Global Pulse

分类： world

  • ‘Warning fire went up’: Couple on board yacht describe encounter with Russian warship

    ‘Warning fire went up’: Couple on board yacht describe encounter with Russian warship

    A routine yachting trip in the English Channel turned into a terrifying ordeal for a retired British couple, who have spoken publicly about their unexpected and dangerous run-in with a Russian warship that ended with the vessel firing warning shots close to their small leisure craft.

    The pair, who were enjoying time on board their private yacht in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, suddenly found themselves in an escalating confrontation when the Russian frigate approached their position. In their first public account of the incident, the couple described the moment the situation escalated dramatically, with warning shots being fired from the warship as the yacht remained in the nearby area.

    “We saw the warship approach, and then the warning fire went up,” the couple stated in interviews with media outlets, describing the shock and fear that gripped them as the military interaction unfolded near their civilian vessel. The incident has drawn fresh attention to military activity in the English Channel, a key strategic waterway that connects the North Sea to the Atlantic Ocean and sees constant civilian and military traffic from nations across the globe.

    Defense analysts note that encounters between civilian vessels and foreign military craft in international waters are not unheard of, but the firing of warning shots near an unarmed leisure yacht marks a rare and alarming escalation that has raised questions about maritime safety protocols and the current state of military navigation in the channel. As details of the encounter continue to emerge, authorities on both sides have not yet issued full formal comments on the context that led to the frigate’s decision to fire warning shots close to the civilian boat.

  • Some ‘Lost Canadians’ told to surrender new citizenship certificates

    Some ‘Lost Canadians’ told to surrender new citizenship certificates

    Hundreds of people who successfully secured Canadian citizenship under a landmark law designed to resolve the decades-long ‘Lost Canadians’ issue are now facing sudden uncertainty, after immigration authorities ordered dozens of approved applicants to surrender their newly issued citizenship certificates pending a fresh case review.

    The policy controversy centers on the 2024 Canadian law passed to grant citizenship to descendants of Canadian citizens who were stripped of their nationality through generations of outdated legislation, a group long known as the Lost Canadians. The law allows people with a verifiable ancestral tie to Canada to claim citizenship, even if they did not qualify under previous rules. Since the law entered into force last December, immigration data shows more than 12,000 people submitted applications in just the first six weeks, with a majority of applications coming from the United States, followed by smaller groups from Mexico and the United Kingdom.

    But in recent weeks, dozens of applicants who already received formal approval and physical citizenship certificates have been sent formal letters from the Office of the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship, stating they “may not be entitled” to the citizenship they were already granted and ordering them to return the documents for re-evaluation. Immigration authorities have confirmed only that a “limited number of files” are under review, but have declined to release the exact number of people affected by the sudden review.

    For affected applicants, the order has upended long-held plans and created deep emotional distress. Shawn Davis Mooney, who permanently relocated from California to Victoria, British Columbia, with his husband earlier this year after securing citizenship approval, called the notice devastating. Mooney, who applied after the new law passed, submitted 114 pages of documentation proving his great-great-grandparent was born in New Brunswick, and received urgent approval and his citizenship certificate in February. When he received the surrender letter signed by Registrar Peggy Sun, which claimed he had failed to submit sufficient qualifying documentation, he said he was left disoriented. “I had to read it three times, I couldn’t understand it,” Mooney told reporters. “The worst part is it’s making us feel like frauds, or we’ve done something wrong. Now I have no clear idea what my legal status in this country actually is.”

    Another affected applicant, Rana Charron of Cleveland, Ohio, described the notice as one of the biggest disappointments of her life. Charron used available census records to prove her great-great-grandmother was a French-Canadian born in Quebec, since 19th century birth and baptismal records for her ancestor were no longer accessible. Her application was approved, and she received her physical citizenship certificate earlier this month, before being ordered to return it. “I was very excited to be formally Canadian,” Charron said. “Growing up, my family was very aware of our Canadian heritage… it mattered a lot to me. Now the experience has left me distrustful of the entire process. If they can just yank that back, what’s going to stop them from doing it two years from now, or 10 years from now, when people have really settled down and put roots?” Charron added that she still plans to fight to retain her citizenship, but the uncertainty has left her future plans in limbo.

    Immigration lawyers say the situation is unprecedented and damaging to Canada’s reputation as a welcoming country for new citizens. Lisa Middlemiss, a Montreal-based immigration lawyer who represents several affected applicants, noted that Canadian law only allows citizenship revocation in very rare, exceptional circumstances, such as cases of proven fraud. All the people now receiving surrender letters, she emphasized, completed every step of the application process as required by current immigration law, and had already passed official review to receive their certificates. “This sends such a bad message for Canada,” Middlemiss said.

    In a statement provided to the BBC, a spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada defended the ongoing review, saying that the process is intended to guarantee all cases are evaluated consistently and in compliance with current law. The spokesperson confirmed that all applications were initially reviewed by trained immigration officers before certificates were issued, and that applicants who received surrender requests will have the opportunity to submit additional evidence to support their claim. If the review confirms an applicant is entitled to citizenship, the spokesperson noted, the certificate will be returned.

    Still, for affected applicants like Mooney and Charron, the damage of the uncertainty has already been done, leaving their plans for work, family, and permanent residency hanging in the balance while they wait for a final decision on their status.

  • ‘From outlier to trailblazer’: How Oman offers a glimpse into the post-war Gulf

    ‘From outlier to trailblazer’: How Oman offers a glimpse into the post-war Gulf

    When former U.S. President Donald Trump threatened military action against Oman over its refusal to side with Washington’s war on Iran, few could have predicted that this small Gulf sultanate would emerge as the primary beneficiary of the new regional order being negotiated between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. This surprising turn of events, which may seem counterintuitive at first glance, is reshaping regional power dynamics, with Western, Arab, and even U.S. diplomatic sources acknowledging that Oman stands to gain the most from the shifting landscape.

  • German broadcaster removes TV intro after Elon Musk takes legal action

    German broadcaster removes TV intro after Elon Musk takes legal action

    A major controversy has erupted after Germany’s leading public broadcaster ZDF was forced to retract and remove a misleading segment from a primetime news program that falsely claimed tech billionaire Elon Musk directly called for anti-migrant hunts amid post-attack unrest in Northern Ireland. The incident comes against a backdrop of rising international tension over social media’s role in amplifying divisive discourse around migration, an issue that has become increasingly politically charged across both Europe and North America.

    The unrest that sparked the report began in Belfast last week, shortly after a brutal street knife attack left a victim seriously wounded — court documents confirm the victim lost their left eye in the assault. Police quickly took a Sudanese man into custody at the scene, and he has since been remanded in custody on charges of attempted murder. The attack triggered widespread violent disorder in the city, with rioters setting fire to residential properties and vehicles, drawing global media attention to the escalating tensions in Northern Ireland.

    Migration has emerged as one of the most polarizing political issues in Germany in recent years, making the Belfast unrest a natural topic for national news coverage. On June 12, ZDF’s flagship live news magazine *ZDFheute Live* aired a segment framed around the question “How Musk is fuelling the protests.” In the opening introduction of the segment, which has since been deleted, the program’s presenter made the unsubstantiated claim: “A brutal attempted murder on a public street in Belfast. Someone takes a video which goes viral. Following that, a racist mob is hunting migrants. The call for that came from a British right-wing extremist and tech billionaire Elon Musk.”

    This claim misrepresents the actual sequence of events. British far-right activist Tommy Robinson shared posts about planned protests on Musk’s social media platform X on June 9, writing that “the whole of the United Kingdom is hitting the streets tonight at 7pm following yet another invader attack on our people.” Robinson has himself denied ever explicitly calling for rioting. Musk did quote Robinson’s post and add his own comment: “Only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!” He never issued a personal call to hunt migrants, contrary to ZDF’s original wording.

    The false claim was brought to widespread public attention by Julian Reichelt, a prominent German journalist who heads the newer media outlet NiUS, which is often compared to conservative-leaning outlets like UK’s GB News and US’s Fox News. After Reichelt highlighted ZDF’s inaccurate reporting, Musk responded publicly, confirming he was moving forward with legal action against the public broadcaster over what he called “outrageous lies.”

    Through his German legal team, Musk issued a formal cease and desist demand to ZDF. In a public statement to the BBC on Tuesday, a ZDF spokesperson confirmed the network had complied with the demand, removing the contested passage from the segment’s introduction. The spokesperson added that ZDF had already added a corrective transparency notice to the broadcast as early as Saturday, before fully removing the inaccurate wording, and acknowledged the original language had been “imprecise and therefore misleading.” In its formal clarification, ZDF confirmed the correct facts of the incident: it was Tommy Robinson who called for protests following the Belfast knife attack, and the post was only shared and amplified by Musk.

    This incident is far from an isolated controversy for Musk, who owns not just X but also leading tech firms Tesla and SpaceX, and counts more than 240 million followers on his social media platform. He has faced repeated accusations from political leaders and digital watchdog groups of using his massive online platform to inflame social tensions and spread disinformation around migration. Most recently, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer accused Musk of attempting to “whip up division” surrounding the death of 18-year-old student Henry Nowak, who died in Southampton after being stabbed by Vickrum Digwa, who falsely claimed he had been the victim of a racist attack.

    Musk has forcefully pushed back against these accusations. In a post on X dated June 10, shortly after the Belfast attack, he wrote that it was “murderous migrants targeting innocent people in their home town that is making people angry, not ‘social media!’”

    Watchdog groups have continued to criticize Musk’s role in the unrest. The US-based Centre for Countering Digital Hate recently released an assessment concluding that social media played a “significant role” in fuelling the Belfast violence, and alleged that Musk had intentionally “amplified anti-migrant narratives” promoted by far-right actors, extending their reach to millions of global users.

  • African and Commonwealth nations in Kenya urge quick execution of a key treaty protecting oceans

    African and Commonwealth nations in Kenya urge quick execution of a key treaty protecting oceans

    The 11th annual Our Ocean Conference opened this week in Mombasa, Kenya, marking the first time an African nation has hosted the landmark global gathering focused on reversing decades of damage to the world’s oceans. The event, which brought together hundreds of senior delegates from 56 Commonwealth nations, the United States, the European Union, and climate-vulnerable small island states across the Caribbean and Pacific, opened with a unified call to turn long-stated ocean conservation pledges into tangible, on-the-ground action — starting with immediate execution of the historic High Seas Treaty.

    Formally named the Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, the treaty entered into force in January this year after securing ratification from 60 countries around the globe. For the first time in history, the agreement establishes a binding legal framework to create fully protected marine areas in international waters, a critical step toward hitting the global 30×30 conservation target that aims to safeguard 30 percent of the world’s land and oceans by 2030.

    Speaking at the opening of the Commonwealth Ocean Ministers’ Roundtable during the conference, former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry highlighted the slow pace of progress despite the treaty’s entry into force. While the global community has now hit a milestone of protecting 10 percent of the world’s oceans, Kerry noted that only 3 percent of that area qualifies as highly or fully protected. Most existing ocean protections, he argued, remain nothing more than lines drawn on official maps, with no meaningful enforcement or conservation measures in place.

    Kerry further criticized unregulated industrial fishing activity, pointing out that large distant-water fleets travel thousands of miles from their home ports and deploy massive nets that capture non-target marine life indiscriminately, devastating vulnerable open-ocean ecosystems. He urged all nations that have not yet ratified the treaty to complete the process immediately, and called on parties that have already ratified to begin full implementation without delay. Key decisions shaping the treaty’s long-term governance framework are scheduled to be made next year, making the coming months a critical window for action.

    Kenya’s Cabinet Secretary for Maritime Affairs, Hassan Joho, echoed this call, emphasizing that global conservation efforts must shift from making promises to delivering measurable results. Since the first Our Ocean Conference was held in 2014, the global gathering has generated more than 2,900 separate conservation pledges totaling over $169 billion in committed funding. Joho stressed that the core challenge now facing the global community is turning these financial and policy pledges into effective, long-term management of fragile marine ecosystems that benefit coastal communities and national economies alike.

    The 56 member states of the Commonwealth collectively control 36 percent of the world’s total ocean jurisdiction and hold stewardship over nearly half of the planet’s coral reefs, giving the bloc an outsized role and unique responsibility in global marine conservation. For its part, Africa is increasingly emerging as a leading voice in global ocean governance, a shift Kerry highlighted during his remarks. He praised the continent for leading transboundary conservation efforts, pointing specifically to a landmark commitment by eight Gulf of Guinea nations to sustainably manage 100 percent of their collective national waters by 2030.

    “Africa, a region long framed as a victim of unregulated ocean exploitation, is now stepping forward to lead global conservation action,” Kerry said.

    As host of this year’s conference, Kenya has already implemented a series of progressive ocean policies: it has adopted integrated coastal zone management frameworks, expanded the total area of its national marine protected areas, and ramped up enforcement efforts to crack down on illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. The East African nation’s 400-mile coastline and extensive exclusive economic zone support key economic sectors including commercial fishing and coastal tourism, which sustain livelihoods for millions of Kenyans.

    As delegates continued negotiations in Mombasa, many attendees noted that the policy and regulatory decisions made over the coming months will determine whether the High Seas Treaty becomes a transformative tool for global marine conservation, or joins a long list of unfulfilled international environmental promises.

    This coverage from the Associated Press receives philanthropic funding from multiple private foundations, with the AP retaining full editorial control over all content.

  • UK military investigates report that Russian warship fired warning shots at yacht in the Channel

    UK military investigates report that Russian warship fired warning shots at yacht in the Channel

    LONDON – The UK Ministry of Defense has launched an official investigation into a reported confrontation at sea Tuesday, where a Russian warship allegedly fired warning shots toward a British-flagged civilian yacht in the English Channel.

    According to initial accounts from the yacht, the Russian vessel opened fire approximately 460 meters from the recreational craft, in international waters around 30 kilometers south of Britain’s Isle of Wight, outside the UK’s designated territorial sea boundaries. No injuries were reported among those on board the yacht, and the vessel suffered no structural damage in the incident. As of Wednesday, the Russian government had not responded to requests for comment on the allegation.

    British mainstream media has identified the Russian warship involved as the frigate *Admiral Grigorovich*, a vessel that regularly transits the English Channel. Standard Royal Navy protocol sees all Russian military vessels passing through the busy international waterway monitored by British patrol craft, and Royal Navy patrol ship HMS Mersey was actively tracking the frigate at the time of the reported incident, defense sources confirmed.

    Notably, the encounter comes just 48 hours after British special forces boarded and seized a sanctioned oil tanker in the same region, a vessel authorities suspect is part of Russia’s shadow fleet of ships used to evade international price caps and sanctions on Russian crude oil imposed following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The tanker’s Indian captain appeared in a British court Tuesday on charges linked to violating sanctions, and was remanded into custody ahead of further proceedings. UK defense and law enforcement officials have emphasized that there is no confirmed link between the two separate events at this stage of the investigation.

    This latest reported incident fits into a pattern of increasingly frequent close military encounters between British and Russian forces in waters surrounding the British Isles over the past five years, as tensions between Moscow and NATO have surged. In November 2024, the Royal Navy detected the Russian intelligence collection ship *Yantar* operating on the outer edge of UK territorial waters north of Scotland, prompting the British government to publicly warn Moscow it stood ready to respond to any incursion into British sovereign territory.

    Earlier this year, in April 2025, British defense officials announced that Royal Navy forces alongside Norwegian military assets had tracked a Russian attack submarine and two Russian spy vessels operating north of the UK for multiple weeks. Then-UK Defense Secretary John Healey told reporters that Royal Navy assets, including a frigate, maritime patrol aircraft, and hundreds of specialized personnel, spent weeks trailing the group, foiling what he described as planned “nefarious” operations targeting undersea energy and communications infrastructure. Healey accused the Kremlin of exploiting heightened global attention on the conflict between Israel and Iran to step up disruptive, hostile activity against European targets.

    The most high-profile prior incident between British and Russian military vessels dates back to 2019, six months before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In that encounter off the coast of Crimea, which Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014, Russia claimed one of its warships fired warning shots and a Russian military warplane dropped bombs to force British Royal Navy destroyer HMS Defender out of waters Russia claims as its own territorial sea. The UK government publicly rejected Russia’s account, denying any warning shots were fired at the destroyer. That event marked the first time since the end of the Cold War that Moscow publicly acknowledged using live ammunition to deter a NATO military vessel, highlighting the growing risk of unintended military clashes amid escalating East-West tensions.

  • US, Iran deal hopeful, but doubts remain

    US, Iran deal hopeful, but doubts remain

    Diplomatic breakthroughs between the United States and Iran have sparked cautious hope for an end to regional conflict, but stark disagreements over core terms, unresolved tensions in Lebanon, and competing domestic political pressures leave the final outcome far from certain. As of June 16, 2026, leaders from both nations have confirmed a preliminary memorandum of understanding aimed at de-escalating ongoing hostilities, with a formal signing ceremony scheduled to take place in Geneva this Friday.

    US President Donald Trump confirmed the framework agreement during remarks alongside French President Emmanuel Macron at the G7 summit in France, noting that the virtual memorandum had already been signed electronically by himself, Vice President JD Vance, and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Trump added that the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint that had been closed to commercial traffic for much of the conflict, is already partially open, and will be fully accessible to all vessels by the end of this week. He also announced he would not attend the Friday signing ceremony, and that Vance would travel to Geneva to sign the final document on Washington’s behalf.

    Despite the optimistic messaging from Trump, public statements from Iranian officials reveal significant gaps between the two sides’ interpretations of the framework. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian called the memorandum an important incremental step toward ending hostilities and opening full negotiations, but emphasized that no binding final agreement has been completed. He added that Iran remains prepared for all potential outcomes, and that the government’s core priority will continue to be serving the Iranian people regardless of whether negotiations succeed. On the subject of the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei clarified that while Iran does not intend to impose arbitrary transit tolls on commercial shipping, it will charge standard fees for maritime services provided in the waterway, a detail that has yet to be addressed in US public statements.

    Unresolved tensions also extend to the Israel-Hezbollah front in southern Lebanon, where clashes between Israeli forces and the Iran-backed militant group continued on Monday despite the announced framework. Tehran claims the agreement includes a provision to end the Lebanese conflict, but Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz rejected any call for withdrawal from occupied security zones in southern Lebanon, stating that Israel will not compromise on its national security interests. Katz warned that if Iran targets Israel over the situation in Lebanon, Israeli forces will respond with overwhelming force. Multiple hardline ministers in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government have even gone as far as saying Israel will not be bound by any deal reached between Washington and Tehran. Trump was previously reported to be angered by Netanyahu’s decision to launch a major strike on Beirut ahead of the framework’s announcement, and Netanyahu acknowledged the rift in a Monday press conference, noting that the two long-time allies “sometimes agree and sometimes disagree” on policy.

    Another major sticking point remains the status of billions of dollars in Iranian sovereign assets frozen in overseas bank accounts. Tehran has prioritized regaining access to these funds as a core condition for any final agreement, but Vance confirmed Monday that Washington has not agreed to release any frozen assets during the proposed 60-day ceasefire period outlined in the framework.

    On Capitol Hill, prominent Republican and Iran critic Senator Lindsey Graham echoed widespread skepticism, noting that he is concerned by the clear disconnect between US and Iranian descriptions of the deal. Graham added that any permanent nuclear agreement with Iran will require full congressional review and an up-or-down vote before it can take effect.

    Global energy markets reacted positively to the news of the framework, with oil prices dropping to their lowest levels since early March on Monday. Brent crude fell 4.8% to settle at $83.17 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate crude dropped 4.9% to close at $80.75 a barrel, as investors bet that a de-escalation would reopen critical energy supply routes from the Middle East.

    Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, described the framework as a promising but incomplete step forward. “This is certainly a hopeful start and an indication that things are moving in the right direction. What we have is an agreement on a framework for further negotiations on some of the thorniest issues, particularly the nuclear program that Iran has had,” Kamrava told China Daily. He added that both sides faced significant pressure from domestic hardliners to avoid negotiations entirely, making the framework a breakthrough in its own right, even as the final outcome remains undetermined.

    As the signing ceremony approaches, key questions remain unaddressed: whether the deal will meet Trump’s original war aims of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and eliminating its long-range missile arsenal, and whether domestic political pressures — including Trump’s need to end US involvement in the conflict ahead of November’s midterm elections — will push the administration to accept a flawed agreement that fails to resolve long-standing regional tensions.

  • Somaliland opens Jerusalem embassy after Israel’s recognition of its independence

    Somaliland opens Jerusalem embassy after Israel’s recognition of its independence

    Six months after Israel made history as the first UN-recognized nation to formally acknowledge Somaliland’s independence, the self-declared state has inaugurated its first diplomatic mission in the Middle Eastern country — placing it in Jerusalem, a choice that has amplified already fierce global debate over the move.

    The embassy opening took place at a West Jerusalem technology park during an official state visit by Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi, who held high-level talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During the meeting, Netanyahu spoke of what he framed as a shared historical bond between the two peoples, and praised Somaliland’s decision to site its embassy in Jerusalem, which Israel claims as its undivided eternal capital.

    Netanyahu drew a direct parallel between the two polities’ aspirations for global recognition: “Just as you expect nations to recognise your sovereignty, your identity, your own rights, your own national rights. The same thing we have vis-à-vis our capital. It’s only been the capital of the Jewish people since King David. That’s only 3,000 years ago. So, for some countries, it’s a belated recognition. For you, it was instant.”

    Abdullahi returned the praise, hailing Netanyahu for his “courage” in extending recognition to Somaliland last December, and outlined a range of potential areas of bilateral collaboration. He highlighted Somaliland’s untapped natural resource wealth — including rare earth minerals and crude oil reserves — and noted the country’s strategically positioned coastline along the entrance to the Red Sea, which offers major geostrategic value for Israel in the Horn of Africa. For Israel, the partnership secures a rare stable friendly partner in a strategically critical region that has long been dominated by actors hostile to Israeli interests.

    The entire diplomatic exchange has been met with fierce condemnation from multiple stakeholders. Somalia, which formally claims Somaliland as an integral part of its sovereign territory, has condemned any official engagement with what it calls the “secessionist administration of the northern region of Somalia”, framing the embassy opening as a direct violation of Somalia’s national sovereignty. Somalia’s foreign ministry has issued an urgent call for all global actors to uphold international law and condemn actions that undermine the unity and territorial integrity of the Somali state.

    Israel’s original recognition of Somaliland in December 2024 was already deeply controversial globally, drawing sharp criticism from dozens of countries and major international bodies including China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the African Union. The decision to open the embassy in Jerusalem, rather than Tel Aviv where the vast majority of foreign missions remain located, has drawn further rebuke from the Palestinian Authority. In a statement carried by official Palestinian news agency Wafa, the Palestinian foreign ministry condemned “the opening of the alleged embassy by the so-called ‘Somaliland’ in the occupied city of Jerusalem”, calling the move a “flagrant violation of international law and relevant resolutions of international legitimacy”. The Palestinians have long laid claim to East Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War and formally annexed in 1980, as the capital of their future independent state. The international community almost universally does not recognize Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, and most countries retain their embassies in Tel Aviv, despite the 2018 decision by former U.S. President Donald Trump to relocate the U.S. mission to Jerusalem. A small handful of countries including Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and Fiji currently maintain embassies in Jerusalem.

    Somaliland has operated as a de facto independent state since 1991, when it separated from Somalia following the collapse of the central government in Mogadishu that plunged the rest of the country into decades of civil conflict and instability. Over the past three decades, Somaliland has established functional democratic institutions, held multiple peaceful national elections, issued its own independent currency, and built a professional national security force, maintaining far greater stability than most regions of southern Somalia. Even so, prior to Israel’s recognition late last year, no UN member state had formally recognized Somaliland’s declaration of independence.

  • Billionaire bonanza: Big Oil tycoons pocket $23.5bn from Iran war

    Billionaire bonanza: Big Oil tycoons pocket $23.5bn from Iran war

    As much of the global public holds out cautious optimism that a potential ceasefire could bring the US-backed Israeli-Iran conflict to an end, a new analysis from anti-poverty organization Oxfam International shines a stark light on who has profited from months of market disruption and violence: the world’s wealthiest energy industry elites. The report, released Monday as G7 leaders gather for a summit in France, details how just 41 top energy barons from G7 nations have seen their collective net worth surge by $23.5 billion since the conflict launched in late February.

    The disruption of global oil markets sparked by the war triggered a dramatic spike in global fuel prices, sending rippling inflation through every corner of the world economy and stretching household budgets thin for working and low-income people across every continent. A separate April 2025 report from the United Nations Development Programme projects the economic fallout from the conflict will push an additional 32 million people into extreme poverty by the end of 2026.

    Oxfam’s analysis draws from Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaire List data to track wealth gains between March 1 and May 18, 2026. Across the seven G7 nations—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the sampled energy billionaires added an average of $300 million to their combined wealth every single day throughout the period of conflict.

    “Conflict devastates countries and costs countless lives, yet for some it is extraordinarily profitable,” said Amitabh Behar, Executive Director of Oxfam International, in a statement accompanying the report. “This is a brutal system that redistributes wealth upwards — from workers to shareholders, from the poorest to the richest, from those with the least power to those who already have far too much of it. While families are skipping meals and governments slash life-saving aid, we are witnessing a grotesque billionaire bonanza.”

    While the report acknowledges that wartime market volatility is not the sole driver of these billionaires’ growing fortunes, it underscores just how disproportionately energy giants have benefited: the “Big Six” global oil majors—Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies—are now projected to post full-year profits 80% higher than pre-conflict forecasts, compared to an average 8% profit growth projection for other large G7 firms included in the sample.

    Between March and mid-May 2026, global billionaires overall saw an average 0.42% increase in their total wealth. By comparison, G7 energy billionaires recorded a 9% jump in wealth, with oil and gas billionaires specifically seeing an almost 11% rise. Oxfam emphasizes that the Iran conflict has only amplified the already gaping global inequality gap, a trend heavily driven by policy choices from G7 nations.

    Since 2020, total billionaire wealth globally has surged by nearly $10 trillion. Over the same period, G7 nations—led by the United States under former President Donald Trump’s current administration—have cut total aid to the world’s poorest countries by $48 billion. That $48 billion cut equals exactly the amount that G7 energy billionaires have added to their own fortunes in just nine days of the conflict. Since France last hosted the G7 summit in 2019, Oxfam estimates that an average of 44 additional people per minute have fallen into need of humanitarian aid, based on 2025 data from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

    The report also calls out French President Emmanuel Macron for sidelining contentious topics to secure U.S. participation in this week’s G7 summit. According to Behar, Macron has chosen to table any discussions that could anger Trump, including the catastrophic human and economic cost of the U.S.-backed Iran war, the ongoing Israeli military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, and action on the climate crisis, which Trump has repeatedly labeled “a scam.”

    “Rather than defending collective governance, Macron and his peers are accommodating its destruction. This will have consequences measured in lives,” Behar said.

    In response to these trends, Oxfam is calling on the “G6” — all G7 member states excluding the United States — to advance a concrete, comprehensive plan to shield vulnerable populations from economic turmoil stemming from the Iran conflict and overlapping global crises. Behar pushed back against claims that the G6 cannot act without U.S. buy-in, noting that member states have the power to cancel unsustainable debt for low-income nations, implement taxes on windfall energy profits and extreme wealth, and increase life-saving aid to poor countries.

    “The G6 can’t plead powerlessness,” Behar added. “They can cancel debt. They can tax windfall profits and extreme wealth… They can provide poorer countries with aid. Refusing to act simply because Washington will not join them is not diplomacy—it is cowardice. And it will only accelerate the G6’s slide into global irrelevance.”

  • Cuba tourism collapses as US pressure campaign bites

    Cuba tourism collapses as US pressure campaign bites

    In the first five months of 2026, Cuba has faced an unprecedented collapse in its core tourism industry and a deepening humanitarian crisis, driven by sweeping new sanctions imposed by the Trump administration against the Caribbean island’s communist government.

    New data published by Cuba’s National Office of Statistics and Information (Onei) confirms that international visitor arrivals have dropped by a staggering 58.4% year-over-year, falling to fewer than 360,000 for the January-to-May period. This sharp decline is no accident: the Trump administration has deliberately targeted Cuba’s tourism sector, the largest source of critical foreign revenue for the island’s cash-strapped government, as a central pillar of its pressure campaign against Havana’s leadership.

    The sanctions have triggered a cascading exodus of international businesses from the island. Multiple major foreign airlines and global hospitality operators have suspended all operations in Cuba, creating a vicious cycle that pushes visitor numbers even lower. Most recently, Canada’s flag carrier Air Canada announced an indefinite suspension of all Cuban routes earlier this month, a decision that deals an outsized blow to the local tourism industry. Canada has long been the top source of tourists for Cuba, according to Onei’s 2026 data, and Air Canada had already paused service in February due to acute shortages of aviation fuel on the island. The airline explicitly cited ongoing political and economic uncertainty on the island as the core reason for making the suspension permanent.

    Leading Spanish hospitality groups Meliá and Iberostar have also pulled out of dozens of Cuban hotel properties, complying with a June 5 US deadline that requires all foreign companies to end all business ties with Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (Gaesa), the Cuban state-run conglomerate controlled by the country’s armed forces. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly labeled Gaesa a “state within a state,” claiming in a Spanish-language address directed at the Cuban people that the group hoards business profits for a small ruling elite and brutally represses any Cubans who voice dissent against the government.

    Beyond the collapse of tourism, the combination of sweeping US sanctions and a de facto oil blockade has dramatically worsened long-running shortages of basic goods across Cuba, including fuel, prescription medications, and staple food supplies. On Monday, Cuban state news outlet Cubadebate reported a devastating drop in pediatric cancer survival rates: since January, when President Donald Trump threatened to impose secondary sanctions on any nation or company that supplies oil to Cuba, the survival rate for children with cancer has fallen from 85% to just 65%.

    Widespread fuel scarcity has paralyzed critical sectors of the domestic economy, including municipal waste management. Piles of uncollected garbage now line the streets of Cuban cities, creating public health risks. Frequent, prolonged, and island-wide power outages have also sparked rare public protests across the country, where public dissent has historically been punished with lengthy prison sentences.

    Even basic religious activities have been disrupted by the growing crisis. Agence France-Presse reported Sunday that communion wafers, a core sacramental item for Catholic Mass, have joined the growing list of scarce goods on the island. Multiple Catholic priests told AFP that church leaders have been forced to ration distribution of the wafers to worshippers. The wafers are traditionally produced at a Havana monastery, where nuns now face daily power outages that restrict electricity access to just two hours a day, making it impossible to maintain normal production levels of the unleavened bread. Photos from the island already show far fewer vehicles on Havana’s streets than before sanctions were tightened, a visible indicator of how deeply the fuel crisis has reshaped daily life for ordinary Cubans.