标签： Asia

On the 78th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba, a landmark date carrying deep collective meaning for displaced Palestinians globally, Husam Zomlot — the long-serving Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom — has officially declared his candidacy for a seat on the Central Committee of Fatah, the foundational and most influential Palestinian political movement.

Zomlot, a Palestinian refugee who was born and raised in the Gaza Strip, shared the formal announcement of his candidacy via his personal Instagram account on May 15, 2026. The date of his declaration was intentionally chosen to align with the annual commemoration of the Nakba, the 1948 event that saw more than 750,000 Palestinians forcibly displaced from their historic homeland during the establishment of the State of Israel, a catastrophe that remains the core trauma of the Palestinian national experience.

Throughout the ongoing Israeli military campaign in Gaza that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and triggered a massive humanitarian crisis, Zomlot has emerged as one of the most visible and articulate Palestinian voices in Western media, consistently advocating for the Palestinian perspective to global audiences. His candidacy has already drawn high-profile backing, including an endorsement from Suha Arafat, the widow of Yasser Arafat — the iconic Palestinian leader who founded Fatah back in 1959. Today, Fatah remains the dominant political force governing the occupied West Bank through the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was established under the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Muhammad Shehada, a commentator and visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, publicly lauded Zomlot’s announcement on the social platform X, formerly Twitter. “Husam has become one of the most prominent Palestinian voices in the West, at the forefront of dismantling decades of lies & myths, leading marches on the streets of London, & excelling at advocacy & strategic communications,” Shehada wrote. “If he succeeds, it’d inject new blood in Fatah & mark a new generation entering the top leadership of Palestinian politics.”

Fatah has held a central role in Palestinian politics for more than six decades, but the movement’s standing among the Palestinian public has declined sharply in recent years. Critics have pointed to the PA’s security crackdowns on Palestinian militant organizing in the West Bank, as well as its perceived failure to take meaningful action to stop frequent Israeli military incursions and settler attacks on Palestinian communities in the occupied territory. Even amid this dip in popularity, Fatah still retains broad support across Palestinian society, with imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti consistently ranked as the most popular political figure among all Palestinians.

This report was originally published by Middle East Eye, a media outlet that produces independent, on-the-ground coverage of the Middle East and North Africa region.

During a media briefing aboard Air Force One while returning from his official visit to China in November 2017, then-U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed that he had raised the cases of two high-profile detained individuals — underground church pastor Ezra Jin Mingri and imprisoned Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai — with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Trump told reporters that Xi committed to giving serious consideration to Jin’s case, but characterized Jimmy Lai’s legal situation as a far more complex issue that would be difficult to resolve.

Jin, the leader of Beijing’s Zion Church, one of China’s largest unregistered house churches that operates outside of state-sanctioned religious frameworks, was taken into custody in October 2017. His detention was widely interpreted by international observers as part of a broader, escalating crackdown on unapproved religious practice across the country. “He said he’s gonna strongly consider the pastor,” Trump confirmed to reporters traveling with him.

In contrast to the tentative openness around Jin’s case, Trump noted that Xi described Jimmy Lai’s situation as a particularly “tough one.” Lai, a 78-year-old former media tycoon and founder of the now-shuttered pro-democracy outlet Apple Daily, has remained a vocal critic of the Chinese Communist Party and Beijing’s policies toward Hong Kong for decades. He was ultimately convicted in February 2021 on charges of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and publication of seditious material under the sweeping 2020 National Security Law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. His prosecution and the shutdown of his newspaper came in the wake of large-scale anti-government protests that roiled Hong Kong in 2019, and the crackdown that followed has effectively silenced most organized dissent in the former British colony.

Despite the very different outlooks Trump outlined for the two men, the families of both Jin and Lai have publicly expressed gratitude to the Trump administration for bringing their cases to the highest levels of diplomatic discussion. Grace Jin Drexel, Jin’s daughter, called the development nothing short of miraculous in a written statement to the Associated Press. “We could not be more grateful to President Trump and his skillful administration for pressing the case!” she wrote, adding that the family and supporters were “overjoyed” by the news.

Claire Lai, Jimmy Lai’s daughter, also thanked Trump for his administration’s commitment to advocating for her father’s release even amid Trump’s cautious assessment of the case. “He has earned his reputation as liberating the unjustly detained and I am confident he and his administration will be the ones to free my father,” she said in a message to the AP. She framed potential release of her father as a critical opportunity for Xi to demonstrate good will to the international community, calling it the only just and honorable course of action.

Human rights activists have long noted that under Xi Jinping’s leadership, Beijing has grown increasingly unwilling to release high-profile detainees detained over dissent or human rights-related activities. The most prominent recent example came in 2017, when Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo died of liver cancer in a Chinese hospital despite repeated calls from Western governments to allow him to travel abroad for life-saving treatment.

International observers widely view Jimmy Lai’s case as a symbolic marker of the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong, a outcome that runs counter to the autonomy and protections Beijing promised the territory under the 1997 handover agreement from British rule. Foreign governments including the United States and United Kingdom have repeatedly raised concerns about Lai’s detention and prosecution, though the Hong Kong government has repeatedly maintained that his conviction had no connection to press freedom, framing it as a standard criminal matter. Just days before Trump’s comments, China’s foreign ministry reaffirmed its position that Lai was a key organizer of anti-China activities intended to destabilize Hong Kong, and that all affairs related to Hong Kong are strictly China’s internal business, off-limits to foreign interference.

This report was compiled from contributions from Tang reporting out of Washington, with additional reporting from AP journalist Emily Wang in Washington.

Following two days of high-stakes bilateral talks in Beijing between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the long-simmering Taiwan issue has once again taken center stage in U.S.-China relations, with Trump emerging with an intentionally ambiguous position that leaves key questions about Washington’s policy unanswered.

Traveling back to Washington aboard Air Force One, Trump confirmed to reporters that the topic of Taiwan dominated a large portion of his discussions with Xi. For decades, China has claimed the self-governing island of Taiwan as an inalienable part of its sovereign territory, and Beijing has repeatedly declined to rule out the use of military force to assert its control. Trump told reporters that Xi directly raised the question of whether the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a conflict, a core query that cuts to the heart of cross-strait and U.S.-China tensions. In response, Trump said he avoided taking a clear position, telling Xi: “I don’t talk about that.”

The biggest immediate uncertainty created by the talks centers on a previously approved U.S. arms sales package to Taiwan, a deal that drew fierce condemnation from Beijing when it was announced late last year. The $8 billion package includes cutting-edge military hardware, from advanced rocket systems to a range of offensive and defensive missiles. Trump confirmed that he and Xi debated the proposed sale at length during the summit, and announced that he has not yet made a final decision on moving forward with the transfer. “I will make a determination over a fairly short period,” the U.S. president said, noting he plans to hold a conversation with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te before finalizing his choice.

Washington’s long-standing approach to the Taiwan question has long required a delicate diplomatic balancing act. U.S. law formally mandates that the United States provide Taiwan with the necessary capabilities to defend itself, and the island has been an unofficial U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific for decades. At the same time, successive U.S. administrations have worked to nurture diplomatic and economic ties with Beijing, avoiding explicit moves that would trigger full diplomatic rupture with China. This fragile balance has come under growing strain in recent years, as China has significantly expanded large-scale military exercises around Taiwan, stepping up pressure on the island’s government and stoking regional anxiety that has caught Washington’s attention.

According to Chinese state media coverage of the closed-door talks, Xi framed the Taiwan issue as the single most consequential matter shaping the future of U.S.-China ties. Xi warned that if the question is mismanaged, it could lead to direct confrontation and even open conflict between the two global powers. When asked by reporters whether he believed a conflict over Taiwan could break out between the United States and China, Trump downplayed the risk. “No, I don’t think so. I think we’ll be fine,” he said, adding that “[Xi] doesn’t want to see a war.” Trump also emphasized that Xi holds firm views on the issue, saying Xi “feels very strongly” about the island and does not support any move toward formal Taiwanese independence. Repeating his ambiguous position, Trump stated: “I made no commitment either way” on the core policy questions around Taiwan.

When pressed directly by reporters on whether the United States would defend Taiwan if it came under military attack, Trump again refused to give a clear answer. “I don’t want to say that. I’m not going to say that,” he said. “There’s only one person that knows that. You know who it is? Me.” He reiterated that Xi had directly asked him about the defense question during their bilateral meeting, and he had once again declined to outline a clear position.

For its part, Taiwan’s foreign ministry moved quickly to respond to the outcomes of the summit. Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung stated that the island’s diplomatic team had been closely monitoring all discussions between Trump and Xi throughout the summit, and that Taiwan has maintained open, steady lines of communication with the United States and other international partners. Lin said Taiwan’s priority is to ensure that its long-standing relationship with the United States continues to deepen in a stable manner, and that all of Taiwan’s core national interests are protected. He reaffirmed that Taiwan has consistently positioned itself as a defender of peace and regional stability in the Indo-Pacific, and placed blame for rising cross-strait tensions on Beijing, accusing China of escalating regional risk through what he called “aggressive military actions and authoritarian oppression.”

The summit’s outcomes leave the future of U.S. policy toward Taiwan unclear, with observers across the globe waiting for Trump’s upcoming decision on the arms sales package to signal which direction Washington will lean on the issue in the coming months.

For decades, widespread misunderstanding of China has persisted across much of the Western world. Mainstream public discourse and media coverage too often fixate on a simplistic “China threat” framework, with critics routinely focusing on perceived flaws in China’s political system and debates over personal freedoms while overlooking how China has risen to become a global power capable of competing on the world stage alongside the United States. At the root of this persistent disconnect, experts argue, is a long-standing habit of filtering China’s actions through a strictly Western-centric lens that fails to capture the domestic context and framing of Chinese policy.

A striking example of this divergent interpretation can be seen in how upcoming summits between sitting U.S. presidents and Chinese leadership are covered: while Chinese audiences receive summit coverage framed around diplomatic cooperation and mutual respect, Western analysts often dissect every word from China’s leader for hidden agendas, coded threats, and veiled provocations. This narrow approach, however, leads many analysts to overlook the intentional rhetorical tools the Chinese government uses to explain and legitimize its actions to both domestic and global audiences.

A new collaborative research project led by scholars from the University of Sydney and France’s Gustave Eiffel University offers a fresh, innovative framework for unpacking China’s grand strategy: close analysis of the intentional political storytelling woven into top Chinese leadership’s major public addresses. This work fits into a growing body of modern scholarship that frames contemporary geopolitics as increasingly a contest of competing narratives, where global powers shape global and domestic perceptions through how they tell stories about themselves and other nations.

To conduct their analysis, the research team examined four key major speeches delivered by Chinese President Xi Jinping between 2021 and 2023, treating each address as a structured narrative and dissecting its core plots, central characters, and linguistic choices to uncover the underlying strategic messaging behind the text.

Political storytelling is far from a modern innovation. As far back as ancient Athens and Rome, statesmen relied on deliberate, powerful rhetoric to persuade their audiences, with the philosopher Aristotle formalizing rhetoric’s three core persuasive pillars: logical argument (logos), emotional appeal (pathos), and speaker credibility (ethos). Modern rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke expanded this work, arguing that shared rhetoric builds collective purpose between leaders and their publics, but can also be used to draw dividing lines between in-groups and out-groups. Communications scholar Michael Kent later built on this foundation to identify 20 recurring “master plots” that storytellers across cultures and eras have used to craft compelling, persuasive narratives, including core arcs like quest, adventure, transformation, rivalry, and sacrifice.

Applying Kent’s master plot framework to Xi’s speeches, the research team identified five core recurring narrative arcs that consistently shape official Chinese strategic messaging:

First, the adventure plot. In Xi’s 2021 speech marking the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, he recounts how the Chinese people waged a courageous struggle to lift the nation from the peril of foreign occupation and internal collapse. This narrative frames China’s modern rise as a generations-long collective journey toward national strength and shared prosperity, marked by repeated setbacks and hard-won breakthroughs. It leans on shared national memories of hardship and endurance to build collective solidarity among domestic audiences.

Second, the quest plot. Xi’s addresses consistently frame China’s modern development as a collective quest toward the difficult, unprecedented goal of national rejuvenation, led exclusively by the Chinese Communist Party. In his 2022 report to the 20th National Party Congress, Xi emphasized that China’s path forward has no pre-written instruction manual or off-the-shelf template, framing the nation’s effort as an unprecedented historical undertaking. This narrative is designed to inspire unified national purpose, patriotic sentiment, and collective pride among domestic listeners.

Third, the transformation plot. In his 2023 address to the 14th National People’s Congress, Xi outlined China’s historic transformation from a nation humiliated by foreign interference to a country that has stood up, grown prosperous, and now emerged as a strong global power, framing national rejuvenation as an inevitable historical outcome. Unlike generic stories of change, this transformation narrative positions China’s rise as a natural, organic evolution built on decades of gradual reform and collective sacrifice by the Chinese people.

Fourth, the rivalry plot. This narrative centers on framing both internal and external threats to China’s stability and sovereignty. In two of the four speeches analyzed, Xi referenced ongoing efforts by foreign powers to “blackmail, contain, blockade, and exert maximum pressure on China,” drawing connections to the historical period of foreign domination that caused widespread suffering for the Chinese people. In the 100th anniversary CCP speech, Xi warned that any power that attempts to undermine China’s interests will “find themselves on a collision course with a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.” This narrative reinforces the message that China must remain united and vigilant against outside pressure.

Fifth, the narrative of collective and international goodwill. Unlike romantic love plots, this arc centers on the loyalty, dedication, and gratitude the Chinese leadership holds for supporters both at home and abroad. For example, in the 100th anniversary speech, Xi extended heartfelt thanks to global communities and individuals who have extended friendship to the Chinese people and supported China’s efforts in revolution, development, and reform.

This intentional narrative messaging carries powerful impact for domestic Chinese audiences. It is reinforced consistently across state media, popular cultural products, and national patriotic education curricula to reach the widest possible audience. The recurring contrast between past national hardship and modern national strength helps shape public perception of China as a peaceful but resolute global actor.

For international audiences, unpacking these narrative frameworks also offers critical insight into how China frames its own actions and anticipates its future policy responses. For example, China’s consistent narrative of historical humiliation and the centrality of defending national sovereignty helps explain the country’s uncompromising stance on the Taiwan issue, and reinforces the Chinese Communist Party’s domestic legitimacy on the question of territorial integrity. Importantly, the research team notes that this narrative framing does not predetermine that military conflict over Taiwan is inevitable: any future decision on the issue will depend on a wide range of strategic factors, including careful risk calculation, China’s deep economic interdependence with the global economy, and the catastrophic potential consequences for the entire region and its people.

Narrative analysis alone cannot fully predict or explain every Chinese policy choice, as complex strategic and economic calculations remain central to all major decisions. However, the framework offers a rare, clear window into the core strategic thinking of China’s top leadership – an insight that is particularly valuable for understanding policy direction in China’s political system.

In a move that has triggered sharp diplomatic pushback from Kuala Lumpur, Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed Friday it has pulled export licenses for a advanced naval missile system destined for Malaysia, citing new restrictions that limit sales of its most sensitive defense technologies exclusively to allied nations and close strategic partners.

The revoked licensing blocks delivery of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) system and its accompanying launcher components, which were earmarked for Malaysia’s ongoing littoral combat ship initiative, a core part of the Southeast Asian country’s broader naval modernization agenda. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has issued a stern warning that the unilateral reversal of a finalized contract risks eroding long-term trust in European defense suppliers among countries in the Indo-Pacific.

Responding to questions from the Associated Press, the Norwegian foreign ministry explained that the policy shift comes amid sweeping changes to the European and global security landscape over recent years. To adapt to these new conditions, Oslo has implemented strengthened oversight frameworks for defense technology exports, resulting in the new restriction: “Exports of some of the most sensitive Norwegian-developed defense technologies will be limited to our allies and closest partners. It is regrettable that this affects Malaysia.”

Malaysia first signed the procurement contract for the NSM anti-ship missile system back in 2018 with Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace AS, Norway’s leading state-affiliated defense contractor. The missiles were designed to be integrated onto Malaysia’s new fleet of modular littoral combat ships, which are intended to boost the country’s maritime surveillance and coastal defense capabilities.

Anwar revealed Thursday that he had already conveyed Malaysia’s formal strong protest during a direct phone call with his Norwegian counterpart, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. He emphasized that Oslo’s last-minute cancellation would not only undermine Malaysia’s military operational readiness, but also create lasting uncertainty about the reliability of European defense partners if signed, legally binding agreements can be overturned without warning.

In blunt remarks, Anwar pushed back against the unilateral decision: “Contracts are not confetti to be scattered in so capricious a manner. If European defense suppliers reserve the right to renege with impunity, their value as strategic partners flies out the window.”

The Norwegian foreign ministry confirmed that Støre had walked through the reasoning behind the policy shift during his conversation with Anwar. Despite the export restriction, the ministry reiterated that Norway “greatly values its relationship with Malaysia” and remains committed to maintaining ongoing cooperation and open constructive dialogue with Malaysian government authorities.

To date, Malaysia has already disbursed 95% of the total contract value to the Norwegian contractor. Malaysian officials confirmed this week that the government is currently reviewing all available legal pathways to address the canceled delivery, including pursuing formal compensation claims for losses incurred from the policy change.

NEW DELHI – A key two-day gathering of foreign ministers from the BRICS bloc wrapped up in the Indian capital on Friday, falling short of the traditional outcome of a unified joint statement. The failure to reach a consensus was attributed to deep-seated differing perspectives on the ongoing Middle East crisis among some member states, host India confirmed in an official statement released after the meeting. This breakdown in collective agreement has laid bare the growing strains holding the bloc together at a time when BRICS is actively working to expand its global geopolitical influence.

India’s official statement noted that despite the inability to agree on a unified text, all BRICS members did present their individual national stances and exchanged a broad spectrum of views across multiple priority topics. These discussions covered core principles of national sovereignty, global maritime security, and the critical need to protect both civilian infrastructure and innocent civilian lives amid the turmoil in the Middle East.

A detailed footnote added to the Indian statement further specified that one member state had formal reservations over key portions of the draft text addressing the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the evolving security situation in the Red Sea and the strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait, a critical global shipping chokepoint connecting the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea.

BRICS, which was originally founded with five core emerging economies, has expanded significantly in recent years. The bloc now counts 10 full members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia, the latest addition to the grouping.

Internal rifts within the bloc have become increasingly pronounced amid the escalating regional tensions across the Middle East, particularly sharp divisions between two recent joining members, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. On the first day of the meeting Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi took a hard line, calling on all BRICS member nations to formally issue a condemnation of the United States and Israel over what he labeled as “unlawful aggression” in the region. He also urged fellow member states to push back against what he described as the improper politicization of multilateral global institutions.