分类: politics

  • France: Mosque closure fuels fear of state overreach on Muslim worship

    France: Mosque closure fuels fear of state overreach on Muslim worship

    A recent court ruling upholding the temporary closure of a small working-class mosque in northeastern Paris has reignited fierce national debate over France’s approach to countering radicalism, the practice of secularism, and systemic biases targeting the country’s Muslim community.

    The case centers on Attaqwa Mosque, commonly called Chanteloup Mosque, nestled in a social housing complex in Aulnay-sous-Bois’s majority-immigrant southern neighborhood. Unlike traditional Islamic religious sites, the unassuming space blends into surrounding residential apartment blocks, with no minaret or dome, housing a 50-person prayer hall and offices for Acas, the local cultural association that manages it. Founded by local residents in the early 2010s as an informal prayer room, the site operated for more than a decade without pushback from housing providers or municipal officials.

    In July, the prefecture of Seine-Saint-Denis ordered the mosque shuttered for six months, citing claims that imams at the site had disseminated content inciting violence, hatred and terrorism, both during sermons and on personal social media accounts. Earlier this month, the Montreuil Administrative Court rejected the mosque operator’s appeal to suspend the order, ruling that the temporary closure does not qualify as a clear, illegal violation of religious freedom. The court added that the ruling did not penalize citations of Islamic scripture, noting the order also relied on evidence of radicalized individuals frequenting the space, and that prefectural authorities had not interfered with core religious beliefs or violated France’s principle of state religious neutrality.

    But local residents and legal representatives have pushed back sharply against the decision. For 78-year-old retired bus driver Salah, a regular worshipper who lives within walking distance of the mosque, the closure has stripped him of access to daily sunset prayers he has practiced for years. His poor health makes the longer trip to other mosques in Aulnay impossible, leaving him disconnected from the community space that anchored his daily routine. Twenty-year-old local resident Rayane, who also prays at Attaqwa, said the collective punishment of closing the entire mosque instead of prosecuting individual imams accused of wrongdoing is unfair. Critics argue the decision undermines both religious freedom and the secularism France claims to uphold, by punishing an entire community for the alleged actions of a few individuals.

    Rafik Chekkat, the lawyer representing Acas (which has had all its assets frozen in the case), argues key portions of the court ruling run counter to fundamental religious freedom protections. He announced plans to appeal the decision to the Council of State, France’s highest administrative court, noting that authorities built part of their case against the mosque on imams’ citations of seven verses from the Quran and references to foundational works of Islamic tradition, including 13th-century Syrian scholar Imam al-Nawawi’s *The Garden of the Righteous* and *The Forty Hadiths* — works universally recognized as core to mainstream Islamic teaching. The defense also highlighted that the prefecture objected to sermons referencing hell and punishment for non-believers, despite identical theological teachings being common in Christian preaching across the country.

    Veteran French lawyer Sefen Guez Guez, who has successfully won the suspension of three mosque closure orders throughout his career, says the ruling sets a dangerous legal precedent. He argues the court validated the prefecture’s practice of literally interpreting routine citations of core religious texts out of context to justify closing a place of worship. Guez Guez also raised procedural concerns, noting some of the sermons cited in the closure order date back to 2020, raising unanswered questions about how far back authorities can search for evidence to justify shutting down a religious site.

    The Attaqwa case is far from an isolated incident, but rather the latest manifestation of a years-long shift toward stricter state control of Muslim worship in France that began early in Emmanuel Macron’s presidency, when he took office in 2017. In 2021, the French legislature passed the controversial anti-separatism law, formally titled the Law Reinforcing Respect for the Principles of the Republic, which was framed as a tool to root out Islamist radicalism. Critics have long argued the law stigmatizes France’s 5.7 million Muslim residents, the largest Muslim population in Europe, while eroding civil liberties. The legislation expanded the legal powers of regional prefects to order mosque closures, added new mandatory requirements for religious associations, broadened the justifications for closing religious sites, and created a systematic system of state oversight — making closures far more frequent and easier to administer.

    Prominent scholars of religion warn this shift marks a fundamental change to French secularism. In his 2025 book *Governing Islam in France*, CNRS senior researcher and religion specialist Franck Fregosi argues that growing numbers of mosque closures are evidence of an authoritarian turn in France’s long-standing practice of laïcité, or secularism. Fregosi notes the state’s increasingly heavy interference in the internal governance of mosques, including mandatory vetting of imams and worshippers, fits into a centuries-long pattern of state efforts to control and monitor Muslim worship that dates back to France’s colonial era in North Africa.

    In 2024, then-Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin introduced a new official registration system for imams working in France, intended to end the long-standing practice of foreign governments sending clerics to serve French mosques. The stated goal was to block foreign influence and radical ideological currents, allowing imams already working in the country to stay if they were hired by a local religious association and completed mandatory civic training, including coursework on French secularism. But even compliant imams have faced barriers: an Algerian imam hired by Nîmes’ Grand Mosque who completed all required requirements was still denied a residence permit by the prefecture and forced to return to Algeria, according to mosque rector Abdallah Zekri.

    Zekri, who also chairs the French Observatory Against Islamophobia and serves as vice president of the French Council of Muslim Worship (CFCM), the national representative body for French Muslims, argues growing numbers of mosque closures reflect a rising climate of anti-Muslim bias across the country. “When it’s not for radicalisation, mosques are closed under the pretext of non-compliance with urban planning regulations,” he explained, adding that Muslim associations face growing barriers to securing state approval to purchase land for new mosque construction. Guez Guez confirmed this pattern, noting that most closure requests are rooted in political considerations, with municipalities often using minor violations of fire safety or zoning rules as a pretext to shut down Muslim sites.

    Official French Interior Ministry data records only 12 places of worship, almost all mosques, that have been administratively closed for reasons related to radicalization since 2017. But independent journalistic investigations and advocacy group data show the actual number of closed mosques is far higher, with dozens more shut down for technical or regulatory violations. Between 2021 and 2022 alone, roughly 20 mosques were closed as part of a nationwide campaign of expanded administrative inspections. French Muslim advocacy group Trouve Ta Mosquée estimates that 89 mosques have been closed, temporarily or permanently, since 2017, including sites currently facing ongoing investigations.

    Zekri also noted that imams face growing punishment for discussing political topics, with comments on the Israeli military campaign in Gaza routinely mislabeled as hate speech, leading to retaliatory action. In a high-profile 2025 case, Abdourahmane Ridouane, president of a mosque near Bordeaux, was initially sentenced to four months suspended prison and a two-year ban from France on charges of apologizing for terrorism after he denounced Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories. He was ultimately acquitted by the Paris Court of Appeal later that year.

    Efforts to tighten state oversight of Muslim worship continue to move forward through the French legislature. In May 2025, the French Senate adopted a bill introduced by Senator and former Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, following a June 2024 report on alleged Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in French religious institutions. The bill would further expand prefects’ power to order mosque closures by broadening the legal definition of justifications for closure and allowing for preventive shutdowns before any disturbance of public order has occurred — a change that critics warn would grant state officials far more discretionary power to target sites. A second bill introduced in January 2025 by right-wing Les Républicains lawmakers would require prefectural approval for all new construction or expansion of places of worship, replacing the previous system where the prefect only issued a non-binding advisory opinion. Neither bill has been passed into law as of yet.

  • New opposition group plans protest in Tunisia after extreme heat-driven power and water cuts

    New opposition group plans protest in Tunisia after extreme heat-driven power and water cuts

    TUNIS, Tunisia – A record-shattering summer heat wave sweeping across North Africa has pushed Tunisia into a cascading public service and economic crisis, fueling widespread public fury against the administration of President Kais Saied and setting the stage for a major opposition demonstration in the capital Tunis this Thursday.

    The planned protest is organized by Nafas, a newly formed broad opposition umbrella movement launched in May that aims to unify political parties and independent public figures outside Tunisia’s traditional opposition blocs to challenge Saied’s rule. The movement has centered its activism on pushing back against what it frames as systemic government failure and deepening injustice across the country that served as the catalyst and starting point for the 2011 Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings.

    Protesters’ grievances stretch far beyond immediate public service failures: they include chronically intermittent power and water access, persistent shortages of life-saving essential medications, skyrocketing living costs that have stretched household budgets to breaking point, and persistently high unemployment that has left thousands of young Tunisians without economic opportunity.

    This year’s extreme heat has amplified every existing strain on Tunisia’s infrastructure, with temperatures climbing as high as 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) in inland regions of the country. The blistering heat pushed national electricity demand to unprecedented all-time highs, forcing STEG, Tunisia’s state-owned utility provider, to implement targeted rolling rationing and scheduled outages across multiple governorates to avoid a total grid collapse.

    These planned power cuts have had a ripple effect that worsens long-standing gaps in drinking water access across many parts of the country, as the outages disrupt operations at public water pumping stations. Empty store shelves for bottled water quickly followed, as extended blackouts halted factory production of bottled products. The production slowdown has been further compounded by a shortage of raw plastic resin, a shortage triggered by ongoing shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz that have cut off key petrochemical exports needed for bottle manufacturing to North African producers.

    The upcoming Thursday demonstration follows a well-attended Nafas-led rally held in Tunis last month, which marked a notable shift in opposition mobilization: the protest drew not just long-time opposition activists, but also hundreds of ordinary Tunisians who had never participated in political demonstrations before. It included a cohort of prominent social media influencers speaking out against the current political status quo for the first time, driving a significant surge in turnout among young Tunisians that has been rare in recent years of opposition organizing.

    That July rally was held to mark the fifth anniversary of Saied’s 2021 power grab, when the president suspended the elected parliament, dismissed the sitting sitting government, and moved to consolidate unilateral control over state institutions. Protesters at that event called for sweeping political reform, the release of hundreds of political prisoners, and highlighted the rapid deterioration of Tunisia’s economic conditions and public services over Saied’s tenure.

    Since consolidating power in 2021, Saied has steadily tightened restrictions on independent media, civil society organizing, and all forms of dissenting political speech. He has repeatedly targeted opposition and civil society groups, accusing them of accepting foreign funding to foment unrest and undermine Tunisia’s national interests.

    Recent opposition rallies have seen a clear hardening of tone, with calls for Saied to resign growing far more explicit than in earlier demonstrations. Protesters have revived the iconic 2011 Arab Spring chant “the people want the fall of the regime”, as well as “Dégage” – French for “Get Out” – the same slogan used by demonstrators who successfully ousted long-time authoritarian ruler Zine El Abidine Ben Ali more than a decade ago.

  • Taiwan proposes a record $35B defense budget for 2027 as China’s military pressure grows

    Taiwan proposes a record $35B defense budget for 2027 as China’s military pressure grows

    Against a backdrop of steadily growing military and political pressure from Beijing, Taiwan’s ruling administration announced a historic defense budget proposal for 2027 on Thursday, marking a major escalation in the island’s efforts to bolster its deterrence capabilities against potential Chinese aggression.

    The planned budget totals 1.12 trillion Taiwan dollars, equivalent to roughly $35 billion — an 18% increase from the 2026 proposed defense allocation, per an official government statement. For the first time, the defense budget will exceed 3% of Taiwan’s projected gross domestic product, putting the island on track to meet the commitment President Lai Ching-te laid out to raise military spending to 5% of GDP by 2030.

    Just days before the official budget release, Lai previewed the milestone, stating that crossing the 1 trillion Taiwan dollar threshold for defense spending was fundamentally an investment in long-term cross-strait peace. This proposal comes after years of escalating Chinese activity around the self-governing island: Beijing claims Taiwan as part of its sovereign territory, and regularly deploys fighter jets, coast guard vessels, and military ships to waters and airspace near Taiwan, while holding large-scale military exercises around the island on a recurring basis. Beijing has never formally ruled out the use of military force to seize control of Taiwan.

    The budget proposal will now move to Taiwan’s opposition-controlled legislature for review, which must be completed before the end of August. However, the legislative process is expected to face notable hurdles. Last Friday, the legislature only finalized passage of the 2026 central government budget following a record-setting 266-day delay, local Taiwan’s Central News Agency reported.

    The push for higher defense spending also aligns with longstanding calls from the United States, Taiwan’s most important informal security partner. Though Washington does not maintain formal diplomatic ties with Taipei, U.S. federal law requires the U.S. to provide Taiwan with the defensive arms it needs to deter aggression. For decades, the U.S. has served as the island’s primary arms supplier and diplomatic backer, a status that has consistently been a major source of diplomatic and military tension between Washington and Beijing.

    This latest budget announcement follows a major escalation of Taiwan’s annual Han Kuang military exercises earlier this month, which are designed to simulate responses to a full-scale Chinese invasion. In a break from previous years, the drills incorporated reservists and civilian stakeholders into realistic combat scenarios, and temporarily throttled mobile internet connectivity in parts of the island to text-only speeds to simulate wartime network disruptions. Earlier urban resilience drills in Taipei were far less disruptive and attracted little public attention.

    Cross-strait tensions have remained volatile in recent years, with high-level diplomatic moves adding to uncertainty on the island. During a 2017 visit to Beijing by then-U.S. President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned that mismanagement of the Taiwan issue could lead to direct conflict between the two major powers. After the meeting, Trump sparked widespread anxiety across Taiwan when he described U.S. arms sales to the island as a “very good negotiating chip” to use in talks with Beijing.

    Taiwan has operated as an independent self-governing entity since 1949, when the defeated Nationalist Party retreated to the island at the end of the Chinese Civil War, which brought the Chinese Communist Party to power in mainland China.

  • Huge questions loom over Prince Harry’s shock return to UK

    Huge questions loom over Prince Harry’s shock return to UK

    In a development that has sent shockwaves through British royal circles and global media alike, Britain’s Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle are preparing to relocate back to the United Kingdom, six full years after stepping down from their official royal duties and leaving the country. The unexpected announcement, first reported by The Daily Telegraph late Wednesday, has left the public and commentators grappling with a host of unanswered questions about the couple’s motivations, plans, and future relations with the House of Windsor.

    According to the Telegraph’s reporting, the couple intend to depart the United States by the end of the current month to take up residence in a private, non-royal property understood to be located outside of London. Multiple British media outlets, including the national public broadcaster BBC, have confirmed that the couple’s two young children — 7-year-old Prince Archie and 5-year-old Princess Lilibet — have already been enrolled in a British school ahead of the new academic year starting in early September. That confirmation has lent credibility to reports of the impending move, even as core details remain unconfirmed by Buckingham Palace or representatives for the couple.

    ### The Motivations Behind the Sudden Relocation
    Royal commentators have put forward a range of competing theories to explain why the couple, who have resided in Montecito, California since 2020, have chosen to uproot their lives and return to Britain now. Many point to the underperformance of the couple’s high-profile commercial ventures in the United States, which have failed to meet the high expectations that accompanied their 2020 departure.

    “Meghan’s cookery series did not perform well, they were unable to secure a long-term successful partnership with Netflix, and they ultimately lost their major podcast deal with Spotify,” veteran royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told Agence France-Presse. “Their time in Hollywood has not been the success they anticipated, and this looks like a strategic shift to change their trajectory before Prince William accedes to the throne.”

    Fitzwilliams added that the couple may also be acting in response to persistent reports that Prince William, Harry’s older brother and the heir to the British throne, is considering stripping them of their honorary royal titles once he becomes king. Other analysts, however, frame the move as a step toward long-sought reconciliation with the royal family.

    Another prominent royal commentator, Ed Owens, noted that Harry, the younger son of reigning King Charles III, has held a long-held desire to repair fractured relations with his father and the wider royal household. In July of this year, the couple made a low-key brief visit to the UK where they met with King Charles — marking the first time the couple’s two children had met their paternal grandfather in four years. According to Owens, that visit went far better than many observers expected, clearing the way for a more permanent return.

    “That visit was seen as a success on both sides, so now appeared to be the right moment to make this move,” Owens explained.

    ### Where Will the Couple Reside?
    After stepping back from their roles as working members of the royal family in 2020, Harry and Meghan — the Duke and Duchess of Sussex by hereditary title — eventually purchased and settled into a sprawling private estate in the wealthy coastal California community of Montecito. Multiple reports confirm that any new UK residence will not be one of the royal family’s many official properties, and will remain entirely private.

    Fitzwilliams said the rural Cotswolds region of western England, where Harry spent much of his childhood visiting his father’s private Highgrove House estate, is emerging as the most likely location for the couple’s new home. The British tabloid The Sun has further reported that the couple will retain their existing Montecito home, as well as a vacation property in Portugal where they spent part of this summer, meaning the relocation will not mean a complete break from their life in the United States.

    ### What Does the Future Hold for Their Public Roles?
    When the couple stepped down as working royals in 2020, the late Queen Elizabeth II explicitly ruled out any so-called “half-in/half-out” arrangement that would allow the pair to retain official royal roles while pursuing private commercial ventures. To date, Buckingham Palace has not signaled any shift on this longstanding position, and it is widely understood that the couple will remain non-working royals following their return, with no access to the official perks and responsibilities that come with active royal status.

    Harry will maintain his patronages with a number of UK-based charities, and will continue his work leading the Invictus Games, the international adaptive sporting event for wounded veterans that he founded, with the next edition scheduled to be held in Birmingham in 2025. The couple’s original $100 million content deal with Netflix, signed shortly after their departure from the UK, was renegotiated last year to a far more limited agreement that allows the pair to develop smaller film and television projects for the streaming platform. Meghan also recently launched her own lifestyle and consumer products brand, As Ever, in 2025.

    Despite their high profile, the couple remain broadly unpopular with the British public. A recent YouGov public opinion poll found that only 22 percent of British respondents hold a positive view of Meghan, while just 33 percent view Harry favorably.

    ### Can Harry Repair Fractured Ties With Prince William?
    Relations between Harry and the rest of the royal family collapsed completely after the couple’s bombshell 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey, where they made wide-ranging allegations of racism and neglect against the royal household. The rift deepened further with the January 2023 release of Harry’s unflinching tell-all memoir *Spare*, which made damning personal claims about William and other senior royals.

    While tentative bridges have been rebuilt between Harry and King Charles in recent months, William and Harry remain completely estranged, with the brothers reportedly not speaking to one another. The Daily Mail reported that William was furious when he learned of the couple’s planned relocation, with Fitzwilliams noting that the heir to the throne is strongly opposed to the move.

    “There is a very deep rift between the brothers. William feels that Harry has betrayed him and the institution,” Fitzwilliams explained. Owens, however, struck a more optimistic tone, noting that William — like his father before him — will likely eventually choose to forgive Harry for past tensions in the interest of the monarchy.

    ### Unresolved Security Questions
    Another major open question surrounding the move centers on personal security for the family. Harry has repeatedly said that he did not feel safe bringing his family to the UK after he lost a high-profile court battle against the British government over public funding for personal armed police protection. Former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond told Sky News that the planned relocation is particularly surprising given Harry’s longstanding public concerns on this issue.

    “It is extraordinary that he suddenly feels able to bring his wife and children to the UK when just a year ago he said there was no way he could do that because of the ongoing disputes over security provision,” Bond said.

  • What to know about Prince Harry’s move back to Britain with Meghan and the kids

    What to know about Prince Harry’s move back to Britain with Meghan and the kids

    Six years after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped down from their official royal roles and relocated to North America, a shocking new development has emerged: Prince Harry, his wife Meghan, and their two young children are preparing for an extended stay in the United Kingdom – a move that has fueled widespread speculation about a potential thaw in the long-running rift between Harry and his immediate family, including King Charles III and heir to the throne Prince William.

    The 41-year-old prince, who remains fifth in the line of British royal succession, has not publicly addressed details of the upcoming move when approached by the Associated Press during a public event Wednesday evening. But insiders close to the couple confirm that key preparations are already underway: Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5, have been enrolled at British schools and are set to begin classes this coming September. Multiple sources familiar with the Sussexes’ plans, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic, have confirmed the enrollment to the AP.

    Contrary to early rumors that the couple might be seeking a return to official royal duties, the Sussexes have no plans to resume working roles within the monarchy. The family will reside in a private, non-royal residence outside of London, while retaining their existing luxury home in the exclusive Montecito enclave of Southern California and their vacation property in Portugal’s Costa Terra resort. The couple will continue their independent commercial ventures: Meghan will oversee her lifestyle brand As Ever – which produces premium jams, teas, and wines – from the UK, while Harry will expand his work with UK-based charitable organizations.

    Since relocating to the US in 2018, Harry has only made sporadic, short trips back to the UK, many of which were tied to his ongoing legal battles with British tabloid publications. A notable shift came just last month, when Harry, Meghan, and their children made a private visit to meet King Charles and Queen Camilla at the monarch’s Highgrove House country estate. That meeting marked the first time Archie and Lilibet had seen their grandfather since the late Queen Elizabeth II’s platinum jubilee celebrations in 2022.

    According to British media reports, King Charles was only officially notified of the couple’s extended stay plans this past Sunday – a detail that has surprised veteran royal commentators. “If I was the king, I’d actually be thinking, ‘Hang on, you came to tea with me, and we sat down and we chatted, and you didn’t even mention this?’” former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond told Sky News. “I find it entirely odd.” Buckingham Palace has maintained its longstanding policy of declining to comment on private matters involving non-working members of the royal family, and has issued no official statement on the news.

    The extended stay comes after Harry has publicly pushed for reconciliation with his family, particularly as King Charles undergoes ongoing treatment for an undisclosed form of cancer. “I would love reconciliation with my family. There’s no point in continuing to fight anymore,” Harry told the BBC in a 2023 interview, adding “I don’t know how much longer my father has.” While relations between Harry and Charles have warmed noticeably in recent months, mending ties with Prince William is expected to be far more complicated.

    The rift between the Sussexes and the royal family widened dramatically after the couple’s 2021 tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which they alleged that a senior royal had made racist comments about Meghan – who identifies as biracial – during her first pregnancy, and that senior palace officials had failed to address Meghan’s struggles with mental health. The divide deepened further with the 2022 release of Harry’s unflinching memoir *Spare*, in which he claimed William had physically attacked him during an argument over Meghan, and labeled Queen Camilla a “dangerous” figure who cultivated ties with tabloids to improve her public image at the expense of other family members.

    Veteran royal journalist Peter Hunt, another former BBC correspondent, argues that the unexpected announcement of an extended stay will put enormous pressure on William to engage with his brother. “In the short term, Harry will be able to deepen his rapprochement with his father,” Hunt told the Press Association. “And his presence back home will make it harder for his brother to duck a reconciliation.”

    The return also raises major questions about Harry’s long-held stance on security. For years, Harry has argued that the removal of his automatic publicly funded police protection detail when he stepped down as a working royal was the “heart” of his dispute with the palace. Citing the 1997 death of his mother, Princess Diana, in a car crash while being pursued by paparazzi, Harry has long insisted that he and his family face ongoing threats from the media, and previously stated he could not imagine bringing his wife and children back to the UK without formal security guarantees. It remains unclear whether the UK government’s VIP protection committee has revised its risk assessment for Harry, or if he will rely solely on his privately funded security team during his extended stay.

    Harry’s high-profile legal battles with British tabloids over phone hacking and privacy invasion have concluded for the most part, with mixed results. He secured a favorable ruling against the publisher of the *Daily Mirror*, and reached a settlement with News Group Newspapers, publisher of *The Sun*, that included an unprecedented public apology. But last month, Harry and a group of co-plaintiffs that included musician Elton John lost a high-profile privacy case against the publisher of the *Daily Mail*. A judge is set to rule this Friday on how much the plaintiffs will be required to pay to cover the *Daily Mail*’s 34.5 million pound ($47 million) in legal costs, leaving Harry facing a potentially massive financial bill on top of his own team’s legal fees.

    While former correspondent Bond has suggested the move is driven primarily by Harry’s desire to be closer to his father during his cancer treatment, noting that “Perhaps Meghan is taking one for the team here, because I’m not sure this is her life’s desire to live back in the U.K.”, the full implications of the Sussexes’ extended UK stay for the future of the monarchy remain to be seen.

  • North Korea launches missiles, Seoul says, after Trump floats Kim meet

    North Korea launches missiles, Seoul says, after Trump floats Kim meet

    On Thursday, North Korea launched multiple short-range ballistic missiles, South Korea’s military confirmed, just hours after former U.S. President Donald Trump revealed he planned to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un later in 2025. The missile tests came as Washington and Seoul held a truncated version of their annual joint military drills, Ulchi Freedom Shield, after Trump ordered the exercises to be scaled down.

    Pyongyang has a long history of denouncing U.S.-South Korea joint military drills as invasion rehearsals, and regularly test-fires missiles in tandem with these exercises. Trump, who is seeking to rebuild the personal rapport he claims to have built with Kim during his first presidential term, told reporters at the White House on Wednesday that a meeting with the North Korean leader was scheduled for later this year. He added that building a positive working relationship with Kim was a critical priority, and noted that Pyongyang currently possesses an estimated 57 highly capable nuclear weapons – a figure that conflicts with Seoul’s estimate of between 80 and 120 nuclear devices.

    South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff reported that more than 10 short-range ballistic missiles were launched from the Pyongyang region at approximately 5:00 p.m. local time, headed toward the East Sea. Each missile traveled roughly 300 kilometers, the JCS added, noting that South Korean and U.S. national security agencies are currently conducting a deep analysis of the missiles’ technical specifications.

    Following the launches, South Korea’s presidential office convened an emergency national security meeting, where officials condemned the tests as a clear violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and ordered a dramatic increase in military readiness across the country.

    Trump’s unexpected renewed focus on Kim and his decision to cut the joint drills short have already sparked alarm among U.S. allies in Asia, with political analysts speculating that the move is an attempt to secure a high-profile foreign policy victory amid stalled negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

    Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of North Korea’s leader, released a statement Wednesday saying that Kim Jong Un retains positive memories and personal feelings toward Trump, and that the relationship between the two leaders remains strong. However, she also clarified that there is no awareness of any ongoing diplomatic communication between the two sides at this time.

    Her comments came just hours after Seoul confirmed that Ulchi Freedom Shield would wrap up on Friday, roughly one week ahead of its originally scheduled conclusion, following a formal suggestion from the U.S. to cut the exercises short. Pentagon officials have pushed back against concerns, saying the reduced scale of the drills does not undermine U.S. military training goals. The drills are formally structured to prepare allied forces for a potential large-scale attack from North Korea.

    The U.S. currently stations roughly 28,500 military personnel in South Korea to reinforce the country’s defensive capabilities, a lingering security arrangement from the 1950-1953 Korean War, which ended in an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty that would formally end hostilities.

    South Korean Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back has confirmed that Seoul remains firmly opposed to officially recognizing Pyongyang as a legitimate nuclear-armed state. When asked if Washington had abandoned its long-stated goal of North Korean denuclearization, Ahn said he does not believe that is the case. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who has long pushed for stronger indigenous South Korean defense capabilities to reduce reliance on the U.S. security umbrella, said Wednesday that his administration will do everything in its power to support Trump’s diplomatic outreach to Pyongyang.

  • Germany identifies far-right suspect in deadly 1970 antisemitic attack

    Germany identifies far-right suspect in deadly 1970 antisemitic attack

    Fifty-four years after one of the deadliest antisemitic attacks in post-World War II German history, German law enforcement officials have announced a major breakthrough: they have formally identified a far-right extremist with deep Nazi sympathies as the likely perpetrator of a 1970 arson attack on a Munich Jewish community retirement home that killed seven Holocaust survivors.

    The targeted building, which operated both as a residential retirement home for Holocaust survivors and a guest house for Jewish visitors to Munich, was set ablaze on February 13, 1970. The attack left seven residents dead and 15 others injured, four critically, and stood as an unsolved stain on Germany’s efforts to confront its Nazi-era legacy for more than half a century.

    For decades, the case confounded investigators, who circulated a wide range of theories about the perpetrator’s identity, with speculation falling on everything from Middle Eastern terrorist groups to far-left militant factions. The original investigation was officially shelved in 2017, with no conclusive leads to move the case forward. That changed last April, however, when a new tip from a female witness breathed new life into the cold case. The witness came forward shortly after the death of a relative who had been close to the suspect, sharing new details that prompted investigators to reopen the probe.

    Following months of renewed investigative work, Munich police and state prosecutors announced Thursday that the overwhelming evidence points to a 25-year-old German man with an admitted obsession with Adolf Hitler, who died in 2020. “The new investigations conducted after the reopening of the case strongly indicate that the suspect was the perpetrator,” the two agencies said in a joint official statement.

    Unfortunately, German legal bars any posthumous criminal prosecution, meaning a formal, conclusive legal ruling on the case will never be possible. Investigators also noted that while they have not found concrete evidence that the suspect acted as part of a larger organized group, they cannot definitively rule out that other co-conspirators assisted him in planning or carrying out the attack.

    Investigators confirmed the suspect was embedded in Germany’s far-right extremist milieu at the time of the attack, and multiple witnesses have attested to his open antisemitism. While law enforcement has not released the suspect’s full name, German news magazine Der Spiegel has publicly identified him as Bernd V. According to case records, the suspect openly remarked to associates that “the Jews had everything” just 15 minutes before the fire broke out, and was confirmed to be in the immediate vicinity of the Jewish centre on the day of the attack. Investigators believe he doused the building’s wooden staircase in gasoline before igniting the blaze, which spread rapidly through the structure.

    Further investigation into the suspect’s background reinforced investigators’ suspicion: he was documented listening to Hitler’s speeches regularly as a young man, and was sentenced to juvenile detention in the 1960s for bombing two Munich telephone booths. Former associates described consistent patterns of antisemitic hostility, and his former headmaster recalled he carried a dagger originally issued to the Nazi Youth organization and used it in a street fight, marking him as cold and calculating from a young age.

    The breakthrough in this decades-old cold case comes as German authorities continue to rank far-right extremism as the most significant domestic security threat facing the country, surpassing the threat posed by Islamist extremism. Despite decades of official efforts to atone for the atrocities of the Nazi regime, far-right and antisemitic violence remains a persistent crisis in modern Germany. The latest data from Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), the country’s domestic intelligence agency, shows that the number of people classified as active right-wing extremists rose 17% year-over-year to 58,700 in 2025. The number of far-right extremists deemed likely to engage in violent action also increased, hitting 15,600 in the latest annual report.

  • Belgian car salesman becomes prince after royal parentage confirmed

    Belgian car salesman becomes prince after royal parentage confirmed

    A new chapter of unpublicized change has emerged in Belgium’s royal household, more than half a year after Prince Laurent quietly completed legal proceedings to recognize 26-year-old Clément Vandenkerckhove as his biological son and official heir. Details of the quiet town hall ceremony held six months ago have only recently come to light, shedding new light on the decades-long secret relationship between the royal and Belgian singer Wendy Van Wanten, whose real name is Iris Vandenkerckhove.

    Clément’s journey to becoming an officially recognized prince is a years-long story of gradual connection. Born out of Prince Laurent’s relationship before his 2003 marriage to Princess Claire, Clément grew up unaware of his father’s true identity. It was not until he turned 16 that his mother revealed the royal lineage running through his blood. A chance unexpected encounter with Prince Laurent in a Belgian shopping center in 2013 passed without Clément recognizing who the man in front of him was. Four years after learning his father’s identity, Clément gathered the courage to reach out by phone, and a series of conversations eventually led to an in-person meeting. To confirm their biological connection, the pair agreed to take a DNA test at a local hospital. Clément later recalled that Prince Laurent volunteered to give his sample first to put him at ease. When the results came back, they confirmed a 99.5% match, cementing their paternal bond.

    Now formally recognized as a prince of Belgium, Clément’s new status comes with significant limitations. Unlike Prince Laurent’s three children with Princess Claire – Princess Louise, Prince Aymeric and Prince Nicolas – Clément holds no place in Belgium’s official line of royal succession. He also will not participate in any official public engagements on behalf of the monarchy, and per Belgian royal financial rules, he will not receive any annual public royal allowance, a provision that aligns with 2013 changes to Belgian law that restrict public royal funding to only a small circle of core royal family members: currently King Philippe, former King Albert II, Prince Laurent himself, and Princess Astrid.

    The 26-year-old former car salesman, who rose to public attention after a Flemish VTM documentary chronicled his story last September, has made clear he holds complicated feelings about adopting his father’s family name, Saxe-Coburg. In an interview with local newspaper Het Nieuwsblad, Clément explained that while he has not ruled out taking the royal name in the future, he remains deeply proud of his existing surname Vandenkerckhove, which he shares with his mother. Giving up that name, he said, would feel like a betrayal of everything his mother has done for him over the course of his life.

    This recognition echoes a high-profile paternity case that rocked the Belgian monarchy just a few years ago, involving Prince Laurent’s own father, former King Albert II. After a years-long public legal battle, King Albert II formally acknowledged in 2020 that he had fathered an out-of-wedsted daughter, artist Delphine Boël, during an extra-marital affair. Boël eventually won her court fight for official recognition, gained the title of princess, and now uses the royal surname Saxe-Coburg. The ongoing paternity scandal was one of the key factors that led Albert II to abdicate the Belgian throne in favor of his son Philippe in 2013, marking a major turning point in modern Belgian royal history.

  • Why Taiwan and the South China Sea matter to the US and the world

    Why Taiwan and the South China Sea matter to the US and the world

    A recent debate gaffe by incumbent U.S. Senator Darline Graham of South Carolina has drawn fresh public attention to the critical strategic importance of two of the most consequential flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific: Taiwan and the South China Sea. When asked whether the United States holds core national security interests in both regions, Graham drew sharp criticism for her offhand response that national security issues were “not my thing.” The moment carries added weight because Graham is running for a full Senate term, having been appointed to fill the seat left vacant by the death of her brother, Lindsey Graham — a long-serving influential lawmaker widely known for his deep engagement in foreign policy, including multiple official visits to Taiwan.

    Taiwan and the South China Sea have remained top-billing issues in U.S. foreign policy for decades, and rising tensions with China have kept both at the forefront of global headlines in recent months. For context, Beijing asserts full sovereignty over Taiwan, a self-governing democracy that has operated independently since the 1949 conclusion of the Chinese civil war that split the two territories. Beijing has never ruled out the use of military force to bring Taiwan under its control, and in recent years, Chinese military aircraft, coast guard vessels, and other naval assets have conducted near-daily operations around the island, paired with periodic large-scale military exercises that ratchet up regional pressure. Taiwan, in turn, holds regular defensive drills, including its annual Han Kuang exercises.

    The United States does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but it has longstanding unofficial ties with the island, and U.S. law mandates that the U.S. provide Taiwan with the defensive military equipment needed to protect itself. This framework has made the U.S. Taiwan’s primary informal security backer and largest arms supplier, a dynamic that has consistently been one of the biggest sources of friction between Washington and Beijing. During former U.S. President Donald Trump’s May visit to Beijing, Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized that Taiwan remains the most sensitive and critical issue in bilateral relations, warning that mismanagement of U.S. engagement with the island could trigger direct confrontation between the two global powers. While Trump did not publicly address the Taiwan issue during his Beijing trip, his remarks on the return flight — framing U.S. arms sales to Taiwan as a “very good negotiating chip” with Beijing — stirred widespread anxiety among Taiwan’s population and policy circles.

    Beyond the geopolitical rivalry, the strategic importance of Taiwan extends far beyond regional politics: the island produces over 60% of the world’s semiconductors, and more than 90% of the most advanced cutting-edge chips that power everything from consumer electronics to military defense systems. Any disruption to Taiwan’s semiconductor production would send shockwaves through global supply chains and the entire global economy.

    Turning to the South China Sea, a 3.5 million-square-kilometer body of water bordered by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, and multiple other Indo-Pacific nations, the region is one of the world’s most vital maritime trade arteries, with roughly $3.4 trillion in global trade passing through its waters annually. Despite a landmark 2016 international arbitration ruling that legally invalidated Beijing’s expansive territorial claims across most of the South China Sea, China has continued to assert its claims, defying the ruling. On the 10th anniversary of the arbitration in July this year, the United States, the United Kingdom, and 12 other other nations reaffirmed that Beijing’s claims have no legal foundation, a move that prompted Beijing to reiterate it would neither accept nor recognize the arbitration outcome.

    Confrontations between claimant parties have grown increasingly frequent in recent years: Chinese coast guard vessels have repeatedly deployed water cannons, military-grade lasers, and dangerous blocking maneuvers against Philippine naval forces and civilian fishermen from other claimant states, leading to at-sea collisions and high-risk aerial encounters that raise the risk of accidental conflict. Just this month, China held large-scale military exercises near Scarborough Shoal, a disputed outpost claimed by both China and the Philippines. In a show of support for its long-time ally Manila, the U.S. and the Philippines launched their annual Balikatan military exercises in April, which included live-fire drills and mock combat scenarios in Philippine provinces directly adjacent to the disputed South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.

    Regional security analysts widely emphasize that Taiwan and the South China Sea are deeply interconnected strategically, and shifts in one will rapidly trigger spillover effects in the other. “If China were to blockade or seek to forcibly retake Taiwan, the South China Sea could quickly see spillover effects,” explained Hunter S. Marston, director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Lowy Institute, an Australia-based independent think tank. Marston noted that if China gained full control over Taiwan, or if the U.S. clarified it would not intervene to defend Taiwan in a conflict, Beijing would be able to project its military power — particularly its submarine force — far beyond the first island chain, deep into the South China Sea and the broader Pacific Ocean. A full conflict over Taiwan would also have direct, immediate consequences for Southeast Asia: Marston estimates that nearly 1 million ASEAN citizens would require evacuation from the region, and the movement of U.S. and Chinese military forces through the South China Sea would force regional governments into an untenable position of choosing sides between the two great powers.

    For the United States, core national security interests in the region are rooted in preventing Chinese regional hegemony, analysts say. “The primary objective is preventing China from gaining regional hegemony and dominating the Pacific,” Marston noted. “The security of Taiwan and U.S. allies such as the Philippines, as well as defense of the first island chain, are integral to this overarching goal.”

    However, the U.S. military’s ability to maintain a consistent, robust presence in the western Pacific has recently been tested by competing security demands elsewhere. The USS George Washington aircraft carrier is scheduled to depart the Pacific to replace the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Middle East, where the Lincoln’s deployment was extended to support U.S. counter-Iran operations. The repositioning will leave the western Pacific temporarily without a U.S. aircraft carrier at a moment of rising tensions with China, as the current Trump administration refocuses its strategic priorities away from the Asia-Pacific toward the Western Hemisphere. The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that any large-scale conflict in the South China Sea would cause catastrophic disruption to global trade, thanks to the region’s position as a critical commercial corridor connected to the Indian Ocean via the Malacca Strait and to the East China Sea via the Taiwan Strait — two of the most important strategic chokepoints in global maritime trade.

  • One lesbian couple’s winding path to marriage leads to a historic first in Bolivia

    One lesbian couple’s winding path to marriage leads to a historic first in Bolivia

    In a sunlit Santa Cruz home shared with three dogs and four cats, newlyweds Fabiana Justiniano and Scarlett Rocha still get emotional talking about their August 7 wedding. Like many couples celebrating their big day, they rushed from the civil registry to finalize hair and makeup, then danced side-by-side in their white gowns long into the night, surrounded by more than 100 loved ones. “We never dreamed our day would be this beautiful,” 29-year-old Justiniano said, looking back on the milestone that is both deeply personal and unprecedented for the South American nation. Their union marks Bolivia’s first legally recognized same-sex civil marriage, the end of a grueling four-year legal fight in a deeply religious and socially conservative country where the national constitution still formally defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. While the court ruling that cleared the way for their marriage applies specifically to Justiniano and Rocha, LGBTQ+ advocates and legal experts say the victory could set a transformative precedent for same-sex couples across the country. When Rocha, also 29, first laid eyes on their official marriage certificate, she said a lifetime of uncertainty and exclusion melted away. “All this weight just lifted off my chest,” she explained. “I finally felt this peace, like I could let my guard down and really embrace what it means to be married.” Across majority Roman Catholic South America, Bolivia is far from the only nation that has long restricted marriage to heterosexual couples. But the continent’s most populous countries – including Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia – have recognized same-sex marriage for years. By contrast, most nations in Central America and the Caribbean remain far more conservative on LGBTQ+ rights, offering few to no formal legal protections for same-sex partnerships. For decades, targeted legal challenges brought by same-sex couples, like the one Justiniano and Rocha pursued, have driven forward marriage equality around the world, from the United States to Nepal. “What these women achieved gives hope to every other same-sex couple in Bolivia fighting to have their love recognized,” said Mateo Rodrigo, a lawyer with Igual Bolivia, the LGBTQ+ legal advocacy organization that represented the couple. “We know change is coming, it is inevitable.” The couple’s path to the altar began nearly four years ago, when civil registry authorities rejected their initial application for a marriage license, forcing them to turn to the courts to claim their right. Justiniano, a psychologist, and Rocha, a Bolivian-American neuroscientist born in Hollywood, Florida and raised between the U.S. and Bolivia, met through mutual friends in Santa Cruz in early 2020, fell in love quickly, and began discussing marriage within months. Though no same-sex couple had ever legally married in Bolivia, building a life together through formal marriage had always been a core part of their shared life plan. Before their case, some same-sex couples in Bolivia had formalized their relationships through “uniones libres,” or free unions, a legal designation for cohabiting partners that theoretically carries the same financial and legal rights as marriage. But in practice, lawyers report that same-sex couples attempting to exercise these rights almost universally face systemic discrimination and endless bureaucratic barriers. Unlike free unions, marriage offers the formal social recognition and long-term legal security that heterosexual couples take for granted, a benefit the couple wanted deeply. For Rocha specifically, formal marriage also provided certainty that their relationship would be recognized by U.S. authorities should the couple choose to relocate there. When their initial marriage license application was predictably rejected, their legal team found a critical opening in Bolivia’s own constitution: the document explicitly states that international human rights treaties take precedence over conflicting national law. The legal team cited a landmark advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which requires member states to extend all legal protections granted to heterosexual couples to same-sex partnerships, including full marriage rights. “We always knew this would be a hard fight, but we never imagined it would take this long,” Justiniano said, recalling years of traveling back and forth between government offices and courthouses, sorting through confusing conflicting requirements, chasing down obscure paperwork, and waiting months at a time for the process to move forward. “There were so many obstacles, so much open discrimination every step of the way,” she added. It took more than three years, two separate lawsuits, before a constitutional tribunal in La Paz, Bolivia’s administrative capital, issued a ruling siding with the couple in March 2023. The court found that the civil registry had unlawfully discriminated against Justiniano and Rocha based on their sexual orientation. Rocha left the six-hour hearing stunned, and called Justiniano immediately with the news. “Her voice was shaking when she said, ‘If I got that right, I think we won,’” Justiniano recalled. “My first question was, ‘So can we get married tomorrow?’” The tribunal ordered civil authorities to issue the couple their marriage licenses within 10 business days, but bureaucratic delays pushed the actual wedding back another five months. Now that their marriage is legally recognized across Bolivia, rights officials say the outcome is already encouraging other same-sex couples to pursue their own marriage licenses. Paola Tapia, a senior official at Bolivia’s independent Ombudsman’s Office, which is tasked with protecting human rights across the country, called the ruling a critical turning point. “This is an incredibly important precedent,” Tapia explained. “Just as these two women from Santa Cruz won the right to formalize their marriage, there will surely be many other couples that come forward seeking the same recognition.” Already, Igual Bolivia reports that multiple other same-sex couples have reached out to the organization to inquire about pursuing their own marriage licenses. Because the lawsuit centered on a proven violation of constitutional rights, the case will now move to Bolivia’s highest court, the Constitutional Court, for final review. Justiniano and Rocha’s marriage will remain legally valid regardless of the high court’s final ruling, but if the Constitutional Court votes to uphold the lower tribunal’s decision, it will create a formal nationwide legal precedent that will clear the way for other couples to marry, bringing Bolivia’s marriage equality laws in line with its more progressive South American neighbors, Tapia explained. One week after their wedding, standing in the kitchen of their Santa Cruz home while pasta simmers on the stove, the couple reflected on what their historic win means for the country of 12 million people they call home. “This fight started with us, but at the end of the day it is about equal rights,” Rocha said. “It is about all people being able to protect the love they share.” (Reporting from Buenos Aires, Argentina by DeBre)