Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Trump says Iran deal ‘very possible’ but threatens strikes if talks fail

    Trump says Iran deal ‘very possible’ but threatens strikes if talks fail

    On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump laid out a dual track of cautious optimism and stark warning for ongoing negotiations with Iran, saying a breakthrough agreement is “very possible” even as he threatened to resume devastating military strikes at far greater intensity if talks collapse.

    The latest diplomatic push comes after weeks of stalled dialogue between the two long-time adversaries, following an inconclusive first round of talks mediated by Pakistan last month. Negotiations gained a faint pulse last week when Trump paused a short-lived U.S. military operation designed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — the world’s most critical oil chokepoint — citing emerging prospects for a negotiated settlement. Progress remains gridlocked, however: Iran has not yet formally responded to a new U.S. proposal put forward in recent days.

    “ We’ve had very good talks over the last 24 hours, and it’s very possible that we’ll make a deal,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “If Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to, the war will be over. If not, the bombing will resume at a much higher level and intensity.” Trump also reiterated his demand that Iran hand over all its stockpiles of enriched uranium to the U.S., a major sticking point in negotiations that he offered no clear path to resolving.

    Iranian officials have pushed back against the U.S. framework, with top negotiator and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf accusing Washington of seeking to force Iran into unconditional surrender through a combination of economic pressure, naval blockades and targeted media manipulation. “Washington is seeking, through a naval blockade, economic pressure and media manipulation, to destroy the country’s cohesion in order to force us to surrender,” Ghalibaf warned. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei confirmed Wednesday that the U.S. proposal remains under internal review, with Tehran set to share its formal position with mediator Pakistan once internal deliberations are complete.

    The military standoff around the Strait of Hormuz has remained tense despite the diplomatic pause. The U.S. military confirmed Wednesday that one of its warplanes targeted and disabled the rudder of an oil tanker that attempted to break the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports. Trump has maintained the full U.S. blockade will remain in place as long as Iran continues its own restrictions on shipping through the strait.

    Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, a key broker in the initial talks hosted in Islamabad last month, has voiced public optimism for a lasting outcome. “We are very hopeful that the current momentum will lead to a lasting agreement that secures durable peace and stability for the region and beyond,” Sharif said in a post on X.

    U.S. news outlet Axios, citing two anonymous senior U.S. officials, reported Wednesday that both sides are nearing agreement on a one-page memorandum of understanding that would end active hostilities and establish a framework for future detailed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

    On the diplomatic front, Iran’s top foreign diplomat Abbas Araghchi met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Beijing Wednesday to discuss the ongoing negotiations. Araghchi said after the meeting that Iran looks forward to Chinese support for building a new post-war regional framework that balances security and sustainable development for all nations in the Middle East.

    Trump’s conciliatory rhetoric came hours after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the U.S. had concluded all active offensive operations against Iran. Global financial markets reacted positively to the signs of de-escalation, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq both closing at all-time record highs on Wednesday as investors grew more optimistic about a breakthrough that would ease regional energy market risks.

    Not all reaction to the talks has been positive, however. Speaking to AFP from Tehran, 43-year-old translator Azadeh expressed deep fear about the prospect of a deal between the Trump administration and Iran’s current government, saying years of economic hardship and conflict have brought no tangible benefits to ordinary Iranian citizens. “We’ve gone through so much hardship and suffering, and no achievements for people? I honestly just hope they finish this regime,” she said.

    Tensions across the broader region escalated Wednesday on the Lebanese front of the ongoing conflict. Israel carried out an airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, the first attack on the densely populated area in nearly a month. A source close to the Iran-backed Hezbollah group told AFP the strike killed a senior commander from the group’s elite fighting unit. Lebanon’s health ministry confirmed that at least 11 additional people were killed in a series of separate Israeli strikes across southern and eastern Lebanon Wednesday. Israel’s Army Chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir visited Israeli troops deployed along the southern Lebanon border Wednesday, vowing to “seize every opportunity to deepen the dismantling of Hezbollah.”

    U.S. Secretary Rubio also announced that Washington and its Gulf Arab allies have drafted a new United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Tehran halt all attacks on commercial shipping, disclose the location of naval mines in regional waterways and end efforts to collect tolls from ships passing through the strait. A vote on the resolution is expected in the coming days, though its adoption remains uncertain amid expected divisions among Security Council member states.

  • Legal complaint filed by Palestine activists against Met Police chief over synagogue remarks

    Legal complaint filed by Palestine activists against Met Police chief over synagogue remarks

    A coalition of major UK pro-Palestine advocacy groups has launched a formal complaint against Mark Rowley, Commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police, over allegations he made false, stigmatizing claims that protest organizers intentionally route demonstrations near synagogues to stoke antisemitic tension. The legal action marks one of the most significant public challenges to UK policing’s handling of the ongoing pro-Palestine protest movement, which has drawn hundreds of thousands of participants to central London since the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza conflict in October 2023.

    Rowley made his controversial claims in two separate high-profile interviews with The Times and ITV News in recent weeks, stating that pro-Palestine protest organizers repeatedly planned to march near Jewish places of worship, framing this alleged intent as inherently antisemitic. “The fact that features as the organisers’ intent, I think that sends a message … that feels like antisemitism,” Rowley told The Times. Speaking to ITV, he added: “They set out with an intent to march near synagogues etc and every single time that we put conditions on to prevent that.”

    Lawyers from Hodge Jones & Allen submitted the official complaint on Wednesday to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), the body that oversees London’s police force, on behalf of the Palestine Coalition — an umbrella grouping that includes the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the Palestinian Forum of Britain, the Stop the War Coalition, Friends of Al-Aqsa, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

    The complaint argues that Rowley’s matching claims across two interviews prove his remarks were no accidental misstatement, but a deliberate effort to discredit and stigmatize the long-running protest movement organized by the coalition. The document clarifies that the mass marches held since October 2023 have been organized to protest Israeli violations of international law in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the British government’s ongoing political and military complicity in these actions.

    The complaint explicitly rejects Rowley’s factual claims, noting that while some pre-approved march routes have passed near major London landmarks that fall in the general vicinity of synagogues and other houses of worship, organizers have never intentionally targeted or routed protests near these sites specifically. All protest routes, the coalition emphasizes, have been formally agreed upon by Metropolitan Police officials in advance of every demonstration. On occasions where police requested route adjustments to move marches further from synagogues or public transit stations used by worshippers, the coalition says it willingly complied, even while rejecting the unsubstantiated claim that the protests posed any inherent threat to Jewish communities.

    “At no point during any negotiations has it been suggested that Metropolitan police officers believed that the objective of the march itself was to ensure that they went past a synagogue,” the complaint reads.

    Rowley’s remarks, the coalition argues, directly violate the 2020 Police Conduct Regulations, which require top police leaders to act with honesty and integrity, uphold fairness and impartiality, avoid abuse of authority, and maintain public confidence in the police service. “The Commissioner’s comments were in breach of those standards,” the complaint alleges. Beyond factual inaccuracy, the document accuses Rowley of abusive use of his power, and argues that his framing of pro-Palestine protests as antisemitic constitutes racial discrimination against protest participants.

    The complaint also highlights what it frames as unequal treatment of demonstrations by the Metropolitan Police, pointing out that the coalition’s upcoming 16 May Nakba Day march has faced severe route restrictions, while police have allowed space for a far-right demonstration led by controversial figure Tommy Robinson to proceed in central London. The coalition is demanding an immediate retraction of Rowley’s claims and a formal public apology to the movement.

    This complaint comes amid escalating political pressure to restrict or ban pro-Palestine protests across the UK, amplified by a recent stabbing attack in the heavily Jewish northwest London neighborhood of Golders Green. On Wednesday, a 45-year-old Somali-born British man was arrested in connection with the stabbings of two Jewish men, as well as an earlier fatal stabbing of a Muslim man in south London. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly linked the attack to pro-Palestine marches, using the incident to call for tighter restrictions on protests, including potential full bans. In a BBC Today interview over the weekend, Starmer said offensive protest language should be actively policed and suggested there was a credible case for banning future demonstrations entirely.

    Last week, the same coalition groups already pushed back against coordinated efforts by politicians and mainstream media outlets to smear the protest movement and advance calls for bans. The legal complaint against Rowley marks a major escalation of that pushback, challenging the top UK police official’s claims at the heart of the growing campaign to restrict pro-Palestine speech and assembly.

  • Congo’s president warns next elections can’t take place unless the conflict in the east is resolved

    Congo’s president warns next elections can’t take place unless the conflict in the east is resolved

    KINSHASA, Democratic Republic of the Congo — In a nationally televised address that has sparked intense political debate across the country, Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi delivered a stark warning Wednesday: unless the long-running armed conflict rocking the nation’s eastern provinces is resolved and stability is restored, the country will not be able to hold constitutionally mandated general elections when his second and final term concludes in December 2028.

    Tshisekedi’s remarks came amid a devastating escalation of decades of unrest in eastern Congo that began earlier this year. In January 2025, Rwanda-backed M23 rebels launched a major offensive, capturing the strategic eastern city of Goma before seizing the key town of Bukavu the following month as the insurgency pushes to expand its territorial control. The renewed fighting has already claimed an estimated 3,000 lives and dramatically deepened one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes, pushing the total number of displaced people across the country to roughly 7 million.

    Decades of instability in eastern Congo have long been fueled by competition over control of the region’s vast, lucrative mineral reserves, with more than 100 armed groups currently operating in the area, M23 among the most powerful and well-organized. U.S.-brokered peace negotiations and other diplomatic initiatives to halt the violence have so far failed to gain traction, leaving the conflict deadlocked.

    “If we cannot end this war, unfortunately we will not be able to organize elections in 2028,” Tshisekedi stated during the address. The president clarified that the inability to hold the vote would stem from the loss of state control over the two most conflict-affected eastern provinces, not a lack of willingness or resources to administer the poll. “It will not be because I refused to organize them, the resources are there we can do it, but we cannot organize them without North Kivu and South Kivu,” he added.

    In a surprise announcement that has reshaped the country’s political landscape ahead of 2028, Tshisekedi also signaled he would be open to seeking a controversial third term in office, a move that would require amending the nation’s constitution, which currently imposes a strict two-term limit on presidents. “I have not sought a third term, but I tell you: If the people want me to have a third term, I will accept,” he said, noting that any change to term limits would need to be approved by a national referendum first.

    Opposition figures and political critics immediately rejected the president’s comments, accusing Tshisekedi of using the ongoing eastern conflict as a pretext to extend his hold on power. Congolese opposition politician André Claudel Lubaya argued that Tshisekedi was invoking the will of the Congolese people “to justify a fraudulent intention.” Two-time former presidential candidate Seth Kikuni warned via social media platform X that if Tshisekedi follows through on plans to “threaten to seize power” in 2028, the opposition will have no choice but to take drastic action: “to cross the Rubicon and throw the dice.”

    The address also touched on other policy issues, including the ongoing deportation of Congolese migrants from the United States under a bilateral agreement reached with the Trump administration, though Tshisekedi’s comments on elections and the eastern conflict dominated public and political reaction to the speech.

  • Why is Japan rethinking its anti-war stance?

    Why is Japan rethinking its anti-war stance?

    Seventy-eight years after the end of World War II, one of the most defining pillars of Japan’s post-war national identity is facing the most significant challenge to its existence in modern history. The country’s long-standing pacifist constitution, drafted in the aftermath of the global conflict to embed anti-war principles into Japanese politics and society, is now at the center of a fierce national debate, as Prime Minister Fumio Kishida pushes forward an aggressive agenda to revise its iconic Article 9.

    Article 9, the clause that has shaped Japan’s security posture for nearly eight decades, formally renounces war as a sovereign right of the nation and bans the maintenance of offensive military capabilities for use in international conflict. For generations, this constitutional provision has served as both a domestic commitment to peace and a global signal of Japan’s rejection of the imperialist expansion that defined the early 20th century.

    But shifting regional security dynamics, including rising military assertiveness from China in the Indo-Pacific, persistent nuclear and ballistic missile threats from North Korea, and evolving security alliances with the United States, have pushed the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to frame constitutional revision as a necessary step to adapt Japan to 21st century security realities. Proponents of the change argue that updating the constitution will allow Japan to play a more active role in collective security efforts with its allies, modernize its self-defense capabilities to deter regional aggression, and clarify the legal status of the country’s already expanding military forces.

    Despite these arguments from ruling party officials, the push for revision has sparked deep controversy across Japan and drawn sharp criticism from regional neighbors that suffered under Japanese imperial occupation during World War II. Domestic opposition groups argue that revising the pacifist constitution would break the long-standing national commitment to peace, drag Japan into potential foreign conflicts, and undermine the social consensus that has kept the country focused on diplomatic and economic development over military expansion. Critics across East Asia warn that the shift away from post-war pacifism could destabilize regional security and reignite historical tensions over Japanese militarism.

    As the debate continues to unfold, the future of Japan’s anti-war stance remains one of the most consequential political issues facing the country, with implications that stretch far beyond its borders and reshape the security architecture of the entire Indo-Pacific region.

  • Iran considering US proposal to end war, official says

    Iran considering US proposal to end war, official says

    Diplomatic efforts to end ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran have entered a new phase this week, with Tehran confirming it will deliver its formal feedback on a US peace framework to Pakistani mediators once internal review is complete. The development follows widespread reports that the two longstanding adversaries may be moving closer to a preliminary agreement, even as hardline rhetoric from both sides and continued regional clashes cast uncertainty over the outcome.

    Earlier this week, US-based news outlet Axios broke the story that the White House is closing in on a 14-point draft memorandum of understanding with Iran, a document that would lay the foundation for future, more in-depth negotiations over Iran’s contested nuclear program. Citing four unnamed sources briefed on the closed-door talks, Axios reported the one-page draft includes three core preliminary provisions: a temporary pause on Iranian uranium enrichment, the rolling back of crippling US economic sanctions on Tehran, and the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global commercial shipping. All draft terms are conditional on a final binding agreement being reached, the sources added.

    The Axios report was later corroborated by two separate sources familiar with the Pakistan-mediated talks who spoke to Reuters, though the full text of the proposal has not been released to the public. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei confirmed the status of Tehran’s review in a statement to the Iranian Students’ News Agency (ISNA), noting: “The American proposal is still being reviewed by Iran and after concluding, it will inform the Pakistani side of its opinion.” Pakistan, which has stepped in as the neutral mediator for the talks, has already signaled its commitment to locking in a durable peace. Pakistani Foreign Minister stated his nation is working to turn the existing ceasefire into a permanent end to hostilities.

    Not all figures within Iran’s government have signaled openness to the US proposal, however. Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission, dismissed the draft as nothing more than a US “wish list” in a post on X. He doubled down on Iran’s hardline stance, warning that “The Americans will not gain anything in a war they are losing that they have not gained in face-to-face negotiations.” Rezaei added that Iran “has its finger on the trigger and is ready,” threatening a “harsh and regret-inducing response” if Washington refuses to surrender and make the required concessions.

    US President Donald Trump has echoed the bellicose rhetoric while also expressing cautious optimism about a deal. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump warned that if Iran rejects the agreement, “the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before.” At the same time, he claimed the US had held “very good talks with Iran in the last 24 hours” and said a final agreement is well within reach. “They [Iran] want to make a deal. We’ve had very good talks over the last 24 hours and it’s very possible that we’ll make a deal up there,” Trump said, adding “I think we won.” He also repeated an unconfirmed claim that Iran has already agreed to abandon any pursuit of a nuclear weapon, a core sticking point in decades of tensions between the two nations.

    Trump recently announced a pause to Operation Project Freedom, a US mission launched days earlier to escort stranded commercial vessels out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, designed to restore global oil flows and stabilize the global economy. The announcement came after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that the earlier US-Israeli offensive Operation Epic Fury against Iranian targets had concluded after achieving its core objectives. Trump added that Operation Epic Fury would remain over “assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to.”

    Iran has not yet officially responded to Trump’s pause of the escort mission, but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has previously hinted the strait would reopen if all aggressive threats from the US and its allies are withdrawn. The strategic waterway, which carries roughly 20% of the world’s global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, has been effectively closed to most commercial traffic since the US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran in late February. A ceasefire agreed between Washington and Tehran in early Africa paused Iranian drone and missile strikes on Gulf nations including the United Arab Emirates, but very few commercial vessels have been able to safely transit the strait in the months since. The US has also imposed its own naval blockade on Iranian ports, and US Central Command confirmed Wednesday it had fired on and disabled an Iranian-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman that attempted to break the blockade.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed Wednesday that there is full strategic coordination between his government and the Trump administration on Iran policy. “There are no surprises. We share common goals, and the most important objective is the removal of all enriched material from Iran and the dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capabilities,” he said. Netanyahu’s comments came shortly after Israeli forces carried out their first strike on Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, since the April ceasefire between Israel and the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah. Netanyahu wrote on social media that the strike targeted a senior Hezbollah commander responsible for rocket attacks on Israeli civilian settlements and the deaths of IDF soldiers.

    Hezbollah opened its campaign against Israel in early March, launching strikes to retaliate for Israel’s attacks on Iran as part of Operation Epic Fury. Despite the ceasefire agreement reached in April, both sides have repeatedly accused one another of violating the terms and continued low-intensity clashes. Most Israeli airstrikes have targeted southern Lebanese territory, while Hezbollah has regularly launched rocket and drone attacks on Israeli troops along the border and northern Israeli civilian areas.

  • Gas tax: How beer fuelled a debate on Australia’s energy giants

    Gas tax: How beer fuelled a debate on Australia’s energy giants

    In a surprising revelation that has electrified Australian political discourse, a senior treasury official confirmed during a February Senate hearing that Australia generates more annual government revenue from beer excise taxes than it does from levies on its multibillion-dollar offshore gas exports. The exchange, captured on video and shared widely across social media, has amassed nearly 10 million views on Instagram alone, catapulting a long-simmering debate over resource taxation into the national spotlight.

    Independent Senator David Pocock, who pressed the official for clarity, summed up widespread public frustration in his question: “How do we live in a country, one of the biggest gas exporters in the world, and we’re getting more tax from beer?” The viral moment has reignited a grassroots campaign led by Pocock, political commentator Konrad Benjamin, and other advocates to implement a 25% tax on Australian gas exports, a policy that has drawn fierce pushback from multinational energy companies operating in the country.

    As Australia grapples with skyrocketing cost-of-living pressures and soaring domestic gas prices, exacerbated by the global fuel crisis triggered by the ongoing US-Israeli conflict with Iran, the debate has dominated front pages just one week ahead of the release of the country’s annual federal budget. Despite broad public support for the policy, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already ruled out its inclusion in next week’s budget, but the issue shows no signs of fading from the political agenda.

    Former Australian Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Ken Henry, who first proposed a broad mining tax 16 years ago that was ultimately defeated after a massive industry lobbying campaign, has thrown his weight behind the current push. He argued that if the earlier mining tax had been implemented, Australia would have collected tens of billions of dollars in extra revenue that could have been seeded into a intergenerational sovereign wealth fund to fund long-term public services. Henry drew a blunt analogy to explain the current unfairness of Australia’s gas taxation regime: “Imagine if I were to come to you … and put this proposition to you: I’ll sell your house and I’ll give you 30% and I’ll keep the other 70%, and you should be happy with that because I’ve just converted an asset into cash. None of you would be stupid enough to do that.”

    The Australia Institute, a progressive public policy think tank, has further underscored the scope of the revenue gap, noting that Japan generates more tax revenue from importing Australian gas than Australia collects from exporting the resource. The institute estimates that a 25% gas export tax would add around A$17 billion (£9 billion, US$12 billion) to annual government revenue.

    Polling data released last week confirms the policy’s broad popularity with Australian voters, with 57% of respondents backing the proposed gas export tax and just 12% voicing opposition. Many supporters have pointed to Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, built from the country’s oil and gas revenues, as a model for Australia. For comparison, Australia’s existing sovereign wealth fund held just A$267 billion as of December 2025 – less than 10% of Norway’s total, despite Australia having a population five times the size of Norway’s. Supporters argue that increased gas tax revenue could fund popular public programs including more generous parental leave, free tertiary education, and expanded healthcare.

    Benjamin, a former high school teacher turned political YouTuber who testified on the proposal at the recent Senate hearing, has built a large social media following for his videos calling for reform, regularly earning hundreds of thousands of views. “My year 10 business students understand: if something is profitable and we’re holding all the levers of power – look around. How many stable democracies have the many resources that we have? How are we getting such a dud deal?” he told senators.

    The scale of the current revenue gap is hard to overstate. While Australian gas exports hit a record peak of A$90 billion in 2023 amid market turmoil following the Ukraine war, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), the primary levy on offshore oil and gas producers, is projected to raise just A$1.5 billion in the 2025-26 financial year. By contrast, beer excise taxes are expected to generate A$2.7 billion in the same period. Even at the country’s flagship Gorgon gas project, majority-owned by Chevron, multinational Shell paid just A$109 million in PRRT last year – its first PRRT payment in a decade – on A$2.5 billion in project revenue.

    Samantha Hepburn, a natural resource law professor at Deakin University, explained that Australia’s tax code includes unusually generous provisions for energy companies that allow them to deduct large upfront infrastructure and development costs from their tax bills, and carry forward unused tax credits to offset future profits for years. “Gas is in a particularly favourable position because of the significant upfront costs associated with construction and drilling and the other infrastructure,” Hepburn said. “And that means that they can keep uplifting those expenses against future profits in a way that other resource or mining resource sector companies haven’t necessarily been able to do.” While gas companies pay standard corporate and payroll taxes like other businesses, Hepburn noted that they exploit a publicly owned natural resource, and existing royalty payments for onshore projects are far smaller than profit-based tax revenue would be. This structure has led to widespread claims that Australia is effectively giving its natural gas away to foreign companies for below market value.

    Energy companies have pushed back hard against the proposed tax, defending their current tax contributions and warning of negative economic consequences. Shell said it has invested US$60 billion in Australia since 2010 and paid A$12 billion in total Australian taxes over the past decade. The company also argued that Norway’s resource model is fundamentally different, as the Norwegian state takes direct equity stakes in energy projects and shares development risk, a structure not used in Australia. Chevron, which holds the majority stake in Gorgon, argued that Australia needs stable regulatory frameworks to attract investment across all sectors, claiming that a new export tax would undermine that stability and threaten domestic gas supply. Energy firm Santos added that the proposal itself has already damaged Australia’s reputation as a reliable investment destination.

    Prime Minister Albanese has rejected comparisons between beer and gas tax revenue as “complete fantasy”, noting that the broader gas sector paid A$22 billion in total taxes last year. Speaking to a gathering of mining and energy executives, he reaffirmed that the government would not impose a new gas export tax in the upcoming budget, saying “the middle of a global fuel crisis is the worst possible time to jeopardise these partnerships, or the investment that underpins them.” Albanese, who recently completed a tour of Asian nations to secure long-term fuel supply agreements, added that gas exports are “directly linked to our national fuel security” and that Australia depends on billions in foreign investment from North American, Japanese and other international partners to develop gas resources.

    However, critics of the government’s position argue that the prime minister’s objections do not hold up to scrutiny. University of Queensland economics professor John Quiggin noted that imposing a new export tax would not violate existing contracts, as no commercial agreement can bind future governments to permanent tax policy. He also pushed back on claims that the tax would drive away foreign investment, asking “Where are they going to go?” Quiggin added that the old argument that foreign investors must be treated with extreme leniency or they will abandon the market is outdated, pointing to shifting global norms including former US President Donald Trump’s unilateral imposition of global tariffs in recent years. Hepburn further noted that fears of deterring new gas investment conflict with Australia’s own climate targets, which require the country to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, meaning new large-scale gas development should not be prioritized anyway.

    While the gas export tax is all but certain to be left out of next week’s budget, most political analysts agree that reform is ultimately inevitable, given the policy’s broad cross-partisan popularity, ranging from the left-wing Greens to the right-wing One Nation. Pocock and his supporters have vowed to continue their campaign, and Pocock tweeted earlier this week that “The pressure on government to act is growing and, at some point, the prime minister has to put Australia first.”

  • 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.”