分类: politics

  • Foreign actors like Russia interfering in Alberta separatist debate, new report says

    Foreign actors like Russia interfering in Alberta separatist debate, new report says

    A new joint investigation by three leading democratic security organizations has uncovered coordinated efforts by foreign actors from Russia and the United States to inflame separatist sentiment in Canada’s western province of Alberta, posing a direct threat to the country’s democratic stability and national sovereignty. The findings come at a critical moment, as a grassroots separatist movement has confirmed it has collected enough signatures via a citizen petition to trigger a possible independence referendum as early as October 19 this year.

    The Alberta separatist movement grew out of long-standing frustrations labeled “western alienation,” a sentiment held by many local residents who argue their province’s priorities, particularly around its abundant natural resource reserves, are consistently sidelined by federal policymakers based in Ottawa. While support for full independence remains a minority position, recent polling puts backing for separation at roughly 25% of the province’s population, and the grassroots push for a public vote has gained measurable traction in recent months.

    Released Wednesday by the Global Centre for Democratic Resilience, the Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Data and Conflict, and DisinfoWatch, the report details how foreign actors are leveraging existing genuine regional grievances — including widespread beliefs that Alberta’s resource wealth is unfairly exploited by the federal government — to push division across Canada. Disinformation operations are being carried out through social media platforms, Russian-aligned information networks, and covert online accounts, the investigation found.

    Researchers emphasized that when outside powers amplify separatist rhetoric, normalize territorial break-up, erode public trust in Canadian democratic institutions, and encourage national division, the debate is no longer a purely domestic provincial political issue. “It becomes a direct threat to Canada’s democratic integrity, national security, and cognitive sovereignty,” the report’s authors wrote.

    Marcus Kolga, director of DisinfoWatch, told the BBC that protecting unmanipulated domestic debate is a core priority for Canadian security. The social media accounts analyzed in the investigation all had documented histories of spreading disinformation in previous conflicts and political campaigns. Their content, researchers confirmed, is deliberately crafted to stoke tension around the separatist debate and is targeted to reach like-minded Albertans already sympathetic to separatist ideas.

    The report characterizes Russia’s involvement in the movement as covert, doctrinally aligned, operationally active, and sustained over time. The end goal of these operations is to push foreign-backed narratives into local public discourse, creating what researchers call a “laundering effect” that blends local grievances with foreign strategic goals to amplify division. The investigation also uncovered the use of modern digital tools to spread disinformation: economic opportunists are leveraging generative artificial intelligence, paid voice actors, and professional video production to create content that mimics authentic Canadian political commentary, flooding public debate with false and misleading claims.

    Beyond Russian covert activity, the report notes that American influencers have also joined the campaign, pouring external fuel on the separatist fire to provoke political unrest. Kolga added that senior officials from former U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration held direct meetings with Alberta separatist leaders and made public statements endorsing their separatist cause. The revelation of these contacts earlier this year prompted Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta’s Premier to issue a joint statement calling on the United States to respect Canadian sovereignty.

    Even if the referendum moves forward in October, and even if a majority votes in favor of separation, the path to full independence would be long and fraught with uncertainty. Canadian federal law sets clear binding conditions for any provincial independence referendum, including requiring a clearly worded ballot question, independent oversight from the House of Commons, and a “clear majority” of voter support. If all legal conditions are met, Alberta would still need to enter into complex, potentially years-long negotiation with the federal government to finalize the terms of separation.

  • Brazil President Lula to discuss economy and security with Trump at White House

    Brazil President Lula to discuss economy and security with Trump at White House

    When US President Donald Trump welcomes Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to the White House this Thursday, the bilateral meeting will carry far more weight than a standard diplomatic gathering. For months, tensions have simmered between the two heads of state following Trump’s return to the Oval Office, and global observers are closely watching the summit for any signal of a breakthrough in lingering trade and political disputes.

    The root of the current friction traces back to last year’s trade clashes, when the Trump administration first imposed a combined 50 percent tariff on Brazilian exports — a move that sent shockwaves through South America’s largest economy. Though Trump later rolled back the rate to a lower level, the damage to bilateral relations had already been done. The trade dispute became tangled in political friction after Trump’s unusual intervention in Brazil’s domestic judicial process last July: the US president sent a public letter to Lula calling for the dismissal of criminal charges against far-right former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally.

    Bolsonaro, who lost the 2022 presidential election to Lula, was convicted in November last year of orchestrating a failed coup attempt against Lula’s inauguration and sentenced to 27 years in prison. His legal team has since filed an appeal against the ruling. Trump explicitly named the Bolsonaro case as one of the justifications for hiking tariffs on Brazilian goods, a move that escalated tensions dramatically. Lula himself made his stance clear in a recent interview with the BBC, stating bluntly that he has no working relationship with Trump.

    This will not be the first time the two leaders have met since Trump began his second term. Their first face-to-face encounter took place in Malaysia late last year, followed by a brief informal meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this past September. Notably, Trump offered public praise for Lula during his UN address, a gesture widely interpreted as a signal that both sides were interested in de-escalating tensions. Following that meeting, Trump told reporters “He seemed like a very nice man… We had excellent chemistry,” hinting at a possible softening of his earlier hardline stance.

    Lula, a veteran left-wing politician who first led Brazil from 2003 to 2011, oversaw a historic period of widespread economic growth and reduced poverty during his first two terms, cementing his status as one of the most popular leaders in modern Brazilian history. After defeating Bolsonaro in the 2022 election, Lula returned to the presidency, and he is currently gearing up for a re-election campaign this coming fall.

    Thursday’s official working meeting is scheduled to kick off late Thursday morning at the White House. According to Brazilian Vice President Geraldo Alckmin, the agenda will include discussions of a bilateral cooperation pact targeting transnational organized crime, alongside core trade and tariff issues. A senior White House official confirmed to the BBC that the leaders will focus on “economic and security matters of shared importance,” though neither side has released a detailed breakdown of negotiation priorities ahead of the summit. As the two leaders sit down to talk, the outcome of the meeting has the potential to reshape trade dynamics in the Americas and redefine US-Brazil relations for years to come.

  • Brazil’s Lula to discuss fighting organized crime, tariffs in Trump meeting

    Brazil’s Lula to discuss fighting organized crime, tariffs in Trump meeting

    A day before Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s scheduled meeting at the White House with U.S. President Donald Trump, Brazil’s Finance Minister Dario Durigan outlined the core priorities for the high-stakes bilateral encounter on Wednesday. Ahead of Lula’s departure from Rio de Janeiro for Washington D.C. Wednesday local afternoon, Durigan told state broadcaster EBC that the talks will center on two key pillars: deepening cross-border collaboration to combat transnational organized crime, and resolving ongoing trade disagreements over U.S. tariffs on Brazilian goods. “Our guiding objective is to protect the Brazilian people, put national interests first, and sustain a constructive, open dialogue with the United States,” Durigan stated, adding that official expectations for the visit remain strongly positive.

    This upcoming meeting marks the culmination of months of incremental fence-mending between the two leaders after a major bilateral crisis erupted in 2024. Tensions spiked last year when the Trump administration imposed a steep 50% tariff on Brazilian imports, openly tying the trade measure to the Brazilian judicial prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro on coup plotting charges. Lula responded with fierce pushback, framing the tariff as an unacceptable violation of Brazil’s national sovereignty. The Trump administration eventually rolled back a large portion of the tariffs later that year, as part of a broader U.S. policy to cut domestic consumer costs for American households.

    Diplomatic ties began to thaw last September, when the two leaders held their first public reengagement on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. That encounter was followed by a closed-door private meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in October, and several subsequent follow-up phone calls to align agendas for the Washington summit. International relations experts note that Brazil’s firm, measured response to last year’s tariff crisis has shifted the country’s negotiating position with the U.S. “Brazil’s handling of the 50% tariff dispute almost certainly increased the country’s leverage in talks with the Trump administration,” explained Ana Garcia, an international relations scholar at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. “While the Trump administration now views Brazil as a partner that deserves greater strategic attention, it will almost certainly continue pushing for policy concessions from Brasilia moving forward,” Garcia added.

    One of the most contentious unresolved issues on the agenda is the Trump administration’s reported plan to designate Brazil’s two largest domestic criminal factions — the Red Command (CV) and the First Capital Command (PCC) — as official foreign terrorist organizations. Leonardo Paz Neves, an international relations professor at the Rio de Janeiro-based Getulio Vargas Foundation, a leading Brazilian think tank and academic institution, warned that such a designation would dramatically expand U.S. political and economic leverage within Brazil. “This is fundamentally a defensive issue for Brazil, and it does not serve any of our national interests,” Neves noted. However, an unnamed Brazilian government official, who granted an interview on condition of anonymity due to internal speaking restrictions, said both sides have signaled a preference for deepening collaborative anti-crime efforts over unilateral U.S. action.

    Another core topic expected to dominate discussions is access to Brazil’s vast rare earth mineral deposits. The South American nation holds the world’s second-largest reserves of the critical minerals, which are integral inputs for a wide range of modern technologies, from consumer smartphones and electric vehicle batteries to utility-scale solar panels and military jet engines. Durigan reaffirmed Brazil’s longstanding policy position on Wednesday: the country has no interest in remaining a mere raw material exporter to wealthy northern economies. “Countries in the global north are extremely hungry for these resources,” Durigan acknowledged. “While we welcome responsible foreign investment, our priority is driving domestic industrial development: creating high-quality jobs right here in Brazil, through partnerships with our national universities.”

    The Washington visit comes at a challenging juncture for Lula domestically, as the 80-year-old incumbent prepares to run for a fourth nonconsecutive presidential term in Brazil’s October general election. Last week, the Brazilian president suffered two high-profile legislative setbacks: the lower chamber of Congress overturned his veto on a bill that would reduce Bolsonaro’s potential prison sentence, and the Senate rejected Lula’s nominee to the Brazilian Supreme Court — a rebuke of a presidential Supreme Court pick that has not happened in more than a century. Current polling shows Lula locked in a tight neck-and-neck race with Flávio Bolsonaro, Jair Bolsonaro’s son and a sitting incumbent Senator. Lula departed Brazil for Washington D.C. early Wednesday local afternoon, and is scheduled to arrive in the U.S. capital Wednesday evening.

  • He’s accused of running a Chinese spy outpost. His lawyer says it was a place to play ping-pong

    He’s accused of running a Chinese spy outpost. His lawyer says it was a place to play ping-pong

    In the bustling core of Manhattan’s Chinatown, nestled between a midtown hotel, a local spa, and a neighborhood coffee shop, sits an unassuming six-story glass-front building. What looks to passersby like an ordinary community space sits at the center of a high-stakes federal espionage case that opened this week in Brooklyn federal court, pitting U.S. prosecutors’ allegations of a secret Chinese spy operations hub against defense claims of an innocent community service project derailed by geopolitical tension.

    U.S. prosecutors allege the location was an unregistered overseas outpost for China’s national police, explicitly tasked by Beijing with monitoring, silencing, and intimidating Chinese pro-democracy dissidents residing on American soil. Inside the space, authorities discovered a banner clearly labeling the site the “Fuzhou Police Overseas Service Station, New York USA.”

    The accused, 64-year-old Lu Jianwang — a U.S. citizen who has lived in the country for decades, also known as Harry Lu — went on trial Wednesday, more than three years after federal agents arrested him at his Bronx residence. He faces two felony charges: conspiracy to act as an unregistered foreign agent and intentional destruction of evidence, including deleted WeChat communications that prosecutors claim were sent to his Chinese government handler.

    Opening arguments laid out two starkly conflicting narratives of Lu’s work. Prosecutor Lindsey Oken told jurors that while Lu resided in New York City, he ultimately took direction from Beijing. Oken explained that Lu and co-defendant Chen Jinping, who has already pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge, launched the Chinatown outpost in 2022, shortly after Lu attended an official ceremony in his home province of Fujian. At that event, China’s Ministry of Public Security publicly announced the launch of 30 similar overseas police stations across the globe.

    Oken emphasized that these outposts are a tool of the Chinese government to track and pressure individuals Beijing labels as threats to its national interests. She told the jury that the prosecution will call a dissident who was directly targeted by the New York outpost as a witness during the trial. The Manhattan outpost shared office space with the America ChangLe Association, a community group co-founded and operated by Lu and his brother Jimmy. Tax filings for the group list it as a “social gathering place for Fujianese people,” and defense counsel noted the name “ChangLe” translates to “eternal joy.”

    While Oken acknowledged that the group openly advertised its service helping Chinese diaspora members renew Chinese driver’s licenses remotely, a workaround for pandemic-era international travel bans, she noted that even this public activity violates U.S. law. Under the federal Foreign Agents Registration Act, any individual acting on behalf of a foreign government or official entity must register their activity with the U.S. Department of Justice — a step Lu never took, Oken said.

    Lu’s defense attorney, John Carman, pushed back hard against the prosecution’s framing of the case as a high-stakes international spy plot, instead casting it as a minor bureaucratic oversight that has been blown out of proportion amid rising U.S.-China tensions. Carman argued that the entire case boils down to an unfiled government form, not espionage. “He is not a spy, not a part of Chinese intelligence services, not a member of the Chinese Communist Party, and he is not an agent of the Chinese government,” Carman told jurors in his opening statement. He summed up the case with two common phrases: “No good deed goes unpunished” and “Guilt by association.”

    Carman recounted that the FBI launched a raid on the Chinatown space in October 2022, acting on a report from a non-profit that monitors transnational repression by China. During the raid, agents searched through drawers, seized paperwork, broke open locked cabinets and a safe, and confiscated a desktop computer and multiple cellphones. “They turned the place upside down,” Carman told the jury.

    Prosecutors confirmed that the day after the raid, Lu admitted to FBI agents that he had set up the outpost, maintained contact with a contact in China via WeChat, and deleted all of their messages. Carman noted that neither of Lu’s two hours of interviews with FBI agents were recorded, a procedural detail that undermines the reliability of the prosecution’s account. Lu was ultimately arrested in April 2023.

    Co-defendant Chen Jinping pleaded guilty to conspiracy to act as a foreign agent in December 2024. He is currently released on bond and will not be sentenced until after Lu’s trial concludes.

    At the defense table on Wednesday, Lu sat alongside Baimadajie Angwang, a former New York Police Department officer who was acquitted of charges accusing him of acting as an “intelligence asset” for China three years ago. Angwang, who is currently suing the NYPD to get his job back, is working as an investigator for Lu’s defense team. Lu, dressed in a dark suit, pale blue tie, and glasses, speaks limited English and followed the proceedings through a translation earpiece that rendered arguments into his native Fujianese. Both Lu and Angwang wore small American flag pins on their lapels.

    As Lu and his legal team arrived at the courthouse Wednesday morning, several dozen supporters — including members of Lu’s local church — gathered outside to rally on his behalf. Participants held signs reading “Justice for Harry Lu” and “Chinese Americans Are Americans!” and waved small American flags to demonstrate their support.

    Carman closed his opening argument by reinforcing that Lu’s only loyalty is to his local community. “If Harry Lu is an agent of anyone, he is an agent for his community — the local people in his neighborhood,” he told jurors. “You have the life of an innocent man in your hands.”

  • ‘Multiculturalism needs to evolve’: Premier Chris Minns backs in protest laws, ‘intifada’ ban

    ‘Multiculturalism needs to evolve’: Premier Chris Minns backs in protest laws, ‘intifada’ ban

    New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has announced that any state-level ban on the controversial pro-Palestinian slogan “globalise the intifada” will only move forward if Queensland’s existing ban on the phrase survives an upcoming High Court constitutional challenge. The announcement comes after a NSW parliamentary inquiry, convened in the aftermath of the alleged Bondi Beach terrorist attack, formally recommended the state government draft legislation to prohibit the phrase.

    The slogan, commonly deployed by pro-Palestinian advocacy groups, references two historical popular uprisings in the occupied Palestinian territories. Australian Jewish community organizations have long argued that the slogan constitutes an explicit call for violence against Jewish people, making its public use unacceptable. Queensland’s center-right Liberal-National government was the first to act, banning both “globalise the intifada” and a second contentious phrase, “from the river to the sea”, earlier this year. The ban has already led to at least one individual being formally charged under the new legislation, but activist groups have challenged the law’s constitutionality and will argue their case before Australia’s highest court.

    Speaking to NewsWire, Minns emphasized that his government will prioritize constitutional viability over rushed action. “If the laws in Queensland are successfully challenged, that means we can’t pursue them in NSW,” Minns said. “I’m being judicious here. I have to think about how these laws would be implemented not just next month, but years from now, and I want to make sure that our next step is constitutionally sound. If the Queensland ban is ultimately upheld by the High Court, we’ll pursue the ban here as well.”

    Minns went on to defend his government’s post-attack crackdown on public protests, even as two key policy measures have already been struck down by the courts. Last month, a judicial ruling overturned emergency regulations that prohibited moving protests for a set window after a terror attack, with the judge finding the rules “impermissibly burdened” the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. An earlier ban on protests outside religious houses of worship was also overturned by the courts.

    When asked if repeated court defeats had eroded public trust in his government, Minns rejected the suggestion. “I don’t think so, but I can guarantee you can find someone to come on a podcast and say the opposite is true,” he said. “My sense is people accept that it’s extraordinary times and that in extraordinary times you do need to pursue policies that you wouldn’t ordinarily implement. I’m not going to allow a situation where the temperature just gets repeatedly turned up after the worst terrorism event in the country’s history.”

    On the overturned Bondi-specific protest laws, Minns argued the policy achieved its core goal despite its eventual defeat in court. “We received advice that it was the right policy at the right time, and despite being defeated in court, it was in place during the critical summer period,” he said. “It meant the police could say we’re not going to allow major divisive protests, for example, in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. I think that would have been a combustible situation. It’s difficult to give a counterfactual because the laws were in place and that unrest didn’t happen, but I think they were the right call. We’ve won a lot of court cases, too.”

    Turning to broader questions of immigration and multiculturalism ahead of the 2027 state election, where Minns’ Labor government will face a resurgent right-wing One Nation party that has sought to capitalize on growing anti-immigrant sentiment, Minns called for clearer, more responsible rhetoric from political leaders. He specifically addressed recent comments by federal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor, who claimed migration from “bad countries” carries a higher risk of bringing “bad people” to Australia.

    “Leaders have a responsibility to be specific about what you mean and what you say,” Minns said. “We’ve all seen, in different political guises, leaders step up and be ambiguous about what they mean to try and score a political advantage that way.”

    Minns reaffirmed that multiculturalism has been a historic success for Australia, but argued the framework needs to adapt to current social tensions. “Multiculturalism has been a success in our country, but I think there’s an argument to say it needs to evolve a little bit,” he explained. “It does need to celebrate and understand differences. I also think we’ve got a responsibility to call out commonalities and the things that not only we have in common but we aspire to have in common.”

    “There’s nothing wrong with saying that in Australia we want and expect, and the vast majority of people believe in, democracy, in freedom of association, in respect for women, in the rule of law,” he added. “That’s why millions of people have come from around the world to start a new life in Australia.”

  • US must be transparent about Israel’s nuclear programme, Democrat lawmakers say

    US must be transparent about Israel’s nuclear programme, Democrat lawmakers say

    A bipartisan-adjacent bloc of 30 progressive House Democrats has issued an unprecedented call for the U.S. government to abandon its 55-year policy of deliberate ambiguity around Israel’s undeclared nuclear program, demanding that Washington hold Israel to the same nonproliferation and transparency standards applied to all other nations in the Middle East.

    Led by Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro, the group — which includes high-profile progressive lawmakers Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ro Khanna, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Pramila Jayapal — sent a formal joint letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday laying out their demands. In the letter, the lawmakers highlight a glaring contradiction at the heart of current U.S. policy: Washington is deeply entangled in ongoing conflict in the region alongside Israel, yet the executive branch still officially refuses to acknowledge the country’s widely documented nuclear capabilities.

    The representatives argue that Congress holds a clear constitutional obligation to gain full clarity on the regional nuclear balance, given that thousands of U.S. service members are deployed across the Middle East. Without transparent information about Israel’s program, they say, Congress cannot properly assess the risk of nuclear escalation in any regional conflict, nor evaluate the Biden administration’s contingency planning for high-stakes nuclear scenarios. The letter explicitly states that lawmakers have not yet received the level of detailed information they deem necessary to fulfill this oversight duty.

    Currently, Israel stands as one of just five nations worldwide that have refused to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the global agreement that blocks non-nuclear states from acquiring atomic weapons and mandates international inspections for all signatories. Because of Israel’s non-participation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has no legal authority to inspect or verify the size and status of Israel’s reported nuclear stockpile.

    For decades, Israel has maintained its iconic policy of nuclear opacity: officials neither confirm nor deny the existence of a nuclear arsenal, even though the program has been an open international secret for more than half a century. Independent analysis from the Nuclear Threat Initiative estimates that Israel currently holds approximately 90 assembled nuclear warheads, with enough separated plutonium — between 750 and 1,110 kilograms — to build an additional 90 to 180 weapons, bringing the country’s total potential stockpile to between 187 and 277 nuclear devices.

    The lawmakers argue that Washington cannot build a consistent, credible nonproliferation policy for the Middle East — which currently targets Iranian civilian nuclear activities and addresses emerging Saudi nuclear ambitions — while continuing to maintain official silence about Israel’s program at a time when the U.S. is a direct participant in regional conflict. “We ask that you hold Israel to the same standard of transparency that the United States expects from any other country that may be pursuing or retaining nuclear weapons capability,” the letter concludes.

    The history of the U.S.-Israeli nuclear ambiguity stretches back to the founding of Israel’s program in the 1950s. Initially developed with covert French support, without the knowledge of the U.S. government, the program was centered at the Dimona nuclear complex in Israel’s Negev Desert. According to declassified U.S. documents analyzed by prominent Israeli-American nuclear historian Avner Cohen, author of *Israel and the Bomb*, U.S. officials grew suspicious of Dimona’s purpose as early as the late 1950s and conducted eight official inspections of the site between 1961 and 1969. During each visit, Israeli officials concealed an underground plutonium separation plant — critical for producing weapons-grade material — and camouflaged other sections of the complex to hide its true military purpose.

    By the end of the 1960s, the U.S. had uncovered the full scale of Israel’s nuclear project, and a secret bilateral agreement was struck that remains in place today. As documented by Cohen, the 1969 Nixon-Meir deal — named for then-U.S. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir — saw Washington agree to refrain from public questioning of Israel’s program, in exchange for Israel maintaining its policy of official opacity. “About half a century ago Israel acquired nuclear weapons capability, but it has done so in a manner unlike any other nuclear weapons state did, prior or after,” Cohen explained in a 2023 interview with Middle East Eye. Over the decades that followed, successive U.S. administrations have upheld this agreement, even reportedly threatening disciplinary action against any U.S. official who publicly acknowledges Israel’s nuclear program. As recently as 2009, when then-President Barack Obama was asked directly whether any Middle Eastern nation possessed nuclear weapons, he declined to answer, stating he would not speculate on the issue.

    The only major public breach of Israel’s opacity came in 1986, when Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician who worked at Dimona for nine years, leaked full details of the program and 60 on-site photographs to the U.K.’s *The Sunday Times*. Vanunu’s disclosures confirmed that Dimona produced enough plutonium to build roughly 12 new nuclear warheads per year, confirming the program’s large scale. Before the story could be published, Vanunu — who was staying in London with support from the newspaper — was lured to Rome by a female Israeli Mossad agent, drugged, and abducted back to Israel. He was convicted of espionage and treason, serving 18 years in prison, more than half of that time in solitary confinement. Since his release in 2004, Vanunu has remained subject to strict travel bans and restrictions on speaking with foreign journalists, limitations that remain in force decades later.

  • Spain’s Sanchez asks EU to block US sanctions on ICC

    Spain’s Sanchez asks EU to block US sanctions on ICC

    On Wednesday, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez made a public call for the European Commission to put into effect the EU’s long-dormant Blocking Statute, a defensive regulatory tool designed to counteract extraterritorial third-country sanctions. His demand comes in response to sweeping US sanctions imposed over the past year by the Donald Trump administration that target senior International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel and a top United Nations human rights official, measures that threaten the operational independence of both global institutions.

  • Central African Republic opposition leader denounces seizure of his passport

    Central African Republic opposition leader denounces seizure of his passport

    On Wednesday, a high-profile political standoff unfolded in the Central African Republic (CAR) when major opposition figure and former prime minister Anicet Georges Dologuélé publicly condemned the seizure of his diplomatic passport, labeling the move a blatant abuse of executive power by the current administration.

    The incident unfolded at Bangui’s international airport, where Dologuélé — who held the prime minister’s office from 1999 to 2001 — was blocked from boarding a flight bound for an African Union (AU) summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Speaking to reporters shortly after the denial of departure at a press conference in the CAR capital, Dologuélé revealed that authorities had barred him from exiting the country after branding him stateless within his own homeland.

    Dologuélé has served on the board of directors of the African Union Peace Fund since 2018, a position that made his planned attendance at the Addis Ababa meeting a formal professional obligation. The political conflict between Dologuélé and current CAR President Faustin-Archange Touadéra stretches back to last year’s controversial presidential election, where Dologuélé ran against the incumbent.

    To meet CAR constitutional requirements for presidential candidates, which bar dual citizenship, Dologuélé formally renounced his French citizenship in 2023 ahead of the vote. Since the election, he has repeatedly denounced the poll results, claiming the outcome was deeply flawed and “very far from the truth” — a stance that has put him in persistent opposition to Touadéra’s government. Official results from CAR’s electoral commission recorded Dologuélé winning 13.1% of the national vote.

    Following the election, the former prime minister had been relying on his diplomatic passport, which he retained as a former head of government. He told reporters on Wednesday that the current administration has repeatedly rejected his requests to issue a new standard national passport, leaving his old diplomatic document as his only valid form of international travel documentation.

  • Trump’s hopes for an Iran peace deal come with caveats

    Trump’s hopes for an Iran peace deal come with caveats

    In a sudden shift that sent ripples through global energy markets, former president Donald Trump announced a last-minute pause to his newly launched “Project Freedom” – an initiative designed to escort commercial vessels through the blockaded Strait of Hormuz – citing tentative progress toward a historic “Complete and Final Agreement” with Iran. The initial announcement eased fears of prolonged disruption to global oil supplies, which rely heavily on the strategic waterway for 20% of the world’s daily crude trade, and sparked fleeting hopes of a breakthrough ending months of open conflict in the Gulf.

    Yet that optimism was rapidly dampened by Trump himself just 24 hours later, in a series of contradictory statements that have left policymakers, markets, and regional observers scrambling to parse the state of negotiations. After his Tuesday evening Truth Social post announcing the suspension to test whether a deal could be finalized, Trump struck a far more combative tone Wednesday morning, warning that a final agreement was still a “big assumption” and threatening to resume bombing campaigns against Iran at “a much higher level and intensity than it was before” if no deal materialized.

    This backtracking came only hours after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had publicly announced that Operation Epic Fury, the American-led military campaign against Iran, had concluded. By Wednesday afternoon, Trump again shifted, telling PBS in a brief phone interview that he remained optimistic about the prospects of a deal while acknowledging past breakthrough attempts with Iran had failed repeatedly. “I felt that way before with them,” he said. “So we’ll see what happens.” He also added that it was “unlikely” he would deploy US negotiators for a second round of peace talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, which has served as a key mediating power for the discussions.

    Multiple US outlets including Axios and Reuters have reported that negotiators from Washington and Tehran are edging closer to a short, 14-point one-page memorandum of understanding that would formally end Gulf hostilities. The broad framework, according to sources familiar with the draft, would first end active military clashes, then open the way for subsequent negotiations on unblocking the Strait of Hormuz, lifting crippling US sanctions on Iran, and implementing curbs on Iran’s nuclear program. A source close to Pakistani mediators even told Reuters Wednesday: “We will close this very soon. We are getting close.” But Tehran’s response has been far from supportive, with senior Iranian officials dismissing the reported draft as nothing more than an American wish list.

    Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, wrote on X that the 14-point plan leaked to Axios amounted to nothing more than Washington’s “wish list”, adding that Iran “has its finger on the trigger and is ready” if the US fails to make “the necessary concessions”. Iran’s government already rejected an earlier, similar claim from Trump in April, when he told CBS that Tehran had “agreed to everything” including allowing US officials to remove Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium – a statement officials in Tehran denied outright.

    Even among US foreign policy circles, there is widespread skepticism that a final, binding deal is imminent. Speaking to the BBC, Grant Rumley, a former Middle East policy advisor for both the Biden and second Trump administrations and current fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, noted that the Trump administration’s sudden rollout and equally sudden pause of Project Freedom signals they believe a deal is within reach, but past experience shows negotiations are far from guaranteed. “Clearly, the administration thinks a deal is possible, given the way they publicly rolled out Project Freedom only to suddenly pause it hours later,” Rumley said. “But we have been here before, and we’ve seen negotiations collapse at the last minute for a variety of reasons.”

    Rumley added that even if the broadly worded one-page memorandum is agreed, it is highly unlikely to resolve the full scope of longstanding disputes between the two nations, particularly the technically complex details of any agreement governing Iran’s nuclear program. During the Obama administration, negotiating the full terms of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal took more than 20 months of intensive technical and diplomatic talks, a timeline that underscores how difficult it will be to finalize a comprehensive deal in the current climate.

    Shipping analysts have also noted that Project Freedom, which launched just on Sunday, achieved minimal results in its short operational window, with only a small handful of commercial vessels daring to transit the strait while the operation was active. Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group think tank, told the BBC that Iran’s aggressive response to the operation – including shooting at commercial vessels and launching retaliatory strikes on targets in the United Arab Emirates – likely convinced Trump that the military initiative would not resolve the blockade. “There is no real policy process in this administration,” Vaez noted. “The president makes decisions based on impulse more than process, therefore there are inconsistencies that happen all the time.”

    Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon assistant undersecretary for Middle East policy, added that the motivation behind Trump’s sudden pause of Project Freedom remains far from clear. “It’s unclear if the pause in Project Freedom was because of this one-page memorandum or because the 1,500 ships currently stuck behind the Strait of Hormuz wouldn’t transit even with the US security umbrella,” Mulroy said. “Iran is likely trying to determine that as well.” That uncertainty has left global oil markets on edge, as traders wait for clearer signals on whether the 4-week old ceasefire in the Gulf will hold or escalate into open conflict once again.

  • Palestine ambassador protests to UK over ‘erasure’ from British Museum exhibits

    Palestine ambassador protests to UK over ‘erasure’ from British Museum exhibits

    A high-stakes historical and political controversy has erupted in the United Kingdom after the Palestinian ambassador to the UK submitted an official formal complaint to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office over the deletion of the term “Palestine” from archaeological exhibits at the British Museum.

    The alteration of exhibit labels took place in February, when museum leadership replaced references to “Palestine” in displays focused on ancient Egypt and the Phoenician civilization with the term “Canaan.” Officials justified the change by arguing that “Palestine” was not a historically meaningful geographical descriptor for the specific time periods covered in the exhibits. The revised labels now refer to the relevant region as Canaan and reclassify the Hyksos people, previously described as being of “Palestinian descent,” as of “Canaanite descent.”

    Investigative reporting from The Telegraph has traced the decision back to pressure from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a controversial pro-Israel advocacy group. In a formal letter sent to British Museum director Nicholas Cullinan, UKLFI contended that labeling the eastern Mediterranean coast as Palestine in exhibits covering 1700–1500 BC amounted to erasing the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judea, and incorrectly framed the ancestral origins of the Jewish people as tied to Palestine. The organization’s objections specifically targeted the wording of those two exhibit labels, leading directly to the revision.

    Critics of the change note that historical evidence contradicts the museum’s claim that the term Palestine is anachronistic for ancient contexts. One of the earliest surviving references to the region dates back to the 12th century BC, inscribed on the Great Harris Papyrus, an ancient Egyptian document that refers to the area as “Peleset”—a linguistic precursor to the name Palestine that covers territory including modern-day Gaza and the Israeli city of Ashdod. Despite the existence of these well-documented ancient sources, museum leadership moved forward with the label changes.

    In an interview with The Guardian, Palestinian ambassador Husam Zomlot emphasized the gravity of the dispute, framing the erasure of Palestine from historical exhibits as an existential issue for the Palestinian people. This objection carries particular weight: the United Kingdom formally recognized Palestine as a sovereign state just months before the label changes were made. “I sent a letter to the minister in charge at the Foreign Office, and we are still waiting for a response,” Zomlot said Wednesday. “This is not only a political issue, not only a legal issue, not even just a historical dispute. This is an existential matter. Erasing our past is erasing our present.”

    The British Museum has pushed back against claims that the change was a direct response to UKLFI pressure. In a statement to Middle East Eye in February, a museum spokesperson argued that the term Palestine, while one of the oldest documented names for the eastern Mediterranean’s southern Levant region, is only appropriate for historical contexts dating to the later second millennium BC. The spokesperson added that the institution uses UN-endorsed terminology for modern maps of the region, referencing Gaza, the West Bank, Israel and Jordan, and uses the identifier “Palestinian” for cultural and ethnographic contexts when appropriate. Even so, the spokesperson acknowledged that the term was changed because it is no longer considered politically neutral in contemporary discourse—an admission that has fueled further criticism.

    Palestinian advocacy groups have decried the museum’s decision as blatant hypocrisy. Energy Embargo for Palestine, a grassroots campaign organization, pointed out that the British Museum positions itself as a neutral guardian of global cultural heritage, claiming to preserve and communicate history objectively. “And yet after looting Palestinian artefacts from across the Middle East, it is now unashamedly preparing itself to rewrite history, to erase Palestine, and its millions of people, out of the history books,” the group said in a formal statement.

    While the British Museum has repeatedly claimed it did not entirely remove the term Palestine from all its exhibits, photographic evidence contradicts this assertion. Documents obtained via a Freedom of Information request by independent website Unredacted also show museum staff cited incoming audience emails and social media posts from high-profile historians as additional justification for the terminology change.

    This incident is not an isolated case: the British Museum is just the latest in a growing list of UK public institutions targeted by UKLFI over content related to Palestine. Earlier in February, UKLFI pressure prompted Encyclopaedia Britannica to amend multiple entries in its children’s platform Britannica Kids, removing the term Palestine from regional maps. A year prior, London’s Chelsea and Westminster Hospital removed a children’s artwork created by students in Gaza. UKLFI director Caroline Turner initially claimed the removal came in response to patient complaints, but a subsequent Freedom of Information request forced the hospital to admit that the only complaint received had been submitted by UKLFI itself.