标签： Asia

On Thursday, a landmark sentencing at London’s Old Bailey delivered severe punishment to two men convicted of working on behalf of Chinese intelligence to target Hong Kong pro-democracy dissidents on British soil. After a month-long trial, 40-year-old Chi Leung “Peter” Wai received a total 10-year prison term, while 65-year-old Chung Biu “Bill” Yuen was sentenced to eight years behind bars. Both were found guilty of assisting a foreign intelligence service under the UK’s National Security Act, marking one of the most high-profile foreign interference cases in recent British legal history.

Wai, a former Metropolitan Police officer who joined UK Border Force at Heathrow Airport in December 2020 after years of public service roles including eight years in the Royal Navy and a volunteer constable position with City of London Police, abused his official access to the Home Office’s national database of foreign nationals to track Hong Kong residents who fled the territory’s crackdown on pro-democracy activism. Beyond the charge of assisting a foreign intelligence service that carries a six-year sentence, he was also convicted of misconduct in public office, which added an extra four years to his punishment. In one message sent to Eddie Ma, a former chief superintendent of Hong Kong Police’s Criminal Intelligence Bureau who maintained ties to Chinese authorities, Wai infamously wrote, “Will not let any cockroaches in,” referencing the dissidents he was tasked to monitor.

Yuen, a former Hong Kong police officer who served as office manager at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London, acted as the critical liaison between Wai and Chinese state authorities, coordinating the illegal surveillance network that prosecutors described as a coordinated “shadow policing operation” run for Hong Kong authorities and ultimately the Chinese government. During the trial, the court revealed that the operation did not only target exiled dissidents – it also extended special surveillance attention to high-profile British politicians, including senior Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith.

The court also heard that Wai recruited another Border Force officer, former Royal Marine Matthew Trickett, to participate in the surveillance. In November 2023, Trickett was ordered by Wai to follow prominent exiled Hong Kong activist Nathan Law – one of eight dissidents that Hong Kong chief executive John Lee placed a HK$1 million (£100,000) bounty on that year – while Law spoke at the Oxford Union. Shortly after the pair were apprehended by counter-terrorism police, Trickett was found dead in an apparent suicide, with an official coroner’s inquest scheduled for November this year.

Delivering the sentencing remarks, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb emphasized the severity of the men’s crimes, stating their actions “threaten the sovereignty of the state.” Several Hong Kong pro-democracy activists, including one who currently has a HK$1 million bounty placed on her by Hong Kong authorities, attended the sentencing in the Old Bailey’s public gallery to observe the ruling.

While the jury returned guilty verdicts on the main charges, it could not reach a consensus on an additional count of foreign interference linked to an alleged break-in at the West Yorkshire home of a Hong Kong-origin fraud suspect.

UK law enforcement and prosecution officials have framed the convictions as a stark warning against any foreign interference activity on British territory. Commander Helen Flanagan, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing London, made clear in an official statement that this kind of covert activity will not be tolerated. “I want to be really clear that if you are working on behalf of a foreign state, that we in counter-terrorism policing and with our partners will identify who you are and bring the full force of the National Security Act upon you,” Flanagan said.

Bethan David, Head of the Counter Terrorism Division at the Crown Prosecution Service, echoed that sentiment, noting that Wai and Yuen’s actions were “deliberate, coordinated and carried out with full knowledge of who it would benefit.” She added that the convictions send an unmistakeable message: “transnational repression, foreign interference, unauthorised surveillance, and attempts to operate outside the law will not be tolerated on British soil.”

The case has sparked renewed official and public scrutiny of transnational repression operations run by hostile states within UK borders, raising urgent questions about the vulnerability of sensitive government systems and the safety of exiled dissidents who have relocated to Britain to escape persecution.

On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin opened a landmark Russia-Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in the Russian city of Kazan, using the occasion to celebrate three and a half decades of diplomatic and economic cooperation and push for deeper ties between Moscow and the 11-nation Indo-Pacific bloc. The gathering, which brought together leaders from across ASEAN’s member states — Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, East Timor and Vietnam — concluded with a formal agreement to expand the bilateral “strategic partnership” that has defined relations between the two sides for decades.

In his opening address to the assembly, Putin emphasized that this partnership has emerged as a critical stabilizing force for the entire Asia-Pacific region, at a time when global geopolitical tensions are creating widespread uncertainty. “It is a strategic partnership that serves as an essential stabilizing factor in the Asia-Pacific amidst geopolitical turbulence, contributing to the formation of a balanced security architecture and equitable mutually beneficial cooperation,” Putin told attendees.

The summit’s working agenda centered on three core priorities: an open exchange of perspectives on pressing global and regional security issues, a comprehensive review of ongoing cooperation initiatives between Russia and ASEAN, and the mapping out of priority areas for joint work in the coming years. Putin highlighted that collaboration between the two sides has already expanded across a broad range of sectors, spanning counterterrorism and responses to emerging transnational security threats, trade and foreign direct investment, energy, agriculture, digital transformation, scientific research and technological development, tourism, and people-to-people cultural exchanges.

In a joint declaration signed by all participating delegations at the close of the summit, leaders reaffirmed their shared commitment to building a “just multipolar world” governed by international law and the core principles laid out in the United Nations Charter, with a focus on advancing mutually beneficial cooperation and equal respect for the sovereignty of all nations. The document labeled the Kazan summit a transformative milestone in Russia-ASEAN relations, and participants pledged to maintain regular high-level diplomatic engagement to continue advancing their shared strategic goals.

Beyond the plenary summit sessions, Putin held a series of closed-door bilateral meetings with individual ASEAN leaders. The event was co-chaired by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., as the Philippines currently holds ASEAN’s rotating rotating bloc presidency.

ASEAN’s 11 member states maintain widely varying foreign policy alignments: some members, including the Philippines, have long-standing security alliances and alignment with the United States, while others maintain deep trade and security ties with both China and Russia. In recent years, following sharp spikes in global energy prices triggered by widespread geopolitical disruptions, multiple ASEAN capitals — including the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam — have either increased imports of discounted Russian crude oil or publicly expressed interest in expanding energy purchases from Moscow.

TEHRAN – In a landmark shift to a decades-long high-stakes conflict between Iran and the United States, the leaders of both nations have formally signed a cross-border memorandum of understanding (MoU) to end open hostilities via digital authentication, a senior Iranian foreign affairs official confirmed early Thursday.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei announced the development in an on-camera interview with Iran’s state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), noting that the digital signing by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and U.S. President Donald Trump replaces a previously planned in-person signing ceremony scheduled for this Friday in Switzerland.

“Over the past 24 hours, our two sides conducted additional consultations and reassessment, and reached the conclusion that a virtual signing by the heads of state of both countries is the more favorable path forward,” Baghaei told reporters, adding that a formal in-person ceremonial gathering was deemed “not very appropriate” under current circumstances.

The spokesperson highlighted a key strategic rationale for the last-minute format change: digital signatures from both countries’ top executive leaders significantly increase the political costs for any future violation of the agreement’s terms, creating a stronger deterrent against backtracking from the war-ending commitment.

Baghaei confirmed that the long-awaited second phase of bilateral negotiations between Iran and the United States will proceed as originally planned, kicking off in Switzerland on Friday. He struck a cautious note on the outcome of upcoming talks, however, saying “we will have to see what outcome the parties will reach through mediators in the coming hours.”

Consistent with Iran’s core negotiating priorities, Baghaei emphasized that a ceasefire in Lebanon has held equal importance to a halt to hostilities on Iranian territory for Tehran throughout the negotiation process.

The finalized MoU, which commits to ending open conflict across all regional fronts including Lebanon, was first announced earlier this week by Iran, the United States, and Pakistan. The agreement capped off weeks of intensive mediated negotiations aimed at de-escalating a conflict that erupted in late February.

The conflict that the MoU seeks to end began on February 28, when Israel and the United States launched coordinated joint strikes on Tehran and multiple other urban centers across Iran. Iran responded with a large-scale barrage of missile and drone attacks targeting Israeli territory as well as U.S. military bases and strategic assets across the Middle East. Tehran also tightened control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, barring safe passage for any vessels owned by or aligned with Israel and the United States.

On Wednesday, foreign policy analysts and peace activists welcomed a long-awaited breakthrough: the Trump administration has publicly released the text of a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) reached with Iranian negotiators, bringing the unprovoked US-Israeli war on Iran closer to a permanent end than at any point since hostilities began. While the deal marks a historic de-escalation of tensions, it has also ignited fierce partisan debate in Washington, with critics questioning the heavy human cost that preceded the agreement and supporters framing it as a long-overdue correction of failed maximalist policy.

Observers across the political spectrum have already noted one stark, unmissable detail embedded in both the MOU text and President Donald Trump’s recent remarks at the G7 Summit in France: the agreement implicitly acknowledges what war opponents have argued from the start – that the conflict was entirely unnecessary. To date, the war has claimed more than 3,400 Iranian lives, along with thousands of additional civilian and combatant casualties across the Middle East. In Lebanon alone, where Israeli forces have operated since early March, more than 3,600 people have been killed, according to on-the-ground counts.

The core terms of the 14-point MOU lay out a clear path toward peace. First and foremost, the document codifies the immediate and permanent end of all military operations across every front, including hostilities in Lebanon, with both sides committing to respect Lebanese territorial integrity and sovereignty and renounce future threats of force against one another. A 60-day negotiation window is set to finalize a permanent, binding peace deal, extendable only by mutual consent of both parties. Iran has agreed to maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, a commitment consistent with long-standing Iranian assertions that its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful and never intended for military development. The MOU also includes two key US concessions: no new sanctions will be imposed on Iran during negotiations, and no additional US military forces will be deployed to the region ahead of a final deal.

Other critical provisions lay out a structured timeline for de-escalation and economic recovery. Within 30 days of the MOU’s signing, the US will fully lift its naval blockade of Iran, and will withdraw all remaining US forces from areas near Iran’s borders following the completion of a final deal. Iran has committed to ensuring safe, toll-free passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz for the 60-day negotiation period, and will work with Oman and other Gulf littoral states to establish a long-term maritime governance framework aligned with international law and sovereign coastal state rights. A $300 billion regional reconstruction fund, backed by the US and its partner nations, is planned to help rebuild Iran’s infrastructure, which US and Israeli attacks have left heavily damaged: more than 100,000 housing units, along with countless schools, hospitals, bridges and other critical public assets have been destroyed or rendered unusable. The MOU also confirms that all US and multilateral sanctions on Iran will be lifted on an agreed schedule as part of the final deal, that all frozen Iranian assets will be unfrozen and made fully accessible, and that immediate waivers will be issued to allow Iranian crude oil and liquefied natural gas exports to resume immediately.

On the nuclear front, the framework addresses the core stated objective of the US-led war: Iran has reaffirmed its permanent commitment not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and both sides have agreed to develop a mutually agreed mechanism to manage existing enriched uranium stockpiles, most likely requiring down-blending under international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. Broader negotiations on Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear enrichment will be finalized as part of the permanent deal.

The agreement has drawn sharp criticism from some Democratic lawmakers and Trump opponents in Washington, who have framed the MOU as a US surrender and taken particular issue with the $300 billion reconstruction fund. But Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, pushed back against these criticisms in a detailed public statement, arguing that the deal’s core terms deliver mutual benefits for both nations even as they upend long-held Washington policy assumptions. “Time will tell if this memorandum can survive the caustic politics in Washington and Tehran that have accompanied any lessening of tensions between the US and Iran, and ultimately deliver relief that is sorely needed,” Costello wrote. “Yet, what has been started is not a threat to American security, it is a threat to the Washington mindset that any US-Iran outcome is ultimately zero-sum and that Iran’s gain is an American loss. The US will benefit if our nation moves off the path of war with Iran. That will be accomplished by the memorandum and the steps that it entails.”

Speaking to reporters at the G7 summit, Trump addressed ongoing questions about the MOU’s nuclear provisions, the core goal the White House has repeatedly cited to justify the war. While he retained a tough public posture, threatening to “bomb them” if Iran violates its commitments not to build nuclear weapons, Trump also echoed a position long championed by war opponents and independent foreign policy experts. “It is a little hard though, when you say that somebody wants it [nuclear energy], other people have it, other adjoining states have it, and you’re not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that,” he said, referring to Iran’s civilian nuclear program. He also echoed Iran’s long-standing position that, as neighboring regional powers possess ballistic missiles, Iran should be permitted to maintain its own missile arsenal for national security.

Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, summed up a common critique of the administration’s delayed policy shift: those are “things it would’ve been great to figure out before you started a war over them.” Danny Citrinowicz, a prominent Middle East policy expert, noted that while the conflict has been extraordinarily costly in lives and resources, the shift to a pragmatic diplomatic approach is still a welcome development. “It may have taken a long, costly, and complicated conflict, but the United States appears to have arrived at a conclusion that should have been evident from the start: Iran’s missile program is not negotiable because it sits at the very core of the regime’s security doctrine,” Citrinowicz said. “Reasonable people can ask whether such a prolonged conflict was necessary to reach this conclusion. Yet it is better to recognize strategic realities late than never at all. Before events spiraled completely out of control, the US administration stepped back from maximalist objectives and returned to a more measured and realistic approach.”

Even with the breakthrough, uncertainty remains about the final outcome. Trump acknowledged that the planned official signing of the permanent deal, scheduled for this Friday, could still fall through, and he threatened to resume military bombing campaigns if Iranian officials do not comply with the terms of the MOU. In a characteristic political aside, the president added that he will claim full credit for the agreement if it holds, but will blame Vice President JD Vance for any failure. If completed, the final deal will be formally endorsed by a binding United Nations Security Council resolution to cement its international legitimacy.

In a sworn declaration filed in a Mississippi federal court, the top digital and artificial intelligence official for the U.S. Department of Defense has publicly confirmed for the first time that U.S. military forces leveraged a government-adapted version of Elon Musk’s Grok AI to carry out more than 2,000 targeting strikes over a 96-hour window during the joint U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran. The revelation, which marks the Trump administration’s first direct acknowledgment of Grok AI’s combat use in the conflict, emerged as part of a high-stakes intervention by the federal government into a civil environmental lawsuit against Musk’s xAI firm.

The lawsuit, filed in April 2026 by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), accuses xAI and its subsidiary MZX Tech of operating 27 unpermitted methane-powered gas turbines at a facility in Southaven, Mississippi. The turbines are used to power xAI’s Colossus 2 supercomputer in nearby South Memphis, Tennessee, which the company relies on to train and update all Grok AI models – including the government-specific variant used by the Pentagon.

The NAACP argues that the unregulated turbines violate the U.S. Clean Air Act, releasing toxic nitrogen oxide pollution that drives dangerous ozone formation. The organization notes that nearby Black communities in the Gulf South bear the disproportionate health burden of these emissions, which are linked to asthma attacks, chronic lung function decline, and increased risk of premature death. The legal complaint asks the court to order xAI to halt operations at the unpermitted facility, install modern pollution control technology, and pay financial penalties for every day of noncompliance with federal environmental law.

Cameron Stanley, who has served as the Pentagon’s Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Officer since January 2026, submitted the declaration on behalf of the Trump administration to support its intervention in the case on xAI’s side. Stanley, who previously led defense sector projects at Amazon Web Services before taking his current Pentagon role, outlined how the department uses the Grok Gov Model – a customized derivative of xAI’s commercial Grok AI – integrated into the military’s Maven Smart Systems (MSS) to core national security functions, including target identification, intelligence analysis, military readiness planning, and recruitment.

In his testimony, Stanley detailed that MSS workflows powered by Grok Gov allowed U.S. forces to deploy 2,000 munitions in just four days during what the military calls Operation Epic Fury. The filing does not specify the exact dates of this operation, leaving unconfirmed whether the strikes coincided with February 28, 2026 – the first day of the war, when a U.S. strike on a school killed 156 civilians, including 120 children. To date, Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans has recorded nearly 3,500 total fatalities from U.S.-Israeli attacks across Iran since the conflict began.

Stanley characterized the 2,000-strike operation as clear proof of the massive operational efficiency gains delivered by the Grok Gov Model. He went on to warn that if the court rules against xAI and forces a shutdown of the Colossus 2 supercomputer by cutting off its Southaven power supply, the Pentagon’s ability to carry out critical national security missions and maintain technological advantage over U.S. adversaries would be severely undermined. In times of armed conflict or national emergency, Stanley argued, demand for AI processing capacity from Grok Gov Models surges dramatically, and Colossus 2 is uniquely positioned to provide the extra surge capacity needed to sustain ongoing military operations.

In an argument that redefines commercial AI infrastructure as a core national security asset, Stanley wrote that modern data center capacity is just as foundational to U.S. defense posture as traditional munitions production. “In the modern theater of operations, data center processing capacity must be recognized not merely as commercial infrastructure, but as a long-term strategic tool vital to maintaining our technological advantage against adversaries,” he stated in the filing.

The U.S. Department of Justice has backed the Pentagon’s position, urging the federal judge hearing the case in the Northern District of Mississippi to dismiss the NAACP’s lawsuit outright on national security grounds. “The Department of Justice will not sit idly by while private organizations use environmental laws to undermine our national security,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the G-7 Summit in Evian, France on Wednesday, former U.S. President Donald Trump laid out contradictory stances on his administration’s newly announced 60-day ceasefire agreement with Iran, blending aggressive military threats against Tehran with key concessions that have already drawn fierce criticism from hardline pro-Israel allies in his own Republican Party.

The core of the agreement is a temporary memorandum of understanding (MOU) that keeps the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a vital global chokepoint for oil and maritime trade, toll-free for the next two months. Under the terms of the deal, Iran will negotiate the future governance of the strait alongside Oman and other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with international law, leaving open the possibility of navigation fees being imposed after the ceasefire period ends. The White House has framed the ceasefire extension, announced publicly this past Sunday, as a first step toward reaching a permanent end to the ongoing conflict that has roiled global energy markets.

In unusually candid remarks, Trump acknowledged his biggest political risk tied to the conflict: economic fallout that could sink his presidency, echoing the political fate of Republican President Herbert Hoover, who left office in disgrace after the 1929 stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression. “The one president I did not want to be was the late, great, Herbert Hoover,” Trump said, noting that stock markets have shifted directly in response to signals about whether the conflict would end or escalate. “The stock market is more brilliant than anybody there is, including the people on this stage, other than me, of course.”

The president went on to stress that Tehran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz had inflicted enough economic damage globally to push his administration to agree to the ceasefire extension. Even so, he adopted a belligerent tone when discussing enforcement of the MOU, repeating multiple times that he would resume large-scale military bombing of Iran if he disapproved of Tehran’s compliance. “It’s a memorandum of understanding. And if I don’t like it, we’ll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head,” Trump said. “If I don’t like it, if they don’t behave, we’ll go right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head, OK?”

The deal has already come under intense fire from Iran hawks and pro-Israel voices in the U.S., who have pushed for a full rollback of Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile arsenal, and regional military influence. Trump acknowledged that the terms of the MOU would amplify this criticism: the agreement does not address Iran’s nuclear program in any detail, leaving that critical issue for future negotiations during the 60-day ceasefire period.

Pushing back against demands that the U.S. seize Iran’s existing enriched uranium stockpiles, Trump argued that the material is buried deep in underground facilities that only the U.S. and China have the technical capacity to access, adding that international cameras are already in place to monitor suspect sites. He also rejected longstanding Israeli demands that Iran be barred from any enrichment activity entirely, noting that neighboring countries in the region maintain their own nuclear energy programs. “It’s a little hard when other people have it, other adjoining states have it, and you’re not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that. You have to use a little common sense,” he said.

This stance marks a clear shift from Trump’s 2017 decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral nuclear agreement that placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump has framed his new framework as different from the JCPOA, arguing that the threat of ongoing U.S. military force prevents Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon. “Whoever sells them a nuclear weapon would get nuked themselves,” he claimed, though the JCPOA already explicitly barred Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Trump also dismissed demands from hawks and Israel that Iran be forced to completely eliminate its ballistic missile program, which he previously cited as a core justification for launching U.S. strikes against Iran. Arguing that it is unreasonable to bar Tehran from possessing any missiles when neighboring Gulf states like Saudi Arabia maintain their own arsenals, Trump claimed that U.S. strikes have already destroyed roughly 80 percent of Iran’s existing missile capacity. “Doesn’t work that way,” he said of demands for full disarmament.

On economic policy, Trump confirmed that the U.S. will not directly invest in Iran to help rebuild the country, which he estimated has sustained around $2 trillion in damages from U.S. and Israeli strikes. He added that Washington will not block neighboring Arab Gulf states from investing in Iran if a final peace deal is reached, a stance that is already fueling speculation that states including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar will move to normalize economic ties with Tehran in the coming months.

The president also drew backlash from hawks by confirming that he is open to returning billions of dollars in Iranian assets that have been frozen by Western sanctions, stating that the assets “is not our money” and will eventually need to be returned. The move is certain to please Tehran while hardening opposition from pro-Israel lawmakers in Washington.

Trump’s remarks swung between sharp criticism of Iran and faint praise for the country’s leadership. He referred to Iran as having a “primitive culture” while also acknowledging that Iran’s leaders “love their country.” He also openly boasted about U.S. strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure, specifically highlighting the April 1 bombing of the Karaj B1 bridge, which he compared to New York’s George Washington Bridge.

In a surprising acknowledgment, Trump thanked both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin for maintaining neutrality during the conflict, noting that both countries could have made the military campaign far more difficult for the U.S. Multiple independent outlets have previously reported that China and Russia provided Iran with arms and intelligence support during the fighting. “I just want to thank them because they made it a lot better,” Trump said. “I want to thank China, President Xi. I was with him, and he stayed neutral, totally neutral, and I appreciate it. And I want to thank Vladimir Putin; he was very neutral. They could have made it much more difficult for us.”

Trump also confirmed that the United Arab Emirates participated directly in offensive airstrikes against Iran during the conflict, saying he was caught off guard by the scale of the UAE’s military involvement. “He was dropping bombs last week, I said, ‘who the hell’s dropping all those bombs?’ It was the UAE. He’s a good fighter,” Trump said of UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed. The comments were made during a wide-ranging, rambling press conference flanked by top senior administration officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.