分类: politics

  • India protest movement holds capital sit-in as police crack down on demonstrators

    India protest movement holds capital sit-in as police crack down on demonstrators

    NEW DELHI – Thousands of young Indian demonstrators maintained a street sit-in in the heart of New Delhi on Thursday, ignoring newly imposed movement restrictions in a major show of force that has emerged as one of the most significant threats to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s sitting administration. What is now known as the ‘Cockroach’ protest movement launched more than a month ago, sparked by widespread allegations of question paper leaks in two of India’s most competitive high-stakes entrance examinations: one for admissions to elite medical colleges, and another for entry into coveted government job roles. In the weeks since its inception, the movement has outgrown its original focus on exam-related grievances, drawing in working professionals, ordinary families, and a broad cross-section of the public united by simmering discontent with the ruling government.

    Thursday’s gathering at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi’s long-recognized official protest zone, came on the heels of overnight street clashes that saw police deploy tear gas canisters and baton charges to break up crowds. This marked the second violent confrontation between authorities and demonstrators in a single week. Just four days prior, on Monday, thousands of protestors had broken through security restrictions to march toward India’s Parliament building before security forces dispersed the crowd with the same crowd-control tactics.

    Despite police roadblocks aimed at blocking access to the protest site, demonstrators managed to regroup by early Thursday morning and return to continue their demonstration. In a bid to cut off crowd flow to the area, local authorities suspended passenger services on the Delhi Metro at 16 stations across the city’s central district.

    The issue of repeated exam paper leaks has emerged as a flashpoint for millions of young Indians, who see it as a visible symbol of systemic failure. Protesters have put forward three core demands: the immediate resignation of India’s Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, sweeping structural reforms to India’s broken national examination system, and financial compensation for the families of students who died by suicide in the wake of recent paper leak scandals.

    Facing rapidly mounting political pressure, Prime Minister Modi broke his weeks-long public silence on the unrest on Thursday, announcing the creation of fast-track special courts to speed up the prosecution of those involved in organizing exam paper leaks. The new fast-track courts are designed to cut through the backlog that plagues India’s famously slow national judicial system. In a public post on the social media platform X, Modi emphasized, “Nothing is more important than the welfare and future of our youth!”

    Leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party, the informal organizational body behind the movement, have rejected any compromise, insisting demonstrations will continue until the education minister steps down. Staying true to the movement’s satirical, tongue-in-cheek identity, movement founder Abhijeet Dipke responded to Modi’s statement with a meme of Pradhan captioned “Hi, my name is Nothing,” a direct jab at the prime minister’s comment.

    The movement traces its origins to an online satirical campaign launched in May, before shifting to in-person, small-scale street protests across major Indian cities in June. It gained explosive traction after prominent Indian activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the demonstration and launched a hunger strike that has now extended past three weeks. Over the weekend, police forcibly removed Wangchuk from the protest site and transferred him to a government hospital, a move that further galvanized public anger.

    For many young Indians, these demonstrations represent one of the last remaining high-profile outlets for dissent in a country where the Modi administration has overseen a widespread crackdown on activist groups, opposition political figures, and public anti-government protests.

    The movement’s rapid expansion beyond student circles reflects deep-seated, widespread frustration among India’s large youth population, mirroring a broader regional trend across South Asia, where youth-led anti-government movements have shaken established political establishments in recent years. It has also drawn support from Indians across all age groups, who share concerns over lack of government accountability, cripplingly high unemployment, and the scarcity of quality economic opportunity for young people.

    India is home to one of the world’s youngest national populations, with millions of new working-age people entering the labor market each year, a market that has consistently failed to generate enough secure, well-paying positions to meet demand. Even after decades of strong headline economic growth under successive Modi governments, many young Indians report that their personal employment and income prospects have not improved meaningfully. As one of the largest voting blocs in the country, India’s youth are poised to become an increasingly influential political force in upcoming national and state elections.

  • ‘I am still alive’: Indian activist on hunger strike for 26 days loses 11kg

    ‘I am still alive’: Indian activist on hunger strike for 26 days loses 11kg

    ### Delhi Protests Intensify As Iconic Activist Refuses To End 26-Day Hunger Strike
    One of India’s most high-profile education reform advocates remains firm in his hunger strike, even as his health declines, drawing tens of thousands of protesters to the streets of New Delhi and sparking one of the most significant political challenges to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in recent years.

    Sonam Wangchuk, a renowned Indian educationist and activist popularly known as “Sonam sir” to his supporters, marked 26 days of a water-and-salt-only fast this week. The 26-day strike has already cost him 11 kilograms (24 pounds), but in a video address from his hospital bed, Wangchuk said he remains resolved to keep protesting until the government meets his key demands.

    Wangchuk threw his weight behind the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) movement, which formed earlier this year after India’s chief justice sparked national outrage by labeling unemployed young activists and aspiring journalists as “cockroaches” (the justice later clarified he only meant people holding fake academic credentials). The movement’s core demands are sweeping national education reforms and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who students hold morally responsible for repeated high-stakes public exam leaks, most recently the national medical entrance examination.

    The standoff between protesters and authorities turned violent on 20 July, when tens of thousands of demonstrators marched to India’s parliament during the opening of the monsoon legislative session. Police responded to the mass gathering with baton charges and tear gas, leaving at least 60 protesters and 118 police personnel injured. Authorities arrested 70 demonstrators, most of whom have since been released on bail, and dismantled the movement’s stage and makeshift encampment at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi’s iconic long-standing protest site. Despite the crackdown, protesters have refused to vacate the space, maintaining a 24-hour sit-in under heavy deployment of police and paramilitary forces.

    Just days after the violent clashes, Wangchuk was forcibly removed from the Jantar Mantar protest site on Saturday and transferred to a hospital in Gurugram, where he was admitted to the intensive care unit on Wednesday. Prior to his hospital admission, Wangchuk spent 21 days fasting in Delhi’s extreme summer heat, surviving only on salt and water. In a Wednesday health update, Medanta Hospital confirmed Wangchuk is being treated by a multidisciplinary team of doctors, noting that his vital signs remain stable and he is fully alert, with all care provided under his informed consent.

    Multiple senior political figures, from CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and dozens of opposition lawmakers to celebrities and Union Health Minister JP Nadda, have publicly urged Wangchuk to end his fast. Nadda, who visited the activist in hospital Tuesday night, said the government is open to holding discussions on the issues Wangchuk has raised. “We inquired about his health and well-being. We also requested him to break his fast, join the mainstream, and guide the children in the right direction,” Nadda told reporters.

    Wangchuk has rejected all calls to end his strike, laying out a clear precondition for stopping his fast in a three-minute video address from his hospital bed Wednesday night. “Many leaders, including ministers from the ruling party, have appealed to me to end my fast. I want to do that too because my work is important to me,” he said. “If I receive that assurance soon, I will end my hunger strike today. If not, I will unfortunately have to continue.” Wangchuk’s only stated demand at this time is a formal government guarantee that no force or retaliatory action will be taken against participating student protesters. He praised student demonstrators for their restraint during the 20 July crackdown, noting: “Despite being lathi-charged, they did not retaliate. Seeing the brutal action against them, I decided to continue my hunger strike.”

    While Wangchuk’s recent public statements have not repeated the movement’s demand for Pradhan’s resignation, CJP leadership insists that demand remains non-negotiable. “The peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar will continue until Pradhan resigns,” Dipke told supporters this week. “We will not let Sonam sir’s hunger strike go in vain. We will not let the brutal assault on students go in vain.”

    As public pressure mounts, authorities have taken additional steps to limit crowd sizes at the protest site: starting Wednesday, 16 central Delhi metro stations were closed without official explanation, a move protesters say is intentionally designed to block new demonstrators from reaching Jantar Mantar.

    The protest movement has grown into a national political flash point, with opposition leaders stepping up to express solidarity with demonstrators. On Tuesday, senior Congress Party leader Rahul Gandhi was among the opposition figures staging a demonstration outside Prime Minister Modi’s residence; videos of police dragging Gandhi away from the protest went viral online, sparking widespread public outrage.

    After days of silence, Modi broke his public silence on the crisis Thursday with a post on the social platform X, framed as an outreach to India’s youth. “Nothing is more important than the welfare and future of our youth,” he wrote, announcing that the government would establish fast-track courts to deliver quick, strict punishment for anyone involved in organizing exam leaks. “This continues our series of steps for safeguarding the interests of students… Those who try to harm the future of our youth will not be spared.”

    Despite Modi’s announcement, protesters show no sign of stepping back, and Wangchuk remains resolved to continue his fast. The movement’s ability to draw tens of thousands of people to the streets has demonstrated that the unregistered, satirical political group has evolved into a major force capable of disrupting national politics, turning a protest over education reform into one of the most high-profile challenges to the current Indian government in recent years.

  • Six candidates in race to lead UN set for televised debate

    Six candidates in race to lead UN set for televised debate

    As the United Nations grapples with a deep-seated crisis of finance and global confidence, six contenders vying to succeed outgoing Secretary-General António Guterres are preparing to take the stage Thursday for a landmark televised debate in the iconic General Assembly Hall. The event comes exactly one week ahead of the formal launch of the selection process, a procedure that carries enormous consequences for the future of the 78-year-old global institution.

    Scheduled to run for 90 minutes starting at 5:00 pm local time (2100 GMT) and broadcast globally by Bloomberg, the town hall-style debate will see the hopefuls field questions from three key groups: seasoned diplomats, serving UN employees, and representatives from global civil society. Unlike past contests, the 2026 race lacks a clear frontrunner and has so far failed to spark widespread public or diplomatic enthusiasm, even as the organization faces one of its most challenging periods in modern history.

    The six candidates stepping into the spotlight are: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet; former Ecuadorian President and UN General Assembly President María Fernanda Espinosa; Argentine diplomat Rafael Grossi; Costa Rican economist and former UN Under-Secretary-General Rebeca Grynspan; Guyanese former foreign minister Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett; and Senegalese President Macky Sall.

    General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock framed the debate as a singular moment for transparency in the selection process. “This UN town hall will provide a rare opportunity to engage with the ideas, priorities and leadership vision of the candidates for one of the world’s most important positions,” she said. Baerbock emphasized the high bar for the next leader, noting that in an increasingly fragmented global order, the UN requires more than just skilled administration. “The United Nations needs not only an exceptional chief administrator who will make the organization fit for the 21st century but also the leadership and integrity of someone willing to vigorously defend the UN Charter and all its three pillars: peace and security, human rights, and development,” she added.

    The race unfolds against a backdrop of growing pressure on the UN from major powers, particularly the United States. During the previous Trump administration, Washington repeatedly accused the organization of reckless spending, overextension into non-core policy areas, and failure to deliver tangible results on its core mandates. While the U.S. has pushed for a refocus on the UN’s founding mission of peace and security, many other member states have pushed back, stressing that human rights and development are equally critical pillars that cannot be sidelined.

    Analysts point out that the 2026 contest has a noticeably different tone than the 2016 selection that elevated Guterres. Richard Gowan, senior analyst for the International Crisis Group, told Agence France-Presse that “the race does seem short on energy” compared to the 2016 campaign, which featured more candidates and widespread political intrigue. “This time around everyone agrees that the race is incredibly important for the future of the UN, but the contest itself has been quite cautious,” Gowan explained. “There is a sense that the candidates are treading carefully to avoid offending the US and other veto powers on the Security Council.”

    Prior to Thursday’s public debate, all six candidates have already undergone three hours of private questioning from representatives of the UN’s 193 member states. Most contenders have aligned on core priorities, stressing the need to advance ongoing internal reforms to boost administrative efficiency, and calling for more active personal engagement from the secretary-general in global peace negotiations and conflict resolution efforts.

    The formal selection process will kick into high gear on July 30, when the 15-member Security Council holds its first closed-door, anonymous straw poll to gauge preference for the candidates. The process will see repeated rounds of non-binding votes until one candidate secures at least nine votes from Council members, and avoids a veto from any of the five permanent Security Council members: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France. Once a candidate is endorsed by the Security Council, their name will be sent to the full General Assembly for formal appointment, with the new secretary-general set to take office on January 1, 2027.

    Many diplomats who spoke to AFP remain uncertain about the final outcome, noting that a number of major world capitals have not yet publicly committed to a candidate. Gowan noted that while Grossi remains the most frequently cited potential frontrunner, he has not yet locked in enough support to secure victory. “Other candidates like Grynspan and Rodrigues-Birkett also have significant numbers of admirers,” Gowan said, adding that a dark horse candidate could still emerge to claim the top post. In fact, unconfirmed speculation has already circulated in UN corridors and media reports, with the New York Post citing unnamed sources claiming former U.S. President Trump has expressed support for FIFA President Gianni Infantino to take the helm, though Infantino is not an official candidate in the current race.

    Two longstanding (though not formally binding) traditions are shaping the contest this cycle. First, under the informal geographic rotation framework for the secretary-general post, Latin American states have laid claim to the position this term, after ten years of Guterres, a European. Second, a growing coalition of member states is pushing for the UN to appoint its first female secretary-general in the organization’s history, a demand that has gained traction across many regional blocs.

  • One Nation capitalises on Mr Joyce’s dog outburst

    One Nation capitalises on Mr Joyce’s dog outburst

    A heated off-script outburst from Australian politician Barnaby Joyce toward his dog during a live televised interview has unexpectedly turned into a viral marketing opportunity for the One Nation party. Three days after the awkward moment spread rapidly across social media, the party has unveiled a playful new merchandise item: the “Sitdown! Barnaby’s Dog Leash,” currently available for pre-order on the party’s official website at a discounted retail price of $10 Australian dollars.

    The viral incident unfolded during an interview with ABC journalist Sarah Ferguson, where Joyce was responding to a question about One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s political direction. Mid-sentence, the politician suddenly turned away from the microphone and shouted, “Well, I think – sit down!” before pausing to explain, “Sorry it’s a dog.” After Ferguson brushed off the interruption and urged Joyce to return to the question, Joyce snapped back, “Don’t be rude. Otherwise, this interview will come to a grinding halt.”

    Within hours of the interview being published, the clipped moment of Joyce’s outburst went viral globally, spawning thousands of memes and sparking widespread online discussion. Animal welfare activists quickly condemned Joyce’s reaction, while the politician later acknowledged he had “verbally assaulted the dog” and said he was “incredibly sorry” for the outburst. Joyce later clarified that his border collie-Staffordshire terrier cross Stella had simply distracted him during the tense exchange.

    Rather than distancing itself from the viral moment, One Nation has leaned into the public attention to create the branded merchandise. In the product description posted on the party’s website, the party frames the outburst as a relatable experience for pet owners everywhere: “Every dog owner knows the feeling. Somewhere important to be, an audience watching and a dog who has quietly decided today is not the day for instructions. Sometimes you just have to say it loud and clear: sit down.”

    The description notes that Stella, a farm dog described as having “near perfect manners,” took the outburst in stride, and that the viral clip brought laughter to audiences around the world. “We figured a dog owner with that kind of conviction deserved a lead to match,” the listing reads. Pre-orders are open now, with the dog leashes scheduled to ship to customers in August. The incident is the latest in a string of viral political moments that have been turned into branded merchandise for Australian political parties, capitalizing on widespread public attention to drive fundraising and engagement.

  • Dismissal of Ukraine’s defense minister started a sudden transformation of the military

    Dismissal of Ukraine’s defense minister started a sudden transformation of the military

    KYIV, Ukraine — In a dramatic week of political and military upheaval, a single leadership decision has triggered a sweeping transformation of Ukraine’s top military command, ousting long-entrenched old-guard figures and clearing a path for a new generation of wartime leaders. What began as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s dismissal of popular reformist Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov quickly spilled into public demonstrations, shifting public fury to the country’s top military commander and laying bare deep, long-simmering divisions over the future of Ukraine’s armed forces amid ongoing war with Russia.

    Protesters united in denouncing Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, rallying overwhelmingly behind Fedorov, who had emerged as one of Ukraine’s most influential wartime reformers and a standard-bearer for a public hungry for systemic military change. Demonstrators carried signs and chanted demands for Fedorov’s immediate reinstatement, capping months of bitter public and private disagreements between Fedorov and Syrskyi that had divided Ukraine’s military and political establishment.

    The leadership shuffle marks the second time in 12 months that a wartime decision by Zelenskyy has sparked significant public backlash, following a mid-2025 move to curtail the powers of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies. Mirroring his response to that earlier crisis, Zelenskyy moved swiftly to contain the political fallout, announcing Syrskyi’s dismissal just days after protests erupted. In his place, the president appointed Mykhailo Drapatyi, a disciplined, battle-tested commander who built his reputation defending Ukrainian positions in the years following Russia’s first 2014 invasion of eastern Ukraine.

    Drapatyi’s ascension represents a sharp generational and ideological break from Syrskyi, whose career and thinking were rooted in Soviet-era military doctrine. Even with the new command appointment, public support for Fedorov continues to solidify, with the protests catapulting the former minister to new heights of political popularity among the Ukrainian public.

    Much of the public anger that followed Fedorov’s dismissal focused squarely on Syrskyi, who had become a symbol for the accumulated frustrations building within Ukraine’s military since Russia’s full-scale 2022 invasion. Drapatyi’s appointment, however, has helped ease a portion of these tensions. Widely respected by frontline troops and fellow officers alike, Drapatyi represents the cohort of younger commanders who earned their credibility through battlefield experience rather than through the rigid hierarchies of the old Soviet military system.

    “He enjoys a high level of trust within the military. I think this appointment could boost what is often called morale, that is, strengthen the fighting spirit,” explained Oleksandr Musiienko, a Kyiv-based independent military analyst.

    One anonymous Western defense official, not authorized to speak on record to journalists, described the divide between Fedorov and Syrskyi as a chasm “between different planets.” The core of the split lay in their competing approaches to modern warfare: Fedorov championed a data-driven, technology-first strategy focused on preserving troop lives through innovation, while Syrskyi clung to a traditional, large-scale ground forces doctrine rooted in Soviet military tradition.

    Analysts note that Drapatyi is uniquely positioned to act as a bridge between these two competing camps. A low-profile but widely respected leader, he has earned the confidence of frontline commanders while embracing the sweeping military reforms that Fedorov championed in Kyiv. “He has shown an ability to adapt to the realities of modern warfare, to changing battlefield conditions and to shifting and reallocating resources,” Musiienko added.

    For many Ukrainians, Syrskyi embodied exactly the kind of rigid command structures and outdated Soviet-era thinking that Fedorov’s reforms sought to dismantle. When Fedorov publicly named Syrskyi as the primary barrier to his reform agenda, it brought long-simmering public grievances into the open: the military’s deeply entrenched bureaucracy, Syrskyi’s overly centralized, micromanaging command style, and the persistent, systemic challenges of mass mobilization.

    Syrskyi also faced intense public scrutiny over his ties to the 425th Separate Assault Regiment, commonly known as Skelya. The regiment became a national symbol of the costly, reckless tactics that critics say wasted soldiers’ lives in exchange for minimal territorial gains. It was also at the center of a major national scandal after Ukrainian outlet Babel published an investigation alleging systemic abuse, torture in training camps, and dozens of preventable noncombat deaths. The report triggered an official investigation, led to the suspension of the regiment’s commander, and amplified public calls for broader reform of Ukraine’s military command culture.

    The series of leadership changes marks the second high-profile reversal for Zelenskyy since mid-2025. To some Ukrainian lawmakers and independent analysts, the episode demonstrates that democratic accountability remains functional in Ukraine despite the imposition of martial law and the suspension of national elections. They argue that Zelenskyy’s rapid response to public pressure proves the presidency remains responsive to the will of the Ukrainian people.

    Other lawmakers, however, have warned that the chain of events could set a troubling precedent, allowing public protest rather than structured institutional decision-making to shape appointments to the military’s highest ranks. Tetiana Shevchuk, a board member of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, noted that public protest remains one of the only channels for citizens to express their views amid the absence of scheduled elections.

    “Frustrations built up to the point where people felt the only way to be heard was to take to the streets. That’s not a healthy precedent, but it should also be a signal to the government to address problems before they reach that stage,” Shevchuk said.

    Ukrainian social media erupted with memes mocking Zelenskyy’s scramble to find a new military chief, a wave of jokes that underscore the significant political cost the president has paid amid the crisis. Many of the viral memes depicted Zelenskyy interviewing absurd candidates, ranging from Game of Thrones character Jon Snow to extraterrestrials and marine mammals, highlighting the sense of chaos that has surrounded the leadership shuffle.

    The crisis comes as Zelenskyy is already weathering the political fallout from a damaging corruption investigation that ensnared several of his closest associates, including former chief of staff Andriy Yermak, who was dismissed last year under mounting public pressure.

    Shevchuk emphasized that the public protests surrounding Fedorov’s dismissal are not merely a show of personal support for the former minister — they are a clear reflection of broad public backing for the sweeping reforms he championed. “Fedorov was pushing the idea that Ukraine had to preserve every soldier’s life and become more efficient than Russia,” Shevchuk explained. “Over the past six months, people finally felt Ukraine was gaining an advantage. For the first time in a long time, there was hope that this war was winnable — that we weren’t just taking loans while slowly losing territory.” That momentum was upended abruptly when Zelenskyy announced Fedorov’s dismissal.

    Even with Drapatyi’s appointment to top command, the political drama is far from resolved. Reports indicate Fedorov has refused to accept any other government position unless he is reinstated as defense minister, a demand that thousands of protesters continue to voice publicly. Fedorov’s next steps, and whether he will return to government at all, will shape the next chapter of Ukraine’s wartime political and military trajectory.

    The crisis has also dramatically elevated Fedorov’s national political profile. Once best known as the architect of Ukraine’s pre-war digital transformation and a largely loyal subordinate to Zelenskyy, he now commands a broad, independent base of public support across the country. That new popularity has inevitably sparked widespread speculation about his long-term political future, beyond the current military leadership crisis.

    During his six months as defense minister, Fedorov pursued an aggressive reform agenda designed to accelerate Ukraine’s military modernization. He reallocated funds originally budgeted for general personnel costs to expand long-range strike capabilities, fiber-optic drone systems, reconnaissance technology, and other cutting-edge military tools. He also secured new drone acquisitions, finalized new contracts for Patriot air defense systems, oversaw successful domestic ballistic missile tests, and implemented a sweeping overhaul of Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt military procurement system. He additionally proposed a full rewrite of military service contracts designed to make frontline service more sustainable for infantry troops, including higher base pay, expanded leave allowances, and greater service flexibility — changes that resonated deeply with rank-and-file soldiers.

  • Rubio to revive prospect of US helping end war in Ukraine in meeting with Russian counterpart

    Rubio to revive prospect of US helping end war in Ukraine in meeting with Russian counterpart

    Diplomatic activity is taking center stage in Manila this week as top global foreign policy leaders gather for the annual Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) foreign ministers’ summit, with two high-stakes bilateral meetings set to shape international conversations around conflict resolution and great power tensions.

    The most anticipated encounter is the Thursday meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, scheduled to take place on the sidelines of the ASEAN gathering. This discussion marks a rare high-profile engagement between the world’s two largest nuclear-armed powers at a time of deep divides over the ongoing war in Ukraine.

    Speaking to reporters ahead of the meeting Wednesday, Rubio confirmed that Ukraine would be a core topic of conversation, confirming that the U.S. remains willing to facilitate negotiations to end the two-year conflict if a viable opening emerges. He acknowledged that American brokering efforts had stalled in recent months, sidelined by the escalating confrontation between Washington and Tehran following the collapse of an interim ceasefire deal that led to renewed cross strikes between the two sides. Even amid long-standing disagreements between Washington and Moscow, Rubio emphasized that maintaining open channels of communication remains a critical priority for U.S. foreign policy.

    For his part, Lavrov confirmed he plans to question Rubio about recent comments from U.S. President Donald Trump indicating that a diplomatic settlement to the Ukraine war is increasingly within reach. The revival of peace talk discussions comes amid a period of internal upheaval in Kyiv: while Ukraine has notched meaningful territorial gains this year, a public rift between top defense and political leaders has forced President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to carry out a major government reshuffle that includes replacing the country’s most senior military commanders, creating uncertainty about the trajectory of Kyiv’s war effort. Beyond Ukraine, Rubio noted the meeting will also explore other potential areas of practical cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, reflecting a broader commitment to keeping channels open across multiple policy areas.

    The Ukraine discussion is not the only major diplomatic event on Rubio’s Manila itinerary. On Wednesday, he held a lengthy bilateral meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, where the two top diplomats addressed a fresh maritime confrontation in the disputed South China Sea. The incident, a direct altercation this week between Chinese and Filipino forces at a contested shoal, drew sharp criticism from Rubio, who labeled China’s actions as “escalatory”. Beijing claims sovereignty over nearly the entire South China Sea, a position challenged by multiple regional claimants including the Philippines — Washington’s oldest treaty ally in Asia — as well as Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan.

    Rubio emphasized that miscalculations in the South China Sea carry severe global consequences, noting that any conflict, whether economic or military, between the U.S. and China would send shockwaves across the global economy. Wang, for his part, raised objections to what the Chinese Foreign Ministry described as “recent negative words and actions by the U.S. side”, a reference that comes as Trump has openly accused Beijing of interfering in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and the Trump administration has shortened visa durations for Chinese journalists working in the United States. Despite the tensions, both sides confirmed they are continuing preparations for upcoming high-level exchanges, including Chinese President Xi Jinping’s planned state visit to the U.S. scheduled for September.

    On Tuesday, ASEAN foreign ministers used their plenary session to address ongoing regional efforts to de-escalate South China Sea tensions. Delegations welcomed progress on years of negotiations with China on a proposed non-aggression code of conduct, with both sides targeting a final agreement by the end of the year. The proposed framework is designed to prevent armed confrontation in the strategically vital waterway, one of the world’s busiest global trade routes, where great power competition has long raised the risk of a conflict that could draw in the United States. In addition to his talks with Lavrov and Wang, Rubio also held separate bilateral discussions with Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on Wednesday, covering a range of bilateral and regional issues.

  • Canada’s ‘powerful’ dairy sector is in Trump’s trade crosshairs

    Canada’s ‘powerful’ dairy sector is in Trump’s trade crosshairs

    For decades, Canada’s dairy supply management framework has stood as one of the most politically untouchable policies in the country, and it has also been a persistent point of friction for former and current U.S. President Donald Trump. Today, the long-contested system is back at the center of a cross-border trade clash after Trump named it one of three key trade irritants justifying a steep 50% tariff on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods bound for U.S. markets, set to take effect this August.

    Trump argues that Canada’s system, which imposes binding production quotas, fixed domestic pricing, and strict import caps on dairy, eggs and poultry, creates an uneven playing field that unfairly blocks American producers from accessing the Canadian consumer market. The dispute leaves Canadian policymakers facing an unenviable choice: dig in on the widely popular domestic policy and face costly new U.S. tariffs, or cave to American pressure to open the market, sparking backlash from the voting public and one of the country’s most powerful agricultural lobbies. So far, Canadian officials have drawn a hard line, making clear that any changes to the dairy system are off the table.

    Quebec, home to Canada’s largest dairy sector, has led the charge against concessions. Premier Christine Fréchette confirmed earlier this week that supply management remains non-negotiable. Last week, Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc emphasized to the BBC that the framework is a foundational pillar of Canada’s rural economy and local farm communities, guaranteeing Canadian consumers consistent access to premium dairy products produced by domestic farmers. Canadian leaders argue the system delivers stable support for family farms and locks in predictable pricing for core food staples that households rely on.

    The power of Canada’s dairy lobby is well-documented: when past trade talks have threatened possible concessions, dairy farmers have organized high-profile protests on Parliament Hill, bringing tractors and livestock to demonstrate their opposition. David Clement, Canadian policy director for the international Consumer Choice Center, describes the dairy lobby as the most influential political interest group in the country, with deep ties across all major national political parties.

    Canada’s supply management system was first launched in the early 1970s, and it has outlasted similar policies that were phased out by other Commonwealth nations including Australia and New Zealand. Under the current framework, individual dairy farmers hold fixed production quotas that cap how much milk they can bring to market. Provincial marketing boards set regulated prices, delivering a predictable steady income for farmers while ensuring a consistent domestic supply of dairy products. Only a small volume of foreign dairy is allowed to enter Canada duty-free or at low tariff rates within these set quotas; any imports exceeding the cap face steep levies ranging from 200% to nearly 300%, pricing most excess foreign goods out of the Canadian market entirely.

    According to 2025 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), American dairy producers currently hold tariff-free access to just 3.5% of Canada’s dairy market, even as Canada ranks among the top importers of U.S. dairy, purchasing $1.3 billion worth of American dairy products last year. For American producers, expanded access to Canada’s market has become an increasingly urgent priority: the U.S. is currently facing a record high national dairy output that outpaces domestic consumption, leaving producers looking to expand into new export markets, including Canada’s 40 million consumers.

    A White House policy order released Monday adds another layer to the dispute, arguing that Canada’s free trade agreement with the European Union grants European cheese producers easier access to Canadian markets than their American counterparts, amounting to unlawful discrimination against U.S. producers. Trump is far from the first U.S. leader to take issue with Canada’s policy: the prior Biden administration launched two formal challenges to Canada’s dairy quota rules under the USMCA, the current North American free trade agreement that frames bilateral trade talks between the two nations. In 2024, the United Kingdom walked away from bilateral trade talks with Canada over disputes regarding tariff-free access for British cheese producers. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has also repeatedly criticized the policy, arguing it creates harmful distortions in global dairy production and trade.

    Even within Canada, a small but vocal contingent of economists, journalists and policy analysts has called for the full dismantling or major reform of the system. In a column published earlier this month ahead of Trump’s latest tariff announcement, Calgary-based writer and journalist Jen Gerson called for Canada to scrap supply management entirely, branding it an outdated anachronism that drives up food costs for Canadian households. Last year, Clement of the Consumer Choice Center wrote that the Trump administration’s claim that American farmers face unfair treatment in Canada has merit. He argues that supply management artificially inflates the price of core household staples including dairy and eggs — a particularly pressing issue amid Canada’s ongoing cost of living crisis. “We should get rid of supply management for our own good, outside of any negotiations and trade deals,” Clement told the BBC in an interview. He argues eliminating the policy would cut grocery costs for Canadian consumers, expand product choice at retail stores, and help Canada diversify its trade relationships by opening its market to global producers.

    Recent pricing data backs up claims of higher dairy costs in Canada: Statistics Canada and USDA data shows the average Canadian paid C$3.19 ($2.26) for a liter of milk in May, while the average American paid just C$1.95 for the same volume. Despite these price gaps, supporters of the current system remain in the overwhelming majority. Public opinion polling shows roughly 77% of Canadian voters support retaining supply management, with most respondents saying they prioritize protecting domestic farmers and guaranteeing access to high-quality Canadian-made dairy. In reader comments to Canada’s Globe and Mail this June, many local consumers echoed that sentiment. “I don’t want cheap American milk products,” wrote Ontario resident Gary Johnson. “Let the United States send dairy products. I don’t think any of us will buy it,” added Mark Knudsen of Mississauga.

    David Wiens, a third-generation dairy farmer from Manitoba and president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, argues the framework delivers tangible benefits that justify its existence, including steady consumer pricing and protection of Canadian food sovereignty. “Dairy prices are actually more stable than many other food categories, and more competitive internationally than people often realise,” Wiens told the BBC, noting that dairy prices are shaped by a wide range of economic factors beyond supply management. He pointed to the 2020s bird flu outbreak that sent egg prices skyrocketing for U.S. consumers as an example of how unregulated systems can face extreme volatility, arguing that Canada’s supply management framework shielded domestic consumers from similar sudden price spikes.

    Critics of supply management argue that widespread public support stems in large part from a lack of public understanding of the complex policy, and that the political risks of pushing reform have become too high for most elected officials to touch. Ryan Cardwell, a professor at the University of Manitoba who has studied the political dynamics of supply management, says any major change would likely cost the governing Liberal Party multiple parliamentary seats, particularly in rural and Quebec ridings. There is also a massive upfront cost to any transition: the federal government would be required to pay billions in compensation to dairy farmers for their acquired quota rights, a price tag that no federal government has been willing to take on. “It would be an upfront cost, and of course governments hate that,” Cardwell noted.

    Other countries that have eliminated supply management have taken different transitional approaches: Australia used a temporary consumer milk levy to fund compensation for farmers during its phase-out, while the European Union gradually increased production quotas by 1% annually before abolishing the system entirely in 2015. Despite growing international pressure, Cardwell says Canada’s system is likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future, noting that broad public support and powerful lobbying make any major overhaul politically unfeasible for current Canadian leaders.

  • US teen withdraws lawsuit against Meta over social media addiction

    US teen withdraws lawsuit against Meta over social media addiction

    A diplomatic dispute has erupted just as Australia’s ruling Labor Party prepared to kick off its national conference, after Beijing made a formal demand to expel a Taiwanese official from the event, multiple sources confirm. The confrontation comes as the Australian government navigates increasingly tense geopolitical tensions between China and the West, and puts Canberra’s cross-strait policy under renewed public scrutiny just days ahead of the gathering of party delegates and leadership. The incident unfolded rapidly, catching party organizers off guard and triggering urgent diplomatic backchannel talks between Australian officials and their Chinese counterparts. Sources close to the conference organizing committee say Chinese diplomatic representatives in Canberra made a direct, formal request to have the Taiwanese representative stripped of their access to the event and removed from the attendee list, framing the official’s presence as a violation of Beijing’s long-standing One-China principle. China has consistently claimed Taiwan as an integral part of its sovereign territory, and routinely objects to any official engagement that implies recognition of Taiwan as an independent political entity, regardless of whether the engagement is held in a private or public international setting. Labor party leaders have not yet issued an official public response to the demand, and have yet to confirm whether they will comply with the request, a decision that carries significant political and diplomatic ramifications for Australia. On one hand, complying with the demand would likely draw fierce criticism from opposition parties and pro-Taiwan advocacy groups within Australia, who argue that Canberra should maintain open, unofficial engagement with Taiwan and push back against what they frame as aggressive Chinese diplomatic pressure. On the other hand, refusing the request risks a sharp backlash from Beijing, which has previously retaliated against Australian policies it opposes with trade sanctions and diplomatic downgrades, hitting key Australian export sectors from wine to iron ore. This incident is the latest in a string of diplomatic frictions between Australia and China in recent years, even as the two countries have worked to repair bilateral ties that reached a multi-decade low in the late 2010s. The timing of the stoush, on the eve of Labor’s highest internal party gathering, ensures the dispute will dominate early discussions at the conference and force Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government to confront the sensitive cross-strait issue head-on before a national audience.

  • Ukrainian soldiers and civilians welcome new army commander

    Ukrainian soldiers and civilians welcome new army commander

    As Ukraine enters its fifth year of facing Russia’s full-scale invasion, a wave of public discontent has forced a high-level shakeup in the country’s top military leadership, with frontline troops and ordinary residents broadly welcoming the change but pushing for further adjustments to the defense cabinet.

    The unrest began last week, when President Volodymyr Zelensky unexpectedly replaced Mykhailo Fedorov, a popular reformist former defense minister who drew widespread support among rank-and-file soldiers for his policy priorities. Thousands of protesters took to Ukrainian streets to demand Fedorov’s reinstatement and the dismissal of then-army commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrsky, marking the largest war-related public demonstrations Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Bowing to public pressure, Zelensky announced Syrsky’s removal on Tuesday and appointed Mykhailo Drapaty, a decorated combat officer, to take over the army’s top post.

    Interviews with AFP from frontline areas and across Kyiv this week reveal mixed but largely positive reaction to the leadership shakeup, with continued calls for Fedorov’s return to government. In Izium, a Ukrainian city just 30 kilometers from current Russian frontline positions, a 22-year-old frontline soldier who goes by the military call sign Khrest called Syrsky’s departure “a good thing” but made clear that discontent would not fade without Fedorov’s reinstatement.

    Khrest explained that Fedorov had pushed to implement widespread fixed-term service contracts for mobilized troops, a longstanding core demand for Ukrainian soldiers. Many currently serve without a defined end to their deployment even after three and a half years of full-scale war. “He’s introducing contracts so that mobilised soldiers at least know how long they’ll have to serve,” Khrest told AFP, adding that Fedorov also prioritized guaranteeing regular rest periods for frontline troops.

    Another Izium-based soldier, 30-year-old Ananas, echoed that support for Drapaty’s appointment and criticism of Syrsky. Though Syrsky was celebrated for leading the successful 2022 defense of Kyiv and the Kharkiv counteroffensive that reclaimed large swathes of northeastern Ukraine, he drew intense criticism from rank-and-file troops for his tolerance of heavy personnel casualties and a recent scandal over abuse of new recruits. “He threw a lot of people into the meat grinder at the start of the war,” Ananas said, adding “I think he got off lightly by simply being dismissed.” Ananas also alleged Syrsky was tied to the abuse scandal at the Skelia assault unit. Syrsky previously described the reported violations as “shameful” and confirmed that disciplinary action had been taken against those responsible.

    Ananas also praised Fedorov’s work to expand Ukraine’s drone program, noting the former minister pushed to prioritize drone operations to reduce troop casualties. “People like that should not be removed. They are doing the right thing,” he said, warning that public discontent would persist unless Fedorov returned to cabinet.

    Svitlana, a 48-year-old nurse serving with an airborne assault unit, described Drapaty, a widely respected career combat officer, as a positive replacement for Syrsky, and thanked civilian protesters for pushing for the leadership change. “I believe only civil society can influence these processes. While we are here defending rights, people went out and defended theirs,” she said. She also praised Fedorov for his work digitizing military administration and called him a “good manager,” though she cautioned against idealizing the former minister, noting that military pay had fallen slightly during his tenure, creating financial strain for soldiers’ families. She has not yet formed an opinion on Fedorov’s successor, Yevgen Khmara, a veteran of Ukraine’s security services.

    In Kyiv, many civilians echoed the calls for further changes to the government. For 69-year-old Oleg, Syrsky’s dismissal was not enough to meet protester demands. “People got together to support Fedorov… the aim has not yet been achieved,” he said. Oleg argued that Zelensky’s reshuffle was an attempt to redirect public attention away from broader government shortcomings, and argued real change would require more shakeups at the highest levels of government.

    Twenty-one-year-old political science student Taisiia Obod echoed that sentiment, saying she hoped Fedorov would be given a new role within government and that his reform agenda would continue to be implemented. The reshuffle comes as Ukraine continues to contend with incremental Russian advances along the frontline and growing uncertainty over Western military support, putting sustained pressure on the country’s political and military leadership.

  • Watch: What we know about the US-Saudi nuclear deal

    Watch: What we know about the US-Saudi nuclear deal

    A proposed nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and Saudi Arabia has emerged as a landmark development in international diplomatic and energy circles, drawing widespread global attention for its far-reaching geopolitical and strategic consequences. BBC correspondent Sarah Smith has delivered a detailed breakdown of what is currently known about the agreement, unpacking its complex implications for both regional dynamics and global non-proliferation efforts.

    The framework of cooperation, which has been months in the making, centers on enabling Saudi Arabia to develop its civilian nuclear energy sector, with support from US companies and diplomatic backing from the White House. Unlike military nuclear programs that focus on weapons development, this deal is structured around peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including power generation, medical research, and water desalination – critical needs for a desert nation like Saudi Arabia that is seeking to diversify its energy mix away from fossil fuels.

    Yet the agreement has sparked significant debate around the world. One of the core points of contention is Saudi Arabia’s refusal so far to commit to the strictest international non-proliferation standards, specifically the Comprehensive Safeguards Additional Protocol that allows for more intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Critics warn that without this commitment, there is a risk that technology transferred for civilian use could eventually be diverted to develop a nuclear weapons program, which would upend the fragile security balance in the already volatile Middle East.

    For the United States, the deal carries major strategic goals. It aims to strengthen the decades-long security alliance between Washington and Riyadh, counter growing Iranian influence in the region, and open up billions of dollars in commercial opportunities for American nuclear technology firms. It also aligns with Saudi Arabia’s ambitious Vision 2030 reform agenda, which seeks to modernize the kingdom’s economy and infrastructure ahead of a post-oil future.

    Sarah Smith’s analysis outlines that while the agreement is being framed as a landmark step in bilateral relations, it still faces significant hurdles. It must win approval from the US Congress, where many lawmakers from both major parties have raised concerns about Saudi Arabia’s human rights record and nuclear proliferation risks. Additionally, regional powers including Iran have already voiced strong opposition, arguing that the deal would create a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

    As negotiations continue to finalize the details of the agreement, global powers and non-proliferation watchdogs are closely monitoring every development, acutely aware that the outcome will shape regional security and global non-proliferation efforts for decades to come.