标签： Oceania

Diplomatic tensions between Italy and Russia escalated sharply this week after Rome summoned Moscow’s top envoy to formally protest a series of vicious, unprovoked insults directed at Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni by a prominent Russian state television host, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani confirmed Tuesday.

The incident unfolded when pro-Kremlin presenter Vladimir Solovyov launched a brutal personal attack against Meloni live on air, switching between Italian and Russian to deliver his remarks. In Italian, Solovyov labeled Meloni a “disgrace to the human race”, a “wild beast”, a “certified idiot” and a “nasty little woman”. He continued his tirade after switching to Russian, claiming the Italian leader was a “fascist creature” who had betrayed her own voters and even former U.S. President Donald Trump, a claim that echoes longstanding misinformation pushed by Russian state media about European leaders.

In a public post to social platform X, Tajani announced he had called Russian Ambassador Alexey Paramonov to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to deliver a formal démarche over what he described as the “extremely serious and offensive remarks.” In a rare show of cross-partisan unity, even Italian opposition parties joined the government in condemning Solovyov’s aggressive comments, highlighting how the attack united Italian political factions against the external provocation.

Meloni herself responded to the incident publicly, pushing back against the verbal assault and reaffirming her government’s policy commitments. “These caricatures certainly won’t make us change course,” she wrote on X. “Our compass remains one and only: the interest of Italy. And we will continue to follow it with pride, much to the chagrin of propagandists far and wide.”

The diplomatic clash comes amid months of already strained relations between Rome and Moscow, driven by Meloni’s unwavering, staunch support for Ukraine in its war against Russian invasion. The incident also follows a recent shift in Meloni’s relationship with Donald Trump: the two once shared friendly ties, but relations have soured after Meloni defended the Vatican against verbal attacks from the former U.S. president.

A human rights advocate has issued a damning revelation about the Trump administration’s latest immigration policy, which forces more than 1,100 former Afghan allies stranded in Qatar to pick between resettlement in conflict-ravaged Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or forced return to Afghanistan under Taliban control. These are the same Afghans who aided U.S. military forces before the 2021 American withdrawal that saw the collapse of the Western-backed Afghan government, and who have waited in Qatar for years to gain entry to the United States, fearing violent persecution from the new Taliban regime for their cooperation with Washington.

The camp where these evacuees reside, a decommissioned U.S. military base in Qatar, faces an immediate March 31 shutdown ordered by the Trump White House, which has centered its second term agenda on sweeping new restrictions to legal immigration into the country. Shawn VanDiver, a U.S. military veteran and leader of AfghanEvac — an advocacy organization dedicated to supporting former Afghan allies seeking safe resettlement — confirmed he received official briefings outlining the administration’s stark ultimatum for the camp’s residents.

VanDiver argues the choice is intentionally designed to pressure Afghans into returning to Afghanistan, noting that the DRC is already grappling with its own prolonged humanitarian and refugee crisis, marked by ongoing armed conflict that has spilled over from neighboring Rwanda. “You do not relocate vetted wartime allies, more than 400 of them children, from American custody into a country in the middle of its own collapse,” VanDiver said in a formal statement. “The administration knows this. It is the point.”

U.S. State Department officials have refused to publicly confirm that the DRC is the third-country resettlement option on the table, but confirmed that Washington is pursuing “voluntary resettlement” for the as-Sayliyah camp population. A department spokesperson framed the relocation of the group to a third country as “a positive resolution that provides safety for these remaining people to start a new life outside of Afghanistan while upholding the safety and security of the American people.”

The policy has drawn fierce cross-party and advocacy criticism, with leading Democratic Senator Tim Kaine calling the plan to send U.S. Afghan allies to the DRC “insane.” “We told these Afghans that we would help ensure their safety after they helped us,” Kaine said. “We have an obligation to follow through on our promise because it’s the right thing to do, and because going back on our word will only make it harder for us to build the kinds of partnerships we may need to advance our national security in the future.”

The broader context of this policy traces back to the chaotic 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, after which more than 190,000 Afghan evacuees have already been resettled in the United States under a program first launched by former President Joe Biden. That program initially earned bipartisan support, as most Republicans backed the 20-year U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan when it began. However, after a 2024 incident in which an Afghan evacuee with a history of post-traumatic stress disorder who had worked with U.S. intelligence shot two Washington D.C. National Guard troops — killing one — Trump moved to dismantle the wider national refugee resettlement program and suspend all processing for new Afghan arrivals.

Ahead of the 2024 Australian federal budget, the Albanese government is set to roll out sweeping reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), redirecting projected savings from the overhaul to eliminate out-of-pocket costs for essential aged care services for older Australians. The policy shift will be detailed by Health, Ageing and NDIS Minister Mark Butler during a highly anticipated address to the National Press Club on Wednesday, marking one of the most significant social policy changes ahead of the budget release next month.Starting October 1, core personal care supports including assistance with showering, dressing and continence care will be reclassified under the Clinical Care category of the government’s Support at Home aged care program, fully scrapping all required co-contributions that older Australians previously paid. Aged Care Minister Sam Rae emphasized that these basic daily care supports are non-negotiable for dignified ageing, noting the policy change directly responds to community feedback from older people, their families and aged care providers.

“Showering, dressing, continence care – these aren’t optional extras, they’re the basics of ageing with dignity and no older Australian should miss out because of cost,” Rae said. “Older Australians, their families and providers told us these services needed to be protected. We’ve listened and we’re acting.”

First launched by the Gillard Labor government in 2013, the taxpayer-funded NDIS was designed to deliver essential support to Australians living with permanent and severe disability. Today, the scheme carries an annual price tag of $50 billion, with independent projections showing that spending could double to $100 billion within the next decade without intervention. The rapid unsustainable growth of NDIS expenditure has placed the scheme at the center of federal government efforts to rein in public spending, with Treasurer Jim Chalmers confirming the scheme is a core focus of pre-budget negotiations. Chalmers has stressed the government remains fully committed to the NDIS mission, but acknowledges the urgent need for structural change to secure its long-term future.

Government officials have defended the reform push, arguing inaction is not a viable option. Labor MP Josh Burns told media that without changes, the NDIS would eventually become the single most expensive government program in Australia, a financial trajectory that is unsustainable. “The reason why we have to [reform] is because the NDIS is there for people with a severe disability, a permanent disability, and it needs to be there for the future,” Burns said. “If we don’t do anything, if we let it just grow, it’s going to be the biggest government program, the most expensive thing government does in Australia, and it’s just not sustainable, so it needs to be there for the future.”

While opposition figures have agreed that the NDIS requires structural repair, they have pushed back against what they warn could become a cost-shifting exercise, arguing the reform must address deep-rooted design flaws in the program. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie, the opposition’s spokesperson on the issue, said the NDIS’s challenges stretch beyond unsustainable spending, pointing to widespread concerns about unregistered providers, compliance gaps and systemic rorting. McKenzie noted that even NDIS internal estimates find 10 percent of claims are non-compliant, totaling $5 billion in misspending annually.

“The NDIS was suffering from a ‘design problem’ and must be addressed as more than just a ‘cost-shifting exercise’,” McKenzie said. The opposition is open to cross-party collaboration to get the scheme “under control” to guarantee its long-term sustainability for disabled Australians, she added, but warned: “It can’t just be a cost-shifting exercise from the government back onto states. It needs to fix the problem at its heart, which is around design.”

The peak body for Australia’s disability sector has already alerted providers to expect sweeping changes when the federal budget is released next month, as the government looks to lock in the savings needed to fund the aged care policy overhaul.

As U.S. President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh opened his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday with a public pledge to safeguard the critical independence of America’s central bank, even as he faces intense political pressure from the commander-in-chief to push for aggressive interest rate cuts.

“I’m committed to ensuring that the conduct of monetary policy remains strictly independent,” Warsh stated in his opening remarks delivered before the Senate Banking Committee. Beyond his promise to protect institutional autonomy, he also reaffirmed the Fed’s core commitment to taming persistent inflation.

The hearing represents a major milestone for Warsh, who has been tapped to replace outgoing Chair Jerome Powell when his current term expires on May 15. Every step of the confirmation process is being closely scrutinized by policymakers, economists, and global markets, as the outcome will shape U.S. monetary policy for years to come.

Tensions have been running high around the nomination well before the hearing gavel fell. Trump has ramped up repeated public criticism of the Fed in recent weeks, attacking the central bank for refusing to implement deeper, faster interest rate cuts. Early Tuesday, the president told CNBC he would be disappointed if his nominee did not move quickly to lower borrowing costs, and renewed his baseless attacks on Powell over minor renovation costs at the Fed’s Washington D.C. headquarters. “We should have the lowest interest rate in the world,” Trump insisted.

Partisan friction has further complicated Warsh’s path to confirmation. All 11 Democratic members of the Banking Committee called last week for a full delay of the nomination vote until two separate ongoing investigations into outgoing Chair Jerome Powell and Fed Governor Lisa Cook are concluded. Even a fellow Republican has broken ranks to oppose moving forward: Senator Thom Tillis, a member of the GOP-led panel, has pledged to block all Fed nominees — including Warsh — until the Justice Department probe involving Powell is fully resolved.

With Republicans holding a narrow 13-seat majority on the 25-member committee, Tillis’ defection could create a dangerous deadlock that derails Warsh’s confirmation entirely. Beyond the procedural fights, the nominee also faces the prospect of sharp, targeted questioning on a range of controversial issues, from his extensive personal wealth and past professional ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, to his core policy stances on U.S. economic growth and inflation.

For Warsh, the hearing is his first major opportunity to prove he can serve as a credible, independent steward of the nation’s monetary policy, according to analysts. “It will be his first chance since he was nominated by the president to demonstrate that he intends to be a credible, independent central banker,” David Wessel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told AFP. Wessel noted the delicate balancing act Warsh must pull off: “He has to be really careful to not anger Trump, but he also has to avoid the impression that he’s weak or subject to political pressure.”

In his opening remarks, Warsh pushed back against concerns that political interference would skew Fed decision-making, arguing that elected officials sharing their views on interest rates does not inherently threaten institutional independence. “I do not believe that independence of monetary policy is threatened when elected officials state their views on rates,” he said. He emphasized that addressing inflation is ultimately the Fed’s responsibility, adding that the central bank must “stay in its lane” when it comes to setting economic policy. The committee’s chairman, Republican Tim Scott, framed the hearing as an “opportunity to refocus” the Fed on its statutory dual mandate: delivering price stability and keeping unemployment low.

But the top Democrat on the panel, Senator Elizabeth Warren, raised urgent alarms that the ongoing investigations into Powell and Cook are a deliberate political tactic designed to pressure Fed policymakers into falling in line with Trump’s policy demands. She warned that the nomination risks putting “a sock puppet” of the president in charge of the world’s most powerful central bank.

Economists say the biggest policy question hanging over the hearing is just how closely aligned Warsh is with Trump’s push for steep rate cuts. During Warsh’s previous tenure as a Fed governor from 2006 to 2011, he was widely viewed as a hawk, a policymaker who prioritized controlling inflation by keeping interest rates relatively high. But ING chief economist James Knightley told AFP that Warsh appears to have shifted his policy stance in recent years. Knightley pointed out that Warsh has emerged as a vocal advocate for expanded tech investment and artificial intelligence innovation, which many economists argue could boost U.S. potential growth without spurring the same level of inflation seen in past economic expansions.

Still, immediate headwinds stand in the way of aggressive rate cuts: rising gasoline prices driven by ongoing conflict in the Middle East have created new near-term inflation pressures that the Fed cannot ignore. If Warsh pushes for overly rapid rate cuts in the near term, it could erode the Fed’s hard-won credibility on inflation, Knightley warned. For the nominee, the path forward requires acknowledging the immediate impact of near-term price shocks while making the case that these temporary disruptions are unlikely to turn into long-term persistent inflation.

A fired top British Foreign Office official has levelled serious accusations against Downing Street, claiming Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office exerted unrelenting pressure on civil servants to fast-track the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the United States while sidelining critical security concerns.

Olly Robbins, who served as the Foreign Office’s most senior civil servant until his dismissal last week, delivered explosive testimony to a parliamentary oversight committee on Tuesday, pulling back the curtain on the chaotic vetting process that has plunged the Starmer government into its worst political scandal in months.

The controversy centers on Mandelson, a veteran Labour Party grandee who was tapped for the prestigious Washington post in December 2024, just weeks before Donald Trump’s second presidential inauguration, and took up the role in February 2025. Mandelson was ultimately forced out of the post in September 2025, seven months into the job, after new details emerged of his long-documented close personal ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in a New York prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

In his opening remarks to the committee, Robbins laid out how Downing Street’s urgent push for a quick appointment created a dismissive culture around mandatory security vetting. When he took the top Foreign Office role in January 2025, he said, there was a “very strong expectation coming from Number 10 that [Mandelson] needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible.” That urgency translated to unending pressure on his team, he added: “My office, the foreign secretary’s office, were under constant pressure, there was an atmosphere of constant chasing.”

Contradicting earlier public claims from Starmer, who has insisted all “due process” was followed during the appointment, Robbins confirmed that independent vetting officials had ultimately recommended against granting Mandelson security clearance. He clarified that the case was deemed “borderline,” with vetters leaning toward a denial, but that internal Foreign Office security analysts concluded the identified risks could be managed. Critically, he added, the risks flagged did not stem from Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein – UK media has previously reported the concerns centered on ties between Mandelson’s now-closed lobbying firm and Chinese entities.

Robbins also acknowledged that denying clearance would have created major political headaches for Starmer and the foreign secretary, and could have damaged early UK-US relations under the new Trump administration, but he insisted those factors did not drive the final decision to approve the appointment.

The confirmation that independent vetters recommended rejecting clearance, first reported by *The Guardian* last Thursday, has sparked renewed opposition demands for Starmer’s resignation. The prime minister has pushed back against calls to step down, blaming civil servants for deliberately concealing the recommendation from him and denying he misled Parliament in earlier statements about the scandal. Critics, including former senior civil servants, have accused Starmer of scapegoating Robbins to deflect from his own responsibility for the botched appointment.

The scandal has even drawn comment from former US President Donald Trump, who waded into the controversy this week via his Truth Social platform. Trump, who has previously criticized Starmer over what he sees as insufficient UK support for his actions in Iran, agreed that Mandelson “was a really bad pick” for the Washington post, though he added a brief optimistic note: “Plenty of time to recover, however!”

Beyond the appointment controversy, Mandelson, 72, is also facing separate scrutiny: UK police are currently investigating allegations of misconduct in office from his time as a Labour minister more than 15 years ago. He was arrested and released earlier this year in connection with the probe, and has not been charged, repeatedly denying any criminal wrongdoing.

On Tuesday, following testimony from Robbins, UK Parliament was set to hold an emergency debate on the scandal, requested by opposition Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who said there remain “serious questions about what [Starmer] knew and when.” In response to the growing outcry, Starmer announced Monday that he has launched a full review of the UK’s government security vetting process to prevent similar breakdowns in the future.

As a fragile two-week temporary ceasefire in the Middle East edges toward its expiration date, fresh tensions have erupted between Iran and the United States after Tehran confirmed Tuesday that no Iranian delegation has departed for planned new peace talks hosted in Islamabad, Pakistan. The escalating standoff has cast deep uncertainty over efforts to prevent a full-scale resumption of hostilities, with both sides already trading accusations of violations of the existing truce, which is scheduled to end this week.

This round of talks was meant to follow up on high-level discussions held earlier this month in Pakistan, the most senior diplomatic engagement between the two long-time adversaries since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979. Analysts had previously viewed the senior composition of both delegations in that first meeting as a promising signal that both sides were serious about reaching a negotiated settlement. However, those initial talks collapsed without any agreement, triggering immediate retaliatory steps: Iran reimposed restrictions on shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil chokepoint, while former U.S. President Donald Trump announced a full blockade of Iranian ports.

In an official statement carried by Iranian state television, Tehran pushed back against media reports claiming a delegation was already en route to Pakistan. “So far, no delegation from Iran has departed for Islamabad, Pakistan; whether it is the main or subsidiary delegation; primary or secondary,” the statement read. Iranian officials have publicly pushed back against what they call bad faith negotiating tactics from the Trump administration, rejecting what they describe as excessive American demands. Iran’s parliament speaker emphasized that the country would never agree to hold talks “under the shadow of threats” from the U.S. leader, warning that Tehran would “show new cards on the battlefield” if hostilities resume.

The Trump administration has hit back with its own set of accusations: Trump claims Iran fired on commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, while Tehran counters that the U.S. blockade and the recent seizure of an Iranian vessel constitute clear breaches of the ceasefire agreement. Washington is also pressing Iran to make major concessions on its contested nuclear program, with Trump confirming that the port blockade will remain in place until a final deal is reached.

Confusion has even emerged over the exact timing of the truce expiration: while the agreement is technically set to end overnight Tuesday, Trump told Bloomberg it would expire Wednesday evening Washington time, and added that an extension of the ceasefire is “highly unlikely.” Speaking to PBS News, Trump noted that Iran was “supposed to be there” at the Pakistan talks, and warned that “if the ceasefire expires then lots of bombs start going off.” Despite the rising tensions, Trump has pushed back against media reports that he faces urgent pressure to strike a deal. In a post on his Truth Social platform, he wrote: “I read the Fake News saying that I am under ‘pressure’ to make a Deal. THIS IS NOT TRUE! I am under no pressure whatsoever, although, it will all happen, relatively quickly!”

Foreign policy experts say Iran’s decision to hold off on sending a delegation is a calculated move to put pressure on Washington, with Iranian leadership still wary of negotiating after U.S. strikes against Iranian targets last year that took place in the middle of ongoing diplomatic efforts. “The current standoff between the United States and Iran is no longer a clash of capabilities but rather a struggle of political endurance and bargaining leverage,” wrote Daniel Byman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a recent analysis.

For ordinary Iranian citizens, the uncertain truce has already brought deep economic hardship. In interviews with AFP journalists in Tehran, residents described worsening living conditions squeezed by the combined impact of government policies and the ongoing conflict. “This cursed ceasefire has broken us. There is no light at the end of the tunnel,” said 39-year-old Saghar. “The situation is terrible. I don’t know anyone around me who is doing well.”

Despite the ongoing brinkmanship between the two countries, global markets reacted positively to lingering hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough on Tuesday: international oil prices fell, while global stock markets posted modest gains on the optimism.

In preparation for the possible talks, Pakistani authorities have deployed heavy security across Islamabad’s government quarter, which has been largely shut down. The Serena Hotel, which hosted the first round of negotiations, asked guests to vacate the premises in recent days, and authorities have bolstered police presence across the city. Many schools and universities have shifted to remote learning for the week, and truck and heavy vehicle entry into the city has been banned.

In a separate development tied to the broader regional conflict, a new 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon went into effect Friday, bringing a pause to cross-border violence that drew Lebanon into the war after the Iran-aligned militant group Hezbollah launched rocket fire in support of Tehran. A U.S. State Department official confirmed to AFP that a second round of peace talks between Israel and Lebanon, which have no formal diplomatic relations, will be held in Washington this Thursday. Sporadic violence has continued along the border despite the truce, and the Israeli military has warned Lebanese civilians against returning to dozens of villages in southern Lebanon, claiming ongoing Hezbollah activities violate the ceasefire terms. According to the latest count from a Lebanese government body, Israeli attacks on Lebanon have killed at least 2,387 people since the outbreak of the war.