still, many foreign policy analysts agree the shifting balance of power in Europe demands a new approach to the bilateral relationship. Rolf Nikel, former German ambassador to Poland and vice president of the German Council on Foreign Relations, argued that Poland’s role and influence within Europe and NATO have grown dramatically in recent years. “So Poland must be taken more seriously today, and, above all, must be respected more than we have seen in the past,” Nikel said. Gotkowska added that Germany must acknowledge the changing economic and military landscape: while Germany’s economy has stagnated in recent years, Poland’s economy and military capacity have expanded rapidly. “The balance of power has changed in Europe in recent years,” Gotkowska said.
-
US refused to share Iran deal text with Israel: Report
Rising diplomatic friction has emerged between long-time allies the United States and Israel after Washington turned down Jerusalem’s formal request to obtain the full text of a newly signed bilateral agreement between the US and Iran, multiple US and Israeli media outlets have confirmed.
ABC News reported Tuesday that while senior Israeli officials have received a general verbal briefing on the contents of the 60-day ceasefire memorandum of understanding (MOU), the full written document has not been shared with Israeli authorities. The MOU, which was signed digitally by representatives of both Tehran and Washington this past Sunday, mandates a 60-day extension of a fragile ceasefire between the two nations and secures the reopening of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments. To date, the full fine print of the agreement remains undisclosed to the public and many key regional stakeholders.
Top US officials, including Vice President JD Vance, have already appeared on major broadcast networks to defend the new diplomatic deal. During his televised remarks, Vance emphasized that the most promising outcome of this new diplomatic outreach is the reestablishment of direct bilateral dialogue between Washington and Tehran after years of frozen communications.
This new MOU comes nearly a decade after the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark nuclear deal negotiated between Iran and the US under then-President Barack Obama following months of intensive high-level negotiations. That framework collapsed in 2018, when then-President Donald Trump — who currently holds the Oval Office again — ordered a unilateral US withdrawal from the agreement and rolled out a harsh “maximum pressure” campaign that imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iran.
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the G-7 Summit in France on Tuesday, Trump announced plans to transmit the full text of the new MOU to Congress for review and release it publicly. A formal in-person signing ceremony for the agreement is currently scheduled to take place in Geneva, Switzerland this coming Friday.
“I never thought about sending it… but I will. I will send it to Congress,” Trump told assembled journalists. He added that he plans to share every detail of the document with the public, saying: “I will probably have a press conference and read it to you word by word so that the press covers it accurately.”
Despite the president’s promise of transparency, the fact that Israel has been denied full access to the text has reinforced deep existing concerns across the Middle East that the agreement disproportionately benefits Iran and fails to deliver on core war goals shared by both the US and Israel. Leading Israeli outlet Yediot Aharonot already labeled the MOU a “Bad Deal” in its coverage this week.
Avigdor Liberman, a prominent right-wing Israeli political figure and former defense minister, criticized the agreement during an interview with Israel’s 103FM radio. “This agreement definitely turns Iran into a nuclear power,” Liberman argued. Even so, he acknowledged that Israel has no leverage to reject any deal the US negotiates, noting: “We need to live with this. I have no complaints against the Americans. There are people here who expect the US to act according to Israeli interests, but no. I thank the US for what they have done.”
Trump has pushed back forcefully against any criticism of the deal from Israeli leaders. During his appearance at the G-7 conference, seated alongside the ruler of Qatar, Trump issued a sharp rebuke: “If it weren’t for the United States of America…Israel would not exist right now. Israel would have been blown off the face of the earth.”
-
Iran: Israeli refusal to leave Lebanon would violate peace deal
U.S. President Donald Trump currently confronts an unenviable strategic dilemma: he can either advance a long-sought end to the ongoing war with Iran — a conflict that has dragged down his public approval ratings and put increasing strain on the U.S. economy — or continue his longstanding pattern of deferring to Israeli policy priorities. On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made clear that Washington cannot have both outcomes.
Araghchi’s statement came one day after senior Israeli leaders publicly rejected any requirement to withdraw from occupied Lebanese territory as part of a U.S.-Iran agreement. Reiterating the explicit terms of the virtual memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by U.S. and Iranian negotiators, Araghchi emphasized the deal requires an immediate end to all hostilities across every front, including Lebanon.
“The conflicts in Lebanon, driven by Israeli aggression against southern Lebanon, and the wider war on Iran are inextricably linked,” Araghchi explained. “An end to the war requires an end to the occupation. Without a full retreat and withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese territories, there can be no end to hostilities.”
He added: “Any new military attack by the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted, and the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories constitutes a direct violation of the memorandum of understanding.”
The Iranian foreign minister’s remarks marked a clear warning to Washington, coming after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted Monday that Israeli forces would remain in occupied Lebanese territory “for as long as necessary,” regardless of the terms of any U.S.-Iran deal. Netanyahu has overseen Israel’s occupation of roughly 230 square miles of southern Lebanese territory, where Israeli forces have forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically destroyed dozens of villages. “We established deep security zones around the state of Israel,” Netanyahu said. “I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones … to protect our country.”
Other senior Israeli officials went even further in rejecting U.S. authority over the agreement. “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country,” Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir stated flatly. Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed the sentiment, confirming the occupation would continue “without any time limit,” that villages would remain “cleared of local residents,” and that Israel would refuse to withdraw “despite all the existing pressures” from the U.S. “We are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel,” Katz added.
Trump has a long track record of aligning with Israeli preferences and backing Netanyahu, even when the Israeli prime minister derailed previous ceasefire negotiations with Iran. But during a Tuesday press conference at the Group of Seven summit held in France, the U.S. president struck a noticeably harsher tone toward his once-closely allied partner.
Trump said he “didn’t like” a recent attack Netanyahu ordered against the southern suburbs of Beirut Sunday, where Israeli warplanes bombed a five-story residential apartment building, killing three civilian people. “I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went,” Trump said, describing the strike as “vicious” and “too much.”
“You don’t need to knock down an apartment every time you’re looking for somebody,” he said, in what marked one of the most forceful public criticisms any U.S. president has leveled at Israel’s repeated targeting of civilian infrastructure. He went on to suggest that if Israel cannot carry out its operations without mass civilian casualties, “Syria should do the job” of countering Hezbollah.
“Without the United States, there would be no Israel,” Trump asserted. “Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did.”
Acknowledging his longstanding positive relationship with Netanyahu, Trump added: “I’ve had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon. The ongoing invasion throws a negative light on the big deal, and that’s the deal with Iran.”
Despite the unusually sharp public criticism, policy analysts note that public friction between U.S. presidents and Netanyahu is not new, and rarely results in tangible changes to U.S. policy toward Israel. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, pointed to Trump’s previous description of Netanyahu as a “very difficult guy” after the Israeli leader attempted to derail ceasefire talks just days earlier. “The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?” Roth asked.
Mehdi Hasan, editor of Zeteo News, argued that Trump’s shifting rhetoric reflects the president’s well-documented erratic approach to foreign policy. “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day,” Hasan said. “Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”