Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
While Chinese divers kept their dominance in the diving event, host Germany jumps into the limelight with its strong performance at the Rhine-Ruhr 2025 FISU World University Games.
Wang Weiying brought China its sixth diving gold on Monday with a wire-to-wire victory on 344.25 points in the women’s 3m springboard. Her teammate Qu Zhixin completed a one-two finish for China with silver at 318.55, while Germany’s Lena Hentschel and Jette Muller thrilled the home crowd by taking bronze and fourth place, respectively.
A golden Monday capped a near-perfect week for Wang, who has two golds and one silver in Berlin. The lone blemish came in the 10m platform competition where she finished runner-up to fellow Chinese Lu Wei.
Qu Zhixin of China competes in the women’s 3m springboard. [photo:xinhua]
“The environment is amazing. I am very happy to be able to compete in so many different events,” Wang said.
After five competition days, China has collected six gold and six silver medals in diving, while host Germany has three golds, two silvers and three bronzes under its belt – compared to just two silvers at the previous Games held in Chengdu two years ago.
The 11-strong German roster includes five Olympians, with Hentschel arriving in Berlin as a Tokyo 2020 bronze medalist.
“The German divers are looking to use home-crowd advantage to better their fourth place on the Chengdu Games medal table in 2023, when they claimed two silver medals,” the FISU’s official preview noted.
“Considering we are competing away from home and the hosts place great emphasis on diving, the results so far are already very good,” said Fu Yuchao, leader of the Chinese diving team. “There are still some regrets, but overall the team has performed to expectation.”
The diving competition of the Rhine-Ruhr Universiade will conclude on Wednesday with four gold medals up for grabs.
As the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine continues and the situation in Ukraine remains volatile, the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) has strengthened its capacity to combine near to real-time situational awareness, data collection in the field and forecasting. The aim is to go beyond reactive analysis and ensure Member States are equipped to manage not just today’s asylum-related migration flows, but tomorrow’s as well.
In July 2025, with no end to the conflict in Ukraine in sight, the fighting is going on with increasing intensity. In June, Ukraine’s Security Service launched “Operation Spiderweb,” targeting Russian strategic bombers, followed by a maritime drone strike that damaged the Kerch Bridge and drone attacks that forced the Russian authorities to temporarily close Moscow airports. Russia responded with intensified aerial attacks on Kyiv and other cities. Simultaneously, ceasefire talks in Türkiye produced no progress beyond a prisoner exchange. These developments reinforce the urgency of equipping EU countries with modern, mixed-method tools to anticipate and prepare for any potential renewed displacement, ensuring that Member States remain responsive in a volatile geopolitical environment.
A multifaceted approach to intelligence
The EUAA’s intelligence capability includes Human Intelligence (HUMINT) gathered through the EUAA’s Surveys with Arriving Migrants from Ukraine (SAM–UKR), a flexible tool used to collect testimonies from persons displaced by the Russian invasion who are currently in the EU+. It captures experiences, intentions and aspirations, which in turn allows the Agency to understand push factors, the scale of integration in host countries and possible return prospects.
Separately, Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) enables the EUAA to monitor near to real-time conflict events and geopolitical developments that may trigger migration — including, for example, the Russian bombardment of Ukraine’s power infrastructure. These various types of qualitative insights are then combined with EUAA’s own quantitative data to produce short-term forecasts according to the needs of Member States and European policymakers.
Investing in cooperation with local partners
In Ukraine, the EUAA is collaborating with a Ukrainian public opinion company, Gradus Research, to gather real-time insights on migration intentions. The collaboration offers insights gathered within Ukraine, before displacements materialise at the EU external border. Gradus’ ability to deliver real-time assessments has enabled the EUAA to monitor changes in sentiment following key military and political events.
By systematically monitoring migration intentions and pull & push factors, we enable the EUAA and Member States to base their preparedness on real-time intelligence — supporting evidence-based planning in a fluid and high-stakes context. Our survey technology allows us to deliver results in real time, which is a crucial factor in a rapidly changing environment and the emergence of new and evolving risks for the population. Therefore, we don’t collect abstract migration sentiments (like a general desire to migrate at some point in the future), but rather capture real, current sentiments on the ground
Evgeniya BLYZNYUKSociologist, CEO & Founder of Gradus Research
Protection in a Dynamic Environment
In 2025, the share of the population intending to leave Ukraine within the next six months remains at 13 % of respondents. Poland and Germany continue to be the most preferred destinations, primarily due to job opportunities, family ties, access to benefits and support (with a significant increase compared to the previous wave), and safety. Key push factors — such as threats to life and the risk of occupation — have remained stable since the beginning of 2025. Despite ongoing risks, including hostilities and economic concerns, 71 % of respondents plan to stay in Ukraine if the active phase of the war ends.
At the end of May 2025, around 4.4 million people were benefitting from temporary protection in the EU+. While Germany and Poland hosted the largest in absolute numbers, Czechia hosted the most beneficiariesper capita. These figures illustrate not only the scale of current protection efforts, but also the need for continued investment in preparedness — including intelligence-led, forward-looking tools that can anticipate renewed displacement, returns, or onward movement.
As Russian attacks on Ukraine continue, the Council has recently extended temporary protection for another year, until March 2027. At the same time, Ukrainians in Europe consider more permanent alternatives to temporary protection like applying for asylum. Clearly, understanding the views of displaced Ukrainians will play a crucial role for any successful transition. The EUAA has the tools, partnerships and expertise needed to inform policy makers, enabling them to navigate it.
Background
The EUAA’s intelligence-led activities are anchored in its legal mandate to gather and analyse information on root causes, migratory and refugee flows in support of early warning and Member State preparedness. They feed into scenario development, capacity planning, and contingency plans including regular updates to asylum trends, structured foresight exercises, and the integration of both traditional and non-traditional data sources. Thus, the EUAA supports Member States with agile, evidence-driven tools in the dynamic operational landscape of the ongoing war in Ukraine.
There are lots of reasons why people work extra hours. In some jobs, it’s the only way to cover the workload. In others, the pay is poor, so people need to work extra time. And in others still, working back late or on weekends is encouraged and rewarded, explicitly and implicitly.
Those employees who do the extra hours, willingly and without complaint, are seen as hungry and ambitious. A view expressed in some workplaces is simply “that’s what everyone does”.
But what if we discovered that people – at least in heterosexual couple households – can only work long hours at their partner’s expense? Would it still be OK for workplaces to expect people to work longer than our standard full time week, and incentivise them for doing so?
Our study, published this month in the journal Social Indicators Research, found in Australian couple households where both partners had jobs, men earned on average $536 more than women every week. In Germany, the weekly gender earnings gap was €400.
About half of that income gap in both Australia and Germany was due to men working long hours and women effectively subsidising them to do this by cutting back their own work hours.
It’s tough to combine a job with running a household, but one person working extra hours makes this almost impossible. In households, a job with long work hours means someone else must pick up the rest. This includes caring for kids, running the house, walking the dog, cooking dinner and more.
What happens when one partner has to pick up the rest
One in three Australian employees care for children, and 13% of part-time and 11% of all full-time employees give care to someone else, often an ageing parent. This has knock-on effects which are impacting many people in our workforce. The extra hours don’t come out of nowhere, but they have been invisible in what we think of as fair.
In our study, we costed this knock-on in terms of earnings and work hours gaps in households, and what this could mean for equality of income.
We studied between 3,000 and 6,000 heterosexual couples from 2002 to 2019 in Australia and in Germany, estimating their weekly earnings and work hour gaps.
To understand the dynamics in the household, we used a two-stage instrumental variable Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition – a method that allowed us to model earnings gaps as a function of both partners’ paid and unpaid hours. This helped us estimate what the gender gap in hours and earnings would look like if time weren’t being “borrowed” or “subsidised” within the home.
Changing the hours men and women work
The results were striking. We showed how one partner’s paid work hours can increase when the other partner does more unpaid (household) work. This ability for partners to “trade” hours was one of the most important drivers of the work hour (and earning) gap.
So we re-ran models and recalculated what hours a woman and a man would work if one partner wasn’t “subsidising” the other’s work hours. The model showed women would work more hours and men would work fewer when there was a more even split of home duties. The weekly work hour gap shrank to 5.1 hours in Australia (a 58% reduction) and 6.9 hours in Germany (a 47% reduction).
The impact on earnings was just as significant. The gender earnings gap would shrink by 43% in Australia and 25% in Germany.
The gender earnings and work hours gaps are well known, and these are not the only countries facing this problem. What hasn’t been shown before is how it works in households to drive gender inequality across the nation.
The rest of the earnings gap is largely due to differences in pay across male and female industries and jobs, and the persistent gender pay gap in hourly pay.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the average gender gap in hourly pay is 11.1%. This gap reflects the fact, hour for hour, women are generally paid less. The average weekly earnings gap is much larger at 26.4%.
As things currently stand in Australia, women earn only three-quarters of what men do, a shortfall similar to that in (Germany).
One part of the earnings gap is the gap in the hourly pay rate, but the other is the gap in how many hours are worked. We show how this would shrink if men worked hours that were closer to Australia’s legislated 38-hour week, and workplaces encouraged them to do so.
Closing the gap
If we stopped the time-shifting to partners that our culture of long working hours relies upon, we estimate that in a heterosexual couple, men’s hours would average closer to 41 a week, and women’s would increase to 36.
We could change the long and short hour compromise that so many households have to face. This change could make a huge difference to gender inequality, and women would no longer carry such a large economic cost from their partner’s work.
Maybe reining in excess hours should be the new focus for gender equality.
Lyndall Strazdins has received funding from the Australian Research Council to undertake research on this topic.
She has served as an expert witness on work hours and well-being for the State and Federal Court.
Liana Leach receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund. She is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU).
Tinh Doan receives funding from the Australia ComCare and the Department of Health and Aged Care for other works that are not related to this article.
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
The Army recently announced that 29 museums will be closed or consolidated, including the Lewis Army Museum at JBLM
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, sent a letter to U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, demanding answers as to why the Lewis Army Museum at Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) will be closed, and shared how important the museum is for celebrating the rich history of military service at JBLM. The Lewis Army Museum is the only certified U.S. Army Museum on the entire West Coast.
The Army recently announced that 29 museums will be closed or consolidated, in order to direct more resources toward “readiness and lethality,” the list includes the Lewis Army Museum at JBLM. The Army Museum Enterprise provided no explanation when it announced it will shrink from 41 museums at 29 locations, to 12 field museums and four training support facilities at 12 locations.
Senator Murray began her letter by detailing the storied history of the soldiers the museum honors, “JBLM is named after Meriwether Lewis of the Lewis and Clark expedition and was established in 1917 to train the 91st ‘Wild West’ Division before deploying to Germany in World War I. Since then, JBLM soldiers have continued to serve bravely in all military conflicts. JBLM is home to Audie Leon Murphy, who earned fame as the most highly decorated American Soldier of World War II , and General John Shalikashvili, who later became the 13th Chairman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. JBLM is full of rich history that deserves to be celebrated, not brushed to the side.”
“Educating our communities on the Army’s history is key to instilling national pride amongst servicemembers and the general public,” Senator Murray continued. “In fact, Secretary Hegseth has been very vocal about preserving our military’s history for the sake of improving morale. In the dedication of his book, Modern Warriors, Hegseth said ‘the legacy of our warriors is worth of elevation – a reflection of what we should really value.’ By closing the Lewis Army Museum, you are doing the exact opposite by not honoring the incredible sacrifice and service the men and women who have been stationed at JBLM have provided. You have said that ‘telling that story [of the Army] will directly lead to a recruiting boom,’ and there seems to be no better way to continue to tell that story than to continue to keep these important museums open to the public.”
Senator Murray concluded her letter by pushing for answers and emphasizing that JBLM was never consulted or given the opportunity to provide input if this decision was made to cut costs, writing: “According to the U.S. Army Center of Military Housing, the decision was made as a cost-cutting measure so the Army can direct more resources toward ‘readiness and lethality’ and will save $114 million over 10 years. Yet this decision comes at a time when President Trump is requesting a historically high defense budget of $1.01 trillion for fiscal year 2026, a 13.4 percent increase compared to fiscal year 2025. If this decision was made for cost-saving measures, JBLM was never consulted or given the opportunity for input. Colonel Kent Park, the outgoing garrison commander, said he heard of the closure through the media, and the closure was never discussed with him.”
Full text of the letter is available HERE, and below:
The Honorable Daniel Driscoll
Secretary of the Army
1600 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-1600
July 21, 2025
Dear Secretary Driscoll:
I am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the Army’s decision to shut down and consolidate 29 of its 41 military museums across the country, including the Lewis Army Museum, which honors the soldiers of Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) in my home state of Washington. JBLM is named after Meriwether Lewis of the Lewis and Clark expedition and was established in 1917 to train the 91st “Wild West” Division before deploying to Germany in World War I.Since then, JBLM soldiers have continued to serve bravely in all military conflicts. JBLM is home to Audie Leon Murphy, who earned fame as the most highly decorated American Soldier of World War II, and General John Shalikashvili, who later became the 13th Chairman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. JBLM is full of rich history that deserves to be celebrated, not brushed to the side.
In 1973, JBLM established the Lewis Army Museum to honor its soldiers and educate the public on the value of service. Located in the Red Shield Inn, the building was originally built during World War I by the Salvation Army to accommodate soldiers and their families and it was converted into a museum in 1973. Today, the Lewis Army Museum is the only certified U.S. Army Museum on the entire West Coast. It has an extensive display spanning from decorated artillery shells made in the trenches during World War I to pocket guides given to servicemembers before they deployed to Vietnam. It also showcases military vehicles, vintage uniforms, weapons, art, and other memorabilia donated by local veterans in the Puget Sound area.
Educating our communities on the Army’s history is key to instilling national pride amongst servicemembers and the general public. In fact, Secretary Hegseth has been very vocal about preserving our military’s history for the sake of improving morale. In the dedication of his book, Modern Warriors, Hegseth said “the legacy of our warriors is worth of elevation – a reflection of what we should really value.” By closing the Lewis Army Museum, you are doing the exact opposite by not honoring the incredible sacrifice and service the men and women who have been stationed at JBLM have provided. You have said that “telling that story [of the Army] will directly lead to a recruiting boom,” and there seems to be no better way to continue to tell that story than to continue to keep these important museums open to the public.
According to the U.S. Army Center of Military Housing, the decision was made as a cost-cutting measure so the Army can direct more resources toward “readiness and lethality” and will save $114 million over 10 years. Yet this decision comes at a time when President Trump is requesting a historically high defense budget of $1.01 trillion for fiscal year 2026, a 13.4 percent increase compared to fiscal year 2025. If this decision was made for cost-saving measures, JBLM was never consulted or given the opportunity for input. Colonel Kent Park, the outgoing garrison commander, said he heard of the closure through the media, and the closure was never discussed with him.
JBLM’s community is proud of its history and continued service to our nation and our servicemembers. Without an explanation given for this announcement, I request comprehensive answers to the following questions before August 11, 2025:
What is the annual operating cost of the Lewis Army Museum?
What processes and evaluations did the Army undertake to inform the decision to close the Lewis Army Museum?
What is the plan to provide the Army Veterans located on the West Coast with a museum honoring their service to the nation?
Why was the Lewis Army Museum chosen to close and other military museums allowed to remain open?
What do you plan on doing with the artifacts in the Lewis Army Museum? Will the public still be able to see them somewhere after closure?
Was there a public comment period on the planned museum closure decision? If so, what was the timeline and what feedback did the Army receive from the community?
How is the Army planning to use the additional funds to enhance mission readiness and lethality?
Are there specific programs that will absorb the additional funding? If so, which ones?
Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and I look forward to your prompt and thorough response.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Liverpool have officially announced that they have reached an agreement with Eintracht Frankfurt over the signing of striker Hugo Ekitike in a deal worth 79 million pounds (106 million U.S. dollars).
Joe Scally (L) of Borussia Moenchengladbach vies with Hugo Ekitike of Eintracht Frankfurt during the first division of Bundesliga football match between Borussia Moenchengladbach and Eintracht Frankfurt in Moenchengladbach, Germany, Feb. 8, 2025. (Photo by Ulrich Hufnagel/Xinhua)
In a statement released on Monday, the club confirmed: “The Reds and the German outfit have struck a transfer deal said to be worth 69 million pounds plus 10 million pounds in add-ons.”
Ekitike is expected to travel to Merseyside later this week to undergo a medical and finalize a long-term contract with manager Arne Slot’s team.
The 23-year-old Frenchman was an unused substitute in Eintracht’s pre-season friendly on Saturday as negotiations regarding his future continued. Ekitike scored 22 goals in 48 appearances across all competitions last season, helping Eintracht secure qualification for the Champions League.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
British Defence Secretary John Healey on Monday announced the launch of a 50-day military support campaign for Ukraine, aligning with a recent warning issued by U.S. President Donald Trump to Russia.
Healey said on social media platform X that at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG) meeting held on Monday, participating countries reached a new agreement to supply critical air defence ammunition to Ukraine, “as part of a 50-day drive to arm Ukraine and force Putin to the negotiating table.”
Last week, Trump said that he had secured an agreement with NATO allies to facilitate large-scale arms deliveries to Ukraine. He also warned Russia that it would face a second round of tariffs if it fails to reach a peace deal within 50 days.
At the UDCG meeting, Healey affirmed Britain’s support, saying that Britain “backs this policy” and will fully participate to ensure its success, according to French news outlet AFP.
Healey also revealed that Britain and Germany have agreed to jointly provide air defence missiles to Ukraine. The partnership is part of a wider European initiative aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
According to a press release from the British Ministry of Defence on Monday, Britain has already delivered more than 150 million pounds (202.5 million U.S. dollars) worth of air defence missiles and artillery to Ukraine over the past two months. The country is also ramping up procurement efforts to provide hundreds more air defence missiles and thousands of artillery shells.
In total, Britain is expected to spend at least 700 million pounds on air defence and artillery support for Ukraine this year, including the 150 million pounds worth of equipment already delivered, according to the release. (
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
TEHRAN, July 21 (Xinhua) — Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Monday that a new round of talks between Tehran and the E3 group, comprising France, Britain and Germany, is planned to be held in Istanbul, Turkey on July 25.
The official said the talks would focus on lifting sanctions on Iran and issues related to the Iranian nuclear programme, with Tehran set out its demands “in all seriousness”. The meeting would be at deputy foreign minister level and would be attended by the EU deputy high representative for foreign affairs and security policy.
E. Baghaei criticized the three European countries that signed the 2015 nuclear deal for their “inappropriate” stance and silence in the face of Israel’s recent military “aggression” against Iran. The Iranian diplomat said these countries should be held accountable for their stance.
He also mentioned the E3’s threats to trigger the sanctions snapback mechanism, stressing that resorting to it is “senseless, illegal and immoral.”
The sanctions snapback mechanism is part of the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It allows other parties to reimpose all international sanctions if Iran fails to comply with the agreement.
Iran and the EU3 have held six rounds of talks since September last year, when delegations began dialogue on a range of issues including Tehran’s nuclear program and sanctions relief on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly session in New York. The latest round took place in Istanbul in mid-May.
In July 2015, Iran signed the JCPOA with six countries – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. Under the deal, Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
The pact commits to “protect the needs and interests of present and future generations through the actions stated in the pact.” These actions address the digital divide, inclusion, digital space that respects human rights and promotes responsible governance of artificial intelligence (AI).
Additionally, the Declaration on Future Generations includes 10 principles and some actions. The pact also encourages accelerated development of AI, while considering both its positive and negative aspects within a broader aim to protect human rights.
A 1972 image of the Earth taken during the Apollo 17 mission. Planetary justice means considering human and non-human life, Earth systems and responsible management of resources. (NASA)
While the pact acknowledges and builds on the Sustainable Development Goals, it does not adequately take into account the latest science that shows we have crossed many safe and just Earth system boundaries. There’s also a challenge here: if we were to meet everyone’s minimum needs as required by the social Sustainable Development Goals, we will cross boundaries further.
A human rights approach
The pact and its annexes make reference to justice, future generations and Africa. Justice is anchored in a human rights approach. The pact only mentions reducing harm in relation to digital platforms and explosive weapons, but this could be strengthened with the addition of the no-harm principle — not causing significant harm to human and non-human others — in other areas such as climate change. Other forms of justice are scarcely accounted for.
These include epistemic justice (or how different knowledge systems are included), and data justice (the right to create, control, access, apply and profit from data). Procedural justice — the right to information, decision-making, civic space and courts relating to the allocation of resources and responsibilities — is also vital.
The pact notes that “if we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown,” but it does not make reference to the latest science on planetary boundaries.
Climate justice
We argue that implementing the pact requires recognizing how boundaries, foundations and inequality are inextricably are linked together. The Earth Commission argues that safe planetary boundaries are not necessarily just. To minimize significant harm to others, it may be necessary to have more stringent targets.
For example, 1.5 C is the proposed safe climate boundary for climate change, while 1 C is the proposed just boundary since, at this level, already tens of millions of people are exposed to extreme heat and humidity. Eight safe and just boundaries for climate, water, nutrients, biosphere and aerosols have been identified, seven of which have been crossed.
In terms of foundations, theoretically, meeting people’s minimum needs would lead to further crossing these boundaries. We need to recognize that living within safe and just boundaries requires meeting everyone’s minimum needs.
This requires deploying efficient technologies and redistributing resources to make up the deficit. But governments are reluctant to take this approach, probably because it limits the use of resources and sinks.
Technological support
Living within climate boundaries will require a just transition. Globally, if we wish to remain below the safe climate boundary, we will have to completely stop using fossil fuels. Since most remaining fossil fuel reserves are in the developing world, this will put a heavy burden on them. At the same time, climate impacts are considerable, so finance for a just energy transformation is needed.
While the pact restates the importance of the 2030 agenda in bolstering sustainable development, it lacks a credible mechanism for monitoring whether the national pledges are implemented. This will require strong collaboration among policy, science and the private sector.
There is a wealth of information in Earth observations from space that can assist in monitoring progress. This information, if made available to researchers and policymakers, can be integrated into national, regional and global environmental risk assessments.
Digital twins are another technological development that can support these assessments. The European Commission’s Digital Twin of the Ocean, for example, is a virtual model. It integrates diverse ocean data sources and leverages the power of big data, advanced computing and AI to provide real-time insights and scenario simulations under a variety of conditions. Such systems can enhance our ability to cope with environmental challenges.
Finally, the pact calls for urgent, predictable and stable funding for the UN and developing countries. This will enable UN bodies to deliver services and administer programs in accordance with international law. The UN Secretariat is facing a severe “cash flow crisis,” as major contributors are paying too late or too little.
The UN Honour Roll lists member states that have paid membership fees in full: 151 of 193 countries paid in full, but only 51 of them on time in 2024. Among 13 countries with assessed fees of more than US$50 million, only Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, Germany and Italy paid on time.
With most members paying late, and large ones not paying till later or only partially, this severely constrains the ability of the UN to provide planned, impartial and inclusive services to the global community.
We need redistribution of resources. Until then, it is critical that new technologies such as AI are deployed to help us return within the boundaries and meet minimum needs without exacerbating climate change through its fossil fuels dependence. The UN plays a critical role in facilitating human, environmental and earthy system justice, but shrinking resources hamper its ability to deliver.
Joyeeta Gupta receives funding from European Research Council and the Dutch Research Council (NWO).
Japan held elections for its upper house, the House of Councillors, on July 20. The vote proved a challenge for the conservative ruling Liberal Democratic party (LDP), which has been reeling from corruption scandals, rising prices and US tariffs on Japanese exports.
The ruling coalition, composed of the LDP and its junior partner, Kōmeitō, lost its majority in the house. While the centre-left Constitutional Democratic party maintained its position as the largest opposition group, the breakout success of the election was that of Sanseitō, an ultranationalist populist party.
Sanseitō successfully framed immigration as a central issue in the election campaign, with the provocative slogan “Japanese First”. The party won 14 seats in the 248-seat chamber, a substantial jump from the single seat it won in the last election in 2022.
Sanseitō calls itself a party of “ordinary Japanese citizens with the same mindset who came together”. It was formed in 2020 by Sōhei Kamiya, a conservative career politician who served as a city councillor in Suita, a city in Osaka Prefecture, before being elected to the House of Councillors.
Although Sanseitō was initially known for its stance against the COVID-19 vaccine, it has more recently campaigned on an anti-foreigner and anti-immigration platform. The party, which also holds three seats in the powerful lower house, has quickly gained seats in regional and national elections. It most recently won three seats in Tokyo’s prefectural elections in June 2025.
Sanseitō is “anti-globalist”, urging voters to feel proud of their ethnicity and culture. Polls suggest the party is popular among younger men aged between 18 and 30.
Throughout the most recent election campaign, Kamiya repeatedly spread far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation. This included arguing multinational corporations caused the pandemic, as well as that foreigners commit crimes en masse and can avoid paying inheritance tax. Social media has amplified Sanseitō’s xenophobic messaging.
Sanseitō’s electoral success is reminiscent of other right-wing populist parties across Europe and North America, which also place immigration as a core issue.
Kamiya denies being a xenophobe. But he has expressed support for the Republican party in the US, Reform in the UK, Alternativ für Deutschland in Germany and Rassemblement National in France. Echoing other right-wing populist leaders, Kamiya has promised tax cuts, home-grown industries, regulation of foreigners and patriotic education.
However, while Sanseitō rides the global wave of right-wing populism, it also has deeply Japanese roots. Following Japan’s defeat in the second world war, a distinct current of right-wing thought developed, defending “traditional values” and glorifying Japan’s imperial past.
Tensions have flared periodically over issues such as history education and official visits to Yasukuni Shrine, where those who died in service of Japan – including military leaders convicted of war crimes – are commemorated. There have also been disputes around the memorialisation of so-called “comfort women”, who were forced into sex slavery by Japanese forces before and during the war.
Building on these currents, Sanseitō represents a new generation of Japanese conservatism, not just an emulation of foreign populist leaders.
What happens next?
Sanseitō’s rise could have a pivotal influence on Japan’s political landscape. While the prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, has indicated he will not resign, the ruling coalition has now lost control of both houses. Ishiba may need to seek support from other parties and may face leadership challenges.
He also must respond to issues Sanseitō has raised. LDP policymakers are now aware of public anxieties surrounding migration, excessive tourism and cultural integration. Seeking to co-opt some of Sanseitō’s proposals, the government has already banned tourists from driving and set up a new government agency to address concerns about non-Japanese nationals. It has also pledged to reduce illegal immigration to zero.
But the government is facing steep economic and demographic challenges, such as US tariffs, a rapidly ageing and declining population, and a record-low birth rate. So it cannot afford to cut immigration dramatically. Policymakers will have to balance economic needs with hardening public attitudes towards foreigners.
It’s not just immigration that will be at stake. Ishiba will need to navigate wedge issues that could split the LDP’s conservative support base. These include same-sex marriage, the use of separate surnames by married couples, and female succession to the throne.
It’s too early to say whether Sanseitō can sustain its momentum. Numerous populist leaders in Japan before Kamiya have succeeded in turning mistrust of the political class into votes at the ballot box. However, few have been able to translate it into meaningful political change across multiple election cycles.
For instance, Shinji Ishimaru made headlines in 2024 after placing second in the race for Tokyo governor. But his Path to Reform party, which promised educational reform, struggled in the latest election. Reiwa Shinsengumi, the left populist party led by Tarō Yamamoto, also enjoyed success in previous elections but remains small.
Only time will tell if Sanseitō will become a major political party or yet another minority group on the fringes. But it’s clear anti-immigration populism has arrived in Japan. And it looks like it’s here to stay.
Rin Ushiyama does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
July 21, 2025 – Ottawa, Ontario – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
Today, the Honourable David McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, participated in the 29th Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG) meeting, hosted by the United Kingdom and Germany. The meeting was held virtually and brought together representatives from more than 50 countries.
During the meeting, Minister McGuinty announced that Canada will be donating an additional $20 million to support the Leopard 2 Maintenance and Repair facility in Poland. This donation comes from the Government of Canada’s 2025-26 investment for military assistance to Ukraine.
Minister McGuinty also reaffirmed that Canada is providing an additional $2 billion in military assistance to Ukraine, highlighting Prime Minister Carney’s announcement last month at the 2025 G7 Leaders’ Summit. This brings Canada’s total commitment of military assistance to $6.5 billion since February 2022.
The Minister also noted that the delivery of Armoured Combat Support Vehicles to the Polish logistics hub will begin in August 2025. Training is underway and the delivery of all 50 vehicles will be completed before the end of this year.
Canada continues to work closely with Allies and partners to provide Ukraine with the comprehensive military aid that it needs as quickly as possible.
Lucy Williams, left, and Dr Katrina McDonald in their GB Students kit ahead of the World University Games
Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) is set to play a key role in the GB Students’ medal charge at the World University Games, taking place in the Rhine-Ruhr region of Germany.
ARU student and top-ranked British judoka Lucy Williams is part of the three-woman judo squad, which is being coached by ARU lecturer Dr Katrina McDonald, and the pair fly out to Germany today.
The World University Games is one of the largest multi-sports events to be staged this year, attracting around 8,500 student athletes and officials from over 150 countries.
Lucy has represented Great Britain at senior level and is currently ranked as Britain’s number one in the over 78kg category. She’s studying for a Masters in Physiotherapy at ARU’s Cambridge campus, having originally completed a BSc degree in Sport and Exercise Therapy at ARU.
Lucy won a bronze medal last summer at the European University Games in Hungary, and she’s joined in the GB Students women’s judo squad this week by Tatum Keen and Summer Shaw.
“I am super excited for the three athletes selected. Even though it’s a small team, the judoka are of excellent calibre, and all are looking to medal. It’s a high-level tournament with current Senior World Champions in the event.
“Keeping a high level of training whilst studying is commendable but in judo, as a combat sport, it is truly remarkable. The athletes have worked really hard for this opportunity, and I am delighted to be able to assist in this part of their judo journey.”
Dr Katrina McDonald, Senior Lecturer in Sports Coaching at ARU and the squad’s coach
The World University Games have a long history – the first precursor event to the Games, the International Universities Championships, took place in Paris in 1923 – and the biennial event was last held in Chengdu, China in 2023.
Judo is one of 18 different sports being contested at the World University Games, and the judo competition begins in the city of Essen on Wednesday.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin (HKETO Berlin) sponsored the 17th International Dragon Boat Federation World Dragon Boat Racing Championships (IDBF World Championships) held in Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany, from July 14 to 20 (Berlin time).
The one-week competition brought together over 4 000 athletes from 33 countries and regions, showcasing the global appeal of dragon boat racing. The Acting Director of HKETO Berlin, Mr Billy Leung, supported Hong Kong team’s competition and delivered a speech at the event dinner, highlighting Hong Kong as a centre for international major sports events.
“Hong Kong is a centre for major sports events. Every year, our annual Hong Kong International Dragon Boat Races attract athletes from around the world, uniting top competitors in a thrilling celebration of athleticism and culture.”
This year, the Hong Kong delegation won a total of eight medals, namely one gold, three silver and four bronze medals. Hong Kong will host the next IDBF World Championships in 2027. The closing ceremony held on July 20 was concluded with a symbolic flag handover from the event organisers to the Hong Kong delegation.
About HKETO Berlin
HKETO Berlin is the official representative of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government in commercial relations and other economic and trade matters in Austria as well as Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Switzerland.
On Monday (21 July 2025) NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte took part in an online meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG). The meeting was hosted by the German Minister of Defence, Boris Pistorius, and the UK Defence Secretary, John Healey.
Speaking to Defence Ministers who joined for the meeting, the Secretary General highlighted the initiative that he and US President Donald J Trump announced last week to boost support for Ukraine by opening additional US assets to Ukraine through investment by Allies in Europe and Canada. This new initiative is open-ended and has already seen numerous Allies express interest in contributing. It complements a range of other initiatives through which Allies support Ukraine and provides new access to US equipment and technology that Ukraine has requested for urgent delivery. This voluntary effort will be coordinated by NATO, given the experience and infrastructure the Alliance provides, including through its command in Wiesbaden, Germany – NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) – that is already coordinating support for Ukraine and has logistical hubs in the eastern part of the Alliance. The UDCG will also continue to play a vital role.
This initiative and others bring together the three key decisions made by leaders at the NATO Summit in The Hague just a few weeks ago: increasing defence investment, ramping up defence production, and supporting Ukraine. The aim of all Allied security assistance to Ukraine is to bring the conflict to a just and lasting end as quickly as possible.
“India is on the Moon,” S. Somanath, chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, announced in August 2023. The announcement meant India had joined the short list of countries to have visited the Moon, and the applause and shouts of joy that followed signified that this achievement wasn’t just a scientific one, but a cultural one.
India’s successful lunar landing prompted celebrations across the country, like this one in Mumbai. AP Photo/Rajanish Kakade
With more countries joining the evolving space economy, many of our colleagues in space strategy, policy ethics and law have celebrated the democratization of space: the hope that space is now more accessible for diverse participants.
Major players like the U.S., the European Union and China may once have dominated space and seen it as a place to try out new commercial and military ventures. Emerging new players in space, like other countries, commercial interests and nongovernmental organizations, may have other goals and rationales. Unexpected new initiatives from these newcomers could shift perceptions of space from something to dominate and possess to something more inclusive, equitable and democratic.
We address these emerging and historical tensions in a paper published in May 2025 in the journal Nature, in which we describe the difficulties and importance of including nontraditional actors and Indigenous peoples in the space industry.
Continuing inequalities among space players
Not all countries’ space agencies are equal. Newer agencies often don’t have the same resources behind them that large, established players do.
The U.S. and Chinese programs receive much more funding than those of any other country. Because they are most frequently sending up satellites and proposing new ideas puts them in the position to establish conventions for satellite systems, landing sites and resource extraction that everyone else may have to follow.
Sometimes, countries may have operated on the assumption that owning a satellite would give them the appearance of soft or hard geopolitical power as a space nation – and ultimately gain relevance.
Small satellites, called CubeSats, are becoming relatively affordable and easy to develop, allowing more players, from countries and companies to universities and student groups, to have a satellite in space. NASA/Butch Wilmore, CC BY-NC
In reality, student groups of today can develop small satellites, called CubeSats, autonomously, and recent scholarship has concluded that even successful space missions may negatively affect the international relationships between some countries and their partners. The respect a country expects to receive may not materialize, and the costs to keep up can outstrip gains in potential prestige.
Environmental protection and Indigenous perspectives
Usually, building the infrastructure necessary to test and launch rockets requires a remote area with established roads. In many cases, companies and space agencies have placed these facilities on lands where Indigenous peoples have strong claims, which can lead to land disputes, like in western Australia.
Many of these sites have already been subject to human-made changes, through mining and resource extraction in the past. Many sites have been ground zero for tensions with Indigenous peoples over land use. Within these contested spaces, disputes are rife.
Because of these tensions around land use, it is important to include Indigenous claims and perspectives. Doing so can help make sure that the goal of protecting the environments of outer space and Earth are not cast aside while building space infrastructure here on Earth.
Some efforts are driving this more inclusive approach to engagement in space, including initiatives like “Dark and Quiet Skies”, a movement that works to ensure that people can stargaze and engage with the stars without noise or sound pollution. This movement and other inclusive approaches operate on the principle of reciprocity: that more players getting involved with space can benefit all.
Researchers have recognized similar dynamics within the larger space industry. Some scholars have come to the conclusion that even though the space industry is “pay to play,” commitments to reciprocity can help ensure that players in space exploration who may not have the financial or infrastructural means to support individual efforts can still access broader structures of support.
The downside of more players entering space is that this expansion can make protecting the environment – both on Earth and beyond – even harder.
The more players there are, at both private and international levels, the more difficult sustainable space exploration could become. Even with good will and the best of intentions, it would be difficult to enforce uniform standards for the exploration and use of space resources that would protect the lunar surface, Mars and beyond.
It may also grow harder to police the launch of satellites and dedicated constellations. Limiting the number of satellites could prevent space junk, protect the satellites already in orbit and allow everyone to have a clear view of the night sky. However, this would have to compete with efforts to expand internet access to all.
The amount of space junk in orbit has increased dramatically since the 1960s.
What is space exploration for?
Before tackling these issues, we find it useful to think about the larger goal of space exploration, and what the different approaches are. One approach would be the fast and inclusive democratization of space – making it easier for more players to join in. Another would be a more conservative and slower “big player” approach, which would restrict who can go to space.
The conservative approach is liable to leave developing nations and Indigenous peoples firmly on the outside of a key process shaping humanity’s shared future.
But a faster and more inclusive approach to space would not be easy to run. More serious players means it would be harder to come to an agreement about regulations, as well as the larger goals for human expansion into space.
Narratives around emerging technologies, such as those required for space exploration, can change over time, as people begin to see them in action.
Technology that we take for granted today was once viewed as futuristic or fantastical, and sometimes with suspicion. For example, at the end of the 1940s, George Orwell imagined a world in which totalitarian systems used tele-screens and videoconferencing to control the masses.
Earlier in the same decade, Thomas J. Watson, then president of IBM, notoriously predicted that there would be a global market for about five computers. We as humans often fear or mistrust future technologies.
However, not all technological shifts are detrimental, and some technological changes can have clear benefits. In the future, robots may perform tasks too dangerous, too difficult or too dull and repetitive for humans. Biotechnology may make life healthier. Artificial intelligence can sift through vast amounts of data and turn it into reliable guesswork. Researchers can also see genuine downsides to each of these technologies.
Space exploration is harder to squeeze into one streamlined narrative about the anticipated benefits. The process is just too big and too transformative.
To return to the question if we should go to space, our team argues that it is not a question of whether or not we should go, but rather a question of why we do it, who benefits from space exploration and how we can democratize access to broader segments of society. Including a diversity of opinions and viewpoints can help find productive ways forward.
Ultimately, it is not necessary for everyone to land on one single narrative about the value of space exploration. Even our team of four researchers doesn’t share a single set of beliefs about its value. But bringing more nations, tribes and companies into discussions around its potential value can help create collaborative and worthwhile goals at an international scale.
Tony Milligan receives funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 856543).
Adam Fish, Deondre Smiles, and Timiebi Aganaba do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
“India is on the Moon,” S. Somanath, chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, announced in August 2023. The announcement meant India had joined the short list of countries to have visited the Moon, and the applause and shouts of joy that followed signified that this achievement wasn’t just a scientific one, but a cultural one.
India’s successful lunar landing prompted celebrations across the country, like this one in Mumbai. AP Photo/Rajanish Kakade
With more countries joining the evolving space economy, many of our colleagues in space strategy, policy ethics and law have celebrated the democratization of space: the hope that space is now more accessible for diverse participants.
Major players like the U.S., the European Union and China may once have dominated space and seen it as a place to try out new commercial and military ventures. Emerging new players in space, like other countries, commercial interests and nongovernmental organizations, may have other goals and rationales. Unexpected new initiatives from these newcomers could shift perceptions of space from something to dominate and possess to something more inclusive, equitable and democratic.
We address these emerging and historical tensions in a paper published in May 2025 in the journal Nature, in which we describe the difficulties and importance of including nontraditional actors and Indigenous peoples in the space industry.
Continuing inequalities among space players
Not all countries’ space agencies are equal. Newer agencies often don’t have the same resources behind them that large, established players do.
The U.S. and Chinese programs receive much more funding than those of any other country. Because they are most frequently sending up satellites and proposing new ideas puts them in the position to establish conventions for satellite systems, landing sites and resource extraction that everyone else may have to follow.
Sometimes, countries may have operated on the assumption that owning a satellite would give them the appearance of soft or hard geopolitical power as a space nation – and ultimately gain relevance.
Small satellites, called CubeSats, are becoming relatively affordable and easy to develop, allowing more players, from countries and companies to universities and student groups, to have a satellite in space. NASA/Butch Wilmore, CC BY-NC
In reality, student groups of today can develop small satellites, called CubeSats, autonomously, and recent scholarship has concluded that even successful space missions may negatively affect the international relationships between some countries and their partners. The respect a country expects to receive may not materialize, and the costs to keep up can outstrip gains in potential prestige.
Environmental protection and Indigenous perspectives
Usually, building the infrastructure necessary to test and launch rockets requires a remote area with established roads. In many cases, companies and space agencies have placed these facilities on lands where Indigenous peoples have strong claims, which can lead to land disputes, like in western Australia.
Many of these sites have already been subject to human-made changes, through mining and resource extraction in the past. Many sites have been ground zero for tensions with Indigenous peoples over land use. Within these contested spaces, disputes are rife.
Because of these tensions around land use, it is important to include Indigenous claims and perspectives. Doing so can help make sure that the goal of protecting the environments of outer space and Earth are not cast aside while building space infrastructure here on Earth.
Some efforts are driving this more inclusive approach to engagement in space, including initiatives like “Dark and Quiet Skies”, a movement that works to ensure that people can stargaze and engage with the stars without noise or sound pollution. This movement and other inclusive approaches operate on the principle of reciprocity: that more players getting involved with space can benefit all.
Researchers have recognized similar dynamics within the larger space industry. Some scholars have come to the conclusion that even though the space industry is “pay to play,” commitments to reciprocity can help ensure that players in space exploration who may not have the financial or infrastructural means to support individual efforts can still access broader structures of support.
The downside of more players entering space is that this expansion can make protecting the environment – both on Earth and beyond – even harder.
The more players there are, at both private and international levels, the more difficult sustainable space exploration could become. Even with good will and the best of intentions, it would be difficult to enforce uniform standards for the exploration and use of space resources that would protect the lunar surface, Mars and beyond.
It may also grow harder to police the launch of satellites and dedicated constellations. Limiting the number of satellites could prevent space junk, protect the satellites already in orbit and allow everyone to have a clear view of the night sky. However, this would have to compete with efforts to expand internet access to all.
The amount of space junk in orbit has increased dramatically since the 1960s.
What is space exploration for?
Before tackling these issues, we find it useful to think about the larger goal of space exploration, and what the different approaches are. One approach would be the fast and inclusive democratization of space – making it easier for more players to join in. Another would be a more conservative and slower “big player” approach, which would restrict who can go to space.
The conservative approach is liable to leave developing nations and Indigenous peoples firmly on the outside of a key process shaping humanity’s shared future.
But a faster and more inclusive approach to space would not be easy to run. More serious players means it would be harder to come to an agreement about regulations, as well as the larger goals for human expansion into space.
Narratives around emerging technologies, such as those required for space exploration, can change over time, as people begin to see them in action.
Technology that we take for granted today was once viewed as futuristic or fantastical, and sometimes with suspicion. For example, at the end of the 1940s, George Orwell imagined a world in which totalitarian systems used tele-screens and videoconferencing to control the masses.
Earlier in the same decade, Thomas J. Watson, then president of IBM, notoriously predicted that there would be a global market for about five computers. We as humans often fear or mistrust future technologies.
However, not all technological shifts are detrimental, and some technological changes can have clear benefits. In the future, robots may perform tasks too dangerous, too difficult or too dull and repetitive for humans. Biotechnology may make life healthier. Artificial intelligence can sift through vast amounts of data and turn it into reliable guesswork. Researchers can also see genuine downsides to each of these technologies.
Space exploration is harder to squeeze into one streamlined narrative about the anticipated benefits. The process is just too big and too transformative.
To return to the question if we should go to space, our team argues that it is not a question of whether or not we should go, but rather a question of why we do it, who benefits from space exploration and how we can democratize access to broader segments of society. Including a diversity of opinions and viewpoints can help find productive ways forward.
Ultimately, it is not necessary for everyone to land on one single narrative about the value of space exploration. Even our team of four researchers doesn’t share a single set of beliefs about its value. But bringing more nations, tribes and companies into discussions around its potential value can help create collaborative and worthwhile goals at an international scale.
Tony Milligan receives funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 856543).
Adam Fish, Deondre Smiles, and Timiebi Aganaba do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers gather for a briefing before an enforcement operation on Jan. 27, 2025, in Silver Spring, Md. Associated Press
“They’re in unmarked vans, wearing masks, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons, no chance to mount a defense, not even a chance to kiss a loved one goodbye, just grabbed up by masked agents, shoved into those vans, and disappeared,” Walz added.
ICE, tasked with enforcing immigration policies, has dramatically increased the number of nationwide arrests of immigrants since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025. ICE’s arrests of immigrants have more than doubled in 38 states since then.
The Gestapo arrests a group of Jewish men hiding in a cellar in Poland in 1939, in what was possibly a staged German propaganda photo. Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Understanding the Gestapo
The Nazi regime established the Gestapo, short for the German phrase Geheime Staatspolizei, meaning secret state police, soon after Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Among other responsibilities, the Gestapo was tasked with investigating political crimes and monitoring opposition activity. It later enforced racial laws in Germany and across occupied Europe.
As part of its daily work, the Gestapo identified and monitored the regime’s political enemies. It arrested, interrogated, detained and tortured suspects and sent others to concentration camps. To identify suspects, it often relied on anonymous denunciations that came not only from zealous Nazis, but also from disgruntled neighbors or business competitors who tipped off the Gestapo to Jews and other people.
While the Gestapo was relatively small in terms of personnel, it projected an image of being, as one scholar wrote, “omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.”
It enforced the regime’s will and suppressed dissent not through sheer manpower but by creating a pervasive sense of fear. This aura of menace and terror has long outlived the Nazi regime itself.
ICE is set to expand its work in the next few years with an additional US$75 billion in funding that Congress appropriated in July as part of Trump’s tax and spending bill.
And while ICE focuses on immigration, the Gestapo had a more expansive role. It was responsible for suppressing all forms of political dissent, not just violations of immigration law.
There is technically more transparency around ICE’s work than the Gestapo’s, since ICE is a federal agency that is subject to its work and information being reviewed by politicians and the public alike. But in June 2020, the first Trump administration reclassified ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as a “security/sensitive agency.” This designation makes it harder for people to request and receive information about ICE’s work through Freedom of Information Act records requests.
Since World War II and the fall of the Nazi regime, the term Gestapo has become shorthand in the United States to describe police repression.
Using the word Gestapo to describe the worst possible authoritarian oppression has been popularized in popular movies in everything from the 1943 film “Casablanca” and “The Black Gestapo” in 1975 to “Inglourious Basterds” in 2009 and “Jojo Rabbit” in 2019.
Walz’s remarks in May, though provocative, were also far from isolated in politics. Politicians from both sides of the aisle, as well as political observers, regularly use Gestapo and Nazi metaphors to attack their opponents.
In 2022, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia famously confused the term Gestapo with gazpacho soup in a gaffe that went viral. “Now we have Nancy Pelosi’s gazpacho police spying on members of Congress,” she said.
In 2024, Trump accused President Joe Biden of running a “Gestapo administration” as the Justice Department prosecuted Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
Overall, mentions of the word Gestapo in social media increased by 184% between 2017 and 2024, according to the nonprofit group Foundation to Combat Antisemitism.
The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is among the organizations that have condemned making comparisons to the Holocaust and the Nazis for many reasons, including their historical inaccuracy and because they are insulting to people whose families remain scarred by the Holocaust.
A Paraguayan woman whose relative was detained by ICE agents scuffles with officers in the halls of an immigration court in New York City on July 16, 2025. Spencer Platt/Getty Images
What historical comparisons really say
Analogies can be useful for clarifying complex ideas. But especially when they stretch across decades and vastly different political contexts, they risk oversimplifying and trivializing history.
I believe that comparing ICE to the Gestapo is less a historical judgment than a reflection of modern anxiety – a fear that the U.S. is veering toward authoritarianism reminiscent of 1930s Germany.
If politicians and other public figures are looking for historical comparisons to modern law enforcement agencies that use severe tactics, there is, unfortunately, no shortage of options: the Soviet Union’s secret police agencies NKVDand KGB, Iran’s former secret police and intelligence agency SAVAK or East Germany’s Stasi, to name just a few.
All of those organizations denied suspects due process and grossly violated human rights in order to protect political regimes – but they don’t necessarily easily compare to ICE, either.
Still, politicians and political observers alike most often turn to the Gestapo and other Nazi references instead.
Ultimately, the Gestapo, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust serve as a powerful, shared cultural reference point. The catastrophes of World War II epitomize the worst possible outcomes of evil left unchecked.
They have become the master moral paradigm and an ethical compass for the world today. In an age of polarization, World War II and the Holocaust remain the mirror in which Americans examine their present.
Daniel H. Magilow received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (although DOGE cancelled the grant in April 2025).
He serves as Co-Editor-in-Chief of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, the journal of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies
For the uninitiated, fermented foods include anything that uses bacteria to break down organic matter into a new product. Look around an ordinary kitchen and you’ll almost certainly find something fermented: yoghurt (milk), beer and wine (grain/fruit) or vinegar (alcohol). Not all of these will give you the promised health boost, however, which comes from “live” ferments containing probiotic microbes, usually lactic acid bacteria. In alcohol and vinegar the fermenting bacteria die during the process.
The health benefits of fermented foods are widely promoted. Some advocates, like epidemiologist Tim Spector, suggest the gut microbiome is the key to our health, while others are more cautious: in essence, although kefir is certainly good for your gut, it isn’t a cure-all. Still, the research is ongoing and diversifying: one study has even suggested that probiotics could fight the less pleasant recent phenomenon of microplastics in our stomachs.
The future of fermented foods is definitely something to keep an eye on, but equally interesting is their long past and the different fermented food fashions we see over time.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Garum eventually lost its popularity in Europe during the Middle Ages, but fermented fish made a comeback in the 18th century. In Asia fish sauces had continued strong, and colonialism brought the south Asian fish sauce kê-chiap to Europe, alongside soy sauce (fermented soybeans). Salt-fermenting oysters and anchovies in this style became popular in England and North America, and people eventually branched out to preserving tomatoes – giving us modern ketchup.
Cabbage cultures
No discussion of fermentation would be complete without pickled vegetables. Today, the most talked-about fermented vegetable is the cabbage, in the form of kimchi and sauerkraut, thanks to its strong probiotic and vitamin C content.
The historical origins of these dishes are unclear. Online articles might tell you that pickled cabbage was first eaten by the builders of the Great Wall of China 2,000 years ago and brought to Europe in Genghis Khan’s saddlebags. These kinds of apocryphal stories should be taken with more than a grain of salt.
An illustration of the cultivation of grapes and winemaking in Ming dynasty China (1368–1644). Wellcome Collection
Still, as Jan Davison, author of Pickles: A Global History, writes, literary evidence suggests that salt pickling in general does have a long precedence. Pickled gourds were eaten in Zhou dynasty China around 3,000 years ago.
It’s hard to say when sauerkraut became a common dish, but the term was in use by the 16th century and was associated with Germany by the 17th. As to Korean kimchi, research suggests this style of preservation was practised by the 13th century, only using turnips rather than cabbage.
The popularity of radish and cabbage kimchi only came about in the 16th century, alongside the use of chilli peppers. Now an iconic aspect of this bright-red dish, peppers were not part of “Old World” diets before the Columbian exchange.
History reveals our long relationship with fermented food. Our pickling ancestors were more interested in food preservation than in their bacterial microbiome – a very modern concept. Looking to past practices might even help us innovate fermentation technologies, as recent research from the Vrije Universiteit Brussels shows. I’m not sure about bringing back fermented fish guts, but more pickled turnips doesn’t sound half bad.
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Serin Quinn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The European Union is exploring a broader set of possible counter-measures against the United States as prospects for an acceptable trade agreement with Washington fade, according to EU diplomats.
An increasing number of EU members, including Germany, are now considering using wide-ranging “anti-coercion” measures which would let the bloc target U.S. services and other sectors in the absence of a deal, diplomats say.
The European Commission, which negotiates trade agreements on behalf of the 27-member bloc, had appeared on course for a agreement in which the EU would still have faced a 10% U.S. tariff on most of its exports, with some concessions.
Such hopes now seem dashed after President Donald Trump’s threat to impose a 30% tariff by August 1, and following talks between EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic and U.S. counterparts in Washington last week.
Sefcovic, who has said a 30% tariff would “practically prohibit” transatlantic trade, delivered a sober report on the current state of play to EU envoys on Friday, diplomats told Reuters.
U.S. counterparts had come up with diverging solutions during his meetings, including a baseline rate that could be well above 10%, the EU diplomats added.
“Each interlocutor seemed to have different ideas. No one can tell (Sefcovic) what would actually fly with Trump,” one diplomat said.
Prospects of easing or removing 50% U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminium and 25% on cars and car parts appear limited.
‘NUCLEAR OPTION’
Washington has also rejected the EU’s demand for a “standstill” arrangement, whereby no further tariffs would be imposed after a deal is struck. The rationale, according to diplomats, is that Trump’s hands cannot be tied on national security, the basis of Section 232 trade investigations into pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and timber.
Accordingly, the mood has pivoted among EU countries, EU diplomats say, and they are more ready to react, even though a negotiated solution is their preferred option.
The EU has one package of tariffs on 21 billion euros ($24.5 billion) of U.S. goods that is currently suspended until August 6. The bloc must still decide on a further set of countermeasures on 72 billion euros of U.S. exports.
Discussions have also increased on using the EU’s wide-ranging “anti-coercion” instrument (ACI) that allows the bloc to retaliate against third countries that put economic pressure on member states to change their policies.
Brought in more with China in mind, it would allow the bloc to target U.S. services, limit U.S. companies’ access to public procurement or financial services markets or restrict U.S. investment.
France has consistently advocated using the ACI, but others have baulked at what some see as a nuclear option. Trump has warned he will retaliate if other countries take action against the United States.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said a week ago that the ACI was created for extraordinary situations, adding: “We are not there yet.”
The Commission would need a qualified majority of 15 countries making up 65% of the EU population to invoke it. It would not do so unless it was confident of passing it, but there are now growing signs of support building, with Germany among the countries saying it should be considered, EU diplomats say.
The European Union is exploring a broader set of possible counter-measures against the United States as prospects for an acceptable trade agreement with Washington fade, according to EU diplomats.
An increasing number of EU members, including Germany, are now considering using wide-ranging “anti-coercion” measures which would let the bloc target U.S. services and other sectors in the absence of a deal, diplomats say.
The European Commission, which negotiates trade agreements on behalf of the 27-member bloc, had appeared on course for a agreement in which the EU would still have faced a 10% U.S. tariff on most of its exports, with some concessions.
Such hopes now seem dashed after President Donald Trump’s threat to impose a 30% tariff by August 1, and following talks between EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic and U.S. counterparts in Washington last week.
Sefcovic, who has said a 30% tariff would “practically prohibit” transatlantic trade, delivered a sober report on the current state of play to EU envoys on Friday, diplomats told Reuters.
U.S. counterparts had come up with diverging solutions during his meetings, including a baseline rate that could be well above 10%, the EU diplomats added.
“Each interlocutor seemed to have different ideas. No one can tell (Sefcovic) what would actually fly with Trump,” one diplomat said.
Prospects of easing or removing 50% U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminium and 25% on cars and car parts appear limited.
‘NUCLEAR OPTION’
Washington has also rejected the EU’s demand for a “standstill” arrangement, whereby no further tariffs would be imposed after a deal is struck. The rationale, according to diplomats, is that Trump’s hands cannot be tied on national security, the basis of Section 232 trade investigations into pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and timber.
Accordingly, the mood has pivoted among EU countries, EU diplomats say, and they are more ready to react, even though a negotiated solution is their preferred option.
The EU has one package of tariffs on 21 billion euros ($24.5 billion) of U.S. goods that is currently suspended until August 6. The bloc must still decide on a further set of countermeasures on 72 billion euros of U.S. exports.
Discussions have also increased on using the EU’s wide-ranging “anti-coercion” instrument (ACI) that allows the bloc to retaliate against third countries that put economic pressure on member states to change their policies.
Brought in more with China in mind, it would allow the bloc to target U.S. services, limit U.S. companies’ access to public procurement or financial services markets or restrict U.S. investment.
France has consistently advocated using the ACI, but others have baulked at what some see as a nuclear option. Trump has warned he will retaliate if other countries take action against the United States.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said a week ago that the ACI was created for extraordinary situations, adding: “We are not there yet.”
The Commission would need a qualified majority of 15 countries making up 65% of the EU population to invoke it. It would not do so unless it was confident of passing it, but there are now growing signs of support building, with Germany among the countries saying it should be considered, EU diplomats say.
H.E. Dr. Rania Al-Mashat, Minister of Planning, Economic Development, and International Cooperation, received Ms. Reem Alabali-Radovan, Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development of Germany, at the Government Headquarters in New Alamein City during her visit to the Arab Republic of Egypt, within the framework of strengthening bilateral economic cooperation between the two countries. The meeting comes as a follow-up to the fruitful discussions held during the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (Ff4D) in Seville, Spain.
At the beginning of the meeting, H.E. Dr. Rania Al-Mashat welcomed the German Minister on her first visit to Egypt and wished her success in her mission in the new German government, emphasizing the Arab Republic of Egypt’s appreciation for for the Egyptian-German economic relations, which represent a strategic partnership that reflects the keenness to advancing mutual interests and promoting development efforts, whether through bilateral governmental partnership, German investments in Egypt, and development cooperation efforts, adding that this visit marks a milestone in the process of cooperation between the two countries and reflects the depth of bilateral relations and common vision towards achieving sustainable development and economic growth.
The two ministers discussed recent developments in Egyptian-German economic and investment relations, joint development projects, and explored new mechanisms for innovative financing, especially in light of the outcomes of the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development held in Seville, Spain, and the need for the international community to contribute more to financing development in developing countries and emerging economies. They also discussed the implementation of the European Investment Guarantee Mechanism (EFSD+), which comes in light of the Egypt-EU strategic partnership and contributes to increasing foreign direct investments to the local and foreign private sector in Egypt, in addition to the preparations for the convening of the 2025 Egyptian-German governmental negotiations.
The two sides also discussed the outcomes of the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development, noting the importance of implementing recommendations of the UN expert group report on addressing debt challenges in Global South countries, which included 11 outcomes, such as redirecting and replenishing existing resources from multilateral development banks and the IMF to enhance liquidity, adopting policies to extend maturities, financing debt buybacks, reducing debt servicing during crises, reforming the G20 Common Framework to include all middle-income countries, and updating IMF and World Bank debt sustainability analysis (DSA) to better reflect the situation of low- and middle-income countries, among other measures.
The Minister of Planning, Economic Development and International Cooperation also reviewed the key features of Egypt’s national narrative for economic development, which aims to achieve a structural transformation in the Egyptian economy towards tradable and exportable sectors by strengthening macroeconomic policies, encouraging foreign direct investment, promoting industrial development, and supporting labor market and employment policies, noting that Egyptian-German relations are reflected in achieving these objectives.
In this context, H.E. Dr. Al-Mashat praised the success of the Egyptian-German Debt Swap Program, where the Egyptian government succeeded in signing debt swap agreements with a total value of €340 million to finance various development projects across multiple sectors, including the new tranche of the debt swap program worth €100 million for the period 2024–2026, explaining that the program contributed to using the local currency equivalents of debt repayments to implement development projects in various sectors, including education and technical education, social protection, health, improving renewable energy supply. Ongoing coordination is underway to allocate €50 million from the program to support the energy pillar of the “NWFE” program, financing part of the local component for connecting ACWA Power (1) and (2) wind farms, with a total capacity of 1,100 MW. She reaffirmed that the Egyptian-German Debt Swap Program is a successful model for promoting financing for development.
The discussion also touched on the Financial Cooperation Agreement between Egypt and Germany, which was signed on May 25, 2025, and includes a €118 million financing package in the form of concessional financing and financial contributions (complementary grants), and includes funding for the following projects: financial support for the Comprehensive Technical Education Initiative and the support for the establishment of 25 Egyptian Centers of Excellence. In the same context, the two sides also discussed the the status of the governmental negotiations to be held between the Egyptian and German sides at the end of this year, expressing their aspiration to enhance economic and development cooperation between the two governments, as well as allocating new financial contributions to finance development projects aimed at driving economic growth.
Furthermore, H.E. Dr. Al-Mashat pointed out that, In light of the success of the country platform for the “NWFE” program and the international community’s expansion of the concept of national platforms to mobilize investments, work is currently underway, in coordination with the Ministry of Industry, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and other development partners, to launch the first national platform to mobilize financing and technical support for the industrial sector. This aligns with the national narrative for economic development to support the state’s efforts in localizing industry and encouraging domestic production, noting that the narrative sets a unified vision for the Egyptian economy to shift towards tradable sectors.
H.E. also highlighted the importance of strengthening South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation through German collaboration to stimulate efforts to transfer Egyptian expertise in the field of development to developing and emerging countries, noting Egypt’s keenness to advance the prospects of joint cooperation in the field of water within the “NWFE” program with the German side.
For her part, the German Minister expressed her aspiration to build on the Egyptian-German strategic relations and the progress achieved in recent years to further advance joint cooperation in light of regional and global challenges.
In the same context, the two sides addressed the Egyptian-German economic cooperation portfolio, which currently amounts to approximately €1.6 billion, aiming to implement various development projects across priority sectors that contribute to sustainable economic development including energy, climate, water supply, sanitation, irrigation, migration, solid waste management, and enhancing the competitiveness of the private sector, which are funded through multiple mechanisms, such as the Egyptian-German Debt Swap Program, concessional financing, financial contributions, and technical cooperation grants.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Ministry of Planning, Economic Development, and International Cooperation – Egypt.
UK ramps up Ukraine military support with £150 million of vital air defence and artillery ammunition delivered in just two months
More than £150 million worth of air defence and artillery has been delivered to Ukraine in the last two months, as procurement of hundreds of air defence missiles and thousands of rounds of artillery to provide to Ukraine ramps up.
At least £700 million of this support is set to be spent this year on air defence and artillery ammunition including the £150 million already delivered – with other funding going towards procuring more drones, as well as critical contracts to maintain and repair UK weapons already provided to Ukraine, allowing damaged equipment to return to the frontline as quickly as possible.
With Putin repeatedly targeting Ukraine’s cities in recent weeks with the most intense aerial bombardment since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in 2022, the UK is joining the US and European nations in ramping up deliveries of vital air defence.
The UK signed an agreement with Ukraine in May to provide an additional £2.26 billion worth of military support that will be repaid using funds raised from immobilised Russian assets, with more than two-thirds of the money allocated for procurement of weapons and munitions in just two months.
The deal delivers on this Government’s Plan for Change, by spending more on defence and creating jobs we will keep the country safe and boost economic growth.
The Defence Secretary will make the announcement at the 29th meeting of the 50-nation strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG) which he will chair virtually on Monday alongside German Defence Minister, Boris Pistorius.
Opening the UDCG meeting, Defence Secretary, John Healey MP, is expected to say:
Last week, President Trump announced a new plan for large scale NATO weapons transfers and committed to getting these “quickly distributed to the battlefield”.
The UK government backs this policy, and we will play our full part in its success to bolster Ukraine’s immediate fight and to support our own and wider European security.
Alongside this, the US has started the clock on a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace or face crippling economic sanctions.
As members of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, we need to step up in turn with a “50-day drive” to arm Ukraine on the battlefield and force Putin to the negotiating table.
It comes as the UK also completed delivery of nearly 50,000 military drones to Ukraine in under six months, in addition to 20,000 drones provided in the same period via the UK-Latvia co-led drone coalition, working closely with British defence companies to speed up procurement and delivery. The UK has committed £350 million this year to increase the supply of drones from 10,000 in 2024 to 100,000 in 2025.
At the meeting, the UK and Germany will announce a new agreement to partner in providing critical air defence ammunition to Ukraine. Germany will provide more than 170 million Euros worth of funding, which the UK will use to rapidly procure air defence ammunition via the UK-led International Fund for Ukraine for delivery in the coming months. This supports the aims of the Integrated Air and Missile Defence Capability Coalition, co-led by Germany and France.
The UK’s military support for Ukraine this year is more than ever before, with £4.5 billion allocated for this financial year. In March, the Prime Minister announced a historic £1.6 billion deal to provide more than five thousand air defence missiles for Ukraine.
Last month, the Prime Minister announced a landmark agreement between the UK and Ukraine to share battlefield technology, boosting Ukraine’s drone production and linking up the UK’s defence industry with the cutting-edge technology being developed on the front lines in Ukraine.
Question for written answer E-002656/2025/rev.1 to the Commission Rule 144 Gerald Hauser (PfE)
The Robert Koch Institute is the central federal institute in the field of infection control in the Federal Republic of Germany. Its expertise is also in great demand at international level and it works closely with institutions worldwide, including the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Since Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross-border threats to health, it has been determined that in the event of a pandemic, the Commission shall be responsible for coordinating all measures and there is to be an unrestricted exchange of information between EU Member States and the Commission. Austria’s former Minister of Health, for example, stated that the Austrian Government has been receiving the findings of the Robert Koch Institute’s COVID-19 crisis management unit since March 2020.
1.When did the Commission start receiving the findings of the Robert Koch Institute’s COVID-19 crisis management unit?
2.Since when have other Commission bodies or advisory committees – in particular the ECDC or the EMA – also been receiving the findings of the Robert Koch Institute’s COVID-19 crisis management unit?
3.What protocols, data, recommendations or information has the Robert Koch Institute received in return from the Commission or its bodies and advisory committees since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and since when?
Climate change knows no borders – as Kenya can tell you. The country is routinely hit by weather disasters.
“Every five to ten years, the country experiences either very heavy rains that cause floods or persistent drought,” says Reuben Chepng’ar, the senior manager in the Banking Supervision Department at the Central Bank of Kenya.
By the year 2030, Kenya aspires to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32%. This work is expected to cost $62 billion, but the government says it can raise only $8 billion. The investment shortfall of $54 billion is expected to come from the private sector and global development institutions, such as the European Investment Bank and the Internal Monetary Fund.
The Central Bank of Kenya is trying to help commercial banks support more green projects, enhance their climate-related risk reporting and attract foreign investors. The Central Bank used technical assistance from the European Investment Bank to create new climate investing and reporting guidelines in the country.
The European Investment Bank collaborated with Kenya’s Central Bank to develop two guidelines under a programme known as Greening Financial Systems technical assistance. EIB consultants worked with the Central Bank and local banks from 2023 to 2025 to develop regulations that commercial banks must follow for climate reporting and green investments.
The EIB support to the Central Bank was financed through the IKI Fund, an EIB trust fund backed by Germany to help climate action initiatives in emerging countries. The IKI Fund highlights the importance of international cooperation and knowledge sharing. Since climate risks transcend borders, coordinated action among global institutions is essential to ensure that local financial systems are aligned with global sustainability objectives. The European Investment Bank oversees a group of trust funds that are financed by EU countries and the European Commission. These funds provide grants, technical assistance and loan guarantees around the world.
Marjan Stojiljkovic was a team lead for the EIB technical assistance programme in Kenya. He is a climate finance consultant who offers training around the world to banks on sustainability reporting requirements and managing risks related to green lending.
“One objective of this project was how to internalise and measure the impacts of climate risk on banking operations in Kenya, because climate risks are real and they have impacts on the financial sector,” Stojiljkovic says.
After a series of meetings and workshops, the central bank created two sets of policy guidelines to help commercial banks improve climate risk reporting. One is the Kenya Green Finance Taxonomy and the other is the Climate Risk Management Framework. The green taxonomy is the fourth to be adopted in Africa, after South Africa, Rwanda and Ghana. The taxonomy is based on the EU green taxonomy that provides a clear classification system for sustainable economic activities and guidance on assessment and reporting. One aim is to prevent greenwashing, or the exaggeration of the benefits projects bring. Another aim is to increase sustainable investments, particularly by attracting foreign investment. The climate risk framework was designed to increase transparency in Kenya’s financial sector and encourage businesses to adopt more sustainable practices.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
TEHRAN, July 21 (Xinhua) — Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Sunday warned that Britain, France and Germany (the EU3 countries) should not undermine the credibility of the UN Security Council by triggering a “sanctions snapback mechanism” against Tehran.
A. Araghchi, in a post on the X social network, said these countries do not have the “legal, political and moral authority” to invoke the provisions of the 2015 nuclear deal or UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which allow for the reimposition of international sanctions if Iran is found to be in non-compliance with the agreement.
He noted that after the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement /Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action/ in 2018, Iran exhausted dispute resolution mechanisms before taking steps to correct the situation, and the EU3 countries failed to fulfill their obligations and even supported the US “maximum pressure” policy.
“The EU3 countries must refrain from any actions that will only deepen differences in the Security Council or have serious negative consequences for its work,” Araghchi said, noting that Iran is ready for “meaningful diplomacy,” but will resist hostile measures.
Earlier in the day, media reported that Iran and the six international mediators had agreed to resume talks on Tehran’s nuclear program.
The semi-official Tasnim news agency cited an “informed source” as saying that Iran and the six were holding consultations on the date and venue of the talks. The upcoming talks are expected to be held at the deputy foreign minister level. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Japan’s ruling coalition lost control of the upper house in an election on Sunday, further weakening Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s grip on power even as he vowed to remain party leader, citing a looming tariff deadline with the United States.
While the ballot does not directly determine whether Ishiba’s administration will fall, it heaps pressure on the embattled leader who also lost control of the more powerful lower house in October.
Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partner Komeito returned 47 seats, short of the 50 seats it needed to ensure a majority in the 248-seat upper chamber in an election where half the seats were up for grabs.
That comes on top of its worst showing in 15 years in October’s lower house election, a vote which has left Ishiba’s administration vulnerable to no-confidence motions and calls from within his own party for leadership change.
Speaking late on Sunday evening after exit polls closed, Ishiba told NHK he “solemnly” accepted the “harsh result”.
“We are engaged in extremely critical tariff negotiations with the United States…we must never ruin these negotiations. It is only natural to devote our complete dedication and energy to realizing our national interests,” he later told TV Tokyo.
Asked whether he intended to stay on as premier, he said “that’s right”.
Japan, the world’s fourth largest economy, faces a deadline of August 1 to strike a trade deal with the United States or face punishing tariffs in its largest export market.
The main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party finished second with 22 seats.
Meanwhile, the far-right Sanseito party announced its arrival in mainstream politics, adding 14 seats to one elected previously. Launched on YouTube a few years ago, the populist party found wider appeal with its ‘Japanese First’ campaign and warnings about a “silent invasion” of foreigners.
‘HAMMERED HOME’
Opposition parties advocating for tax cuts and welfare spending struck a chord with voters, as rising consumer prices – particularly a jump in the cost of rice – have sowed frustration at the government’s response.
“The LDP was largely playing defence in this election, being on the wrong side of a key voter issue,” said David Boling, a director at consulting firm Eurasia Group.
“Polls show that most households want a cut to the consumption tax to address inflation, something that the LDP opposes. Opposition parties seized on it and hammered that message home.”
The LDP has been urging fiscal restraint, with one eye on a very jittery government bond market, as investors worry about Japan’s ability to refinance the world’s largest debt pile. Any concessions the LDP must now strike with opposition parties to pass policy will only further elevate those nerves, analysts say.
“The ruling party will have to compromise in order to gain the cooperation of the opposition, and the budget will continue to expand,” said Yu Uchiyama, a politics professor at the University of Tokyo.
“Overseas investors’ evaluation of the Japan economy will also be quite harsh.”
Sanseito, which first emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic spreading conspiracy theories about vaccinations and a cabal of global elites, is among those advocating fiscal expansion.
But it is its tough talk on immigration that has grabbed attention, dragging once-fringe political rhetoric into the mainstream.
It remains to be seen whether the party can follow the path of other far-right parties with which it has drawn comparisons, such as Germany’s AfD and Reform UK.
“I am attending graduate school but there are no Japanese around me. All of them are foreigners,” said Yu Nagai, a 25-year-old student who voted for Sanseito earlier on Sunday.
“When I look at the way compensation and money are spent on foreigners, I think that Japanese people are a bit disrespected,” Nagai said after casting his ballot at a polling station in Tokyo’s Shinjuku ward.
Japan, the world’s fastest aging society, saw foreign-born residents hit a record of about 3.8 million last year.
That is still just 3% of the total population, a much smaller fraction than in the United States and Europe, but comes amid a tourism boom that has made foreigners far more visible across the country.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi warned on Sunday that Britain, France, and Germany (E3) should not undermine the credibility of the UN Security Council (UNSC) by triggering the snapback mechanism to reinstate sanctions on Tehran.
In a post on X, Araghchi said the E3 lacks the “legal, political, and moral standing” to invoke the 2015 nuclear deal’s provisions or the UNSC Resolution 2231, which permit the reimposition of international sanctions if Iran is found in non-compliance with the agreement.
He noted that after the U.S. withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, Iran exhausted dispute resolution mechanisms before taking remedial measures, while the E3 failed to honor their commitments and even backed the U.S. “maximum pressure” policy.
“The E3 must refrain from any action that would only deepen divisions in the Security Council or that would have serious adverse consequences on its work,” Araghchi said, noting that Iran is ready for “meaningful diplomacy,” but will resist hostile measures.
Earlier in the day, a media report said Iran and the E3 have agreed to resume negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program.
Quoting an “informed source” without giving the name, the semi-official Tasnim news agency said Iran and the E3 are holding consultations on the date and venue of the negotiations. The upcoming negotiations are expected to be held at the level of deputy foreign ministers, it said.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
A star-studded athletics roster offers a taste of the Olympics, with Olympians and defending champions set to compete from July 21 to 27 at the FISU World University Games.
The throwers’ showdown between Cierra Jackson of the United States and Antonia Kinzel of Germany in the women’s discus on July 24 will be a highlight on the field in the Lohrheidestadion in Bochum.
Jackson, 22, set a championship record of 65.82 meters on her way to grabbing the 2025 NCAA Outdoor Track and Field Championship title this summer. That prompted the former Fresno State student to turn professional and then, in her first outing as a full-time athlete, Jackson improved her personal best to 67.82m, just 1.68m short of her compatriot Valarie Allman’s gold-winning distance of 69.50m at the 2024 Paris Olympics.
Defending champion Kinzel, who set her own PB of 62.64m in May, can be counted as a potential challenger to Jackson while competing on home soil.
“It’s a special feeling to compete in this internationally renowned event in your own country,” Kinzel said.
“I want to build on my experiences from two years ago in Chengdu, defend my title in the discus throw, and I am really looking forward to the special atmosphere of the FISU Games, giving a little taste of the Olympics.”
Bayanda Walaza of South Africa is a notable name on the track. He claimed silver in the men’s 4x100m relay at Paris 2024. Aged just 18, and originally a reserve, Walaza ran the leadoff leg in the final, as South Africa won its first ever medal in the event.
Walaza, who also won the individual sprint double at the U20 World Championships last year, has kicked on this year too. After becoming just the ninth South African to clock under 10 seconds for the 100m, he improved his PB to 9.94 seconds in Zagreb in May. Weeks earlier, Walaza set a South African junior record of 20.08s in the 200m.
Both PBs meet the qualification criteria for the senior World Athletics Championships, taking place in Tokyo in September.
Walaza, along with teammate Lythe Pillay, will be looking to secure a 100m-200m-400m clean sweep. Pillay is the 2022 400m U20 world champion and a reigning World Athletics Relays 4x400m gold medalist.
Fellow South African sprinter Marlie Viljoen is back as the defending champion after she set a PB of 51.42s in the 400m in March.
Laura Pellicoro (front) of Italy crosses the finish line during the athletics women’s 1500m final at the 31st FISU Summer World University Games in Chengdu, southwest China’s Sichuan Province, Aug. 6, 2023. (Xinhua/Wang Xi)
The other returning champion is Laura Pellicoro of Italy. Now 24, she won the middle-distance double two years ago and is part of a stellar Italian lineup.
Dalia Kaddari (Italy) is expected to add something to her long list of achievements which already includes being a two-time Olympian (Tokyo 2020 and Paris 2024), European Championship bronze medal in 2022 (4x100m relay), European U23 champion in 2021 (200m) and Youth Olympic Games silver medal in 2018 (200m).
Edoardo Scotti has been at the center of an impressive 12 months for Italian athletics. He helped his nation finish sixth in the 4x400m mixed relay and seventh in the men’s 4x400m relay at Paris 2024. Then he inspired the team to double silver in the 4x400m mixed and 4x400m men’s relays at the 2024 European Championships in Rome.
China’s Shu Heng, who is the Asian men’s long jump champion, will try to improve on his PB of 8.22m achieved in May at the Asian Athletics Championships.
India’s Pooja Singh, at just 1.70 meters tall, will compete as the newly crowned women’s Asian high jump champion. Singh grew up in rural India, with her father taking out loans to fund an athletics journey that began with bamboo poles as crossbars and landing mats fashioned from rice husk and hay.
Bridget Mbwali from Uganda, a double sprint gold medal winner at last year’s East African University Games, is another decorated runner from Africa.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
TEHRAN, July 20 (Xinhua) — Iran and three European countries — France, Germany and Britain, known as the E3 group — have agreed to resume talks on Tehran’s nuclear program, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported Sunday.
As the agency reports, citing an anonymous “informed source,” Iran and the E3 are holding consultations on the date and place of the talks.
The upcoming talks are expected to take place at the level of deputy foreign ministers.
Since September 2024, Iran and the E3 have held several rounds of talks on Iran’s nuclear program and the lifting of sanctions against it.
In recent months, three European countries have threatened Tehran with triggering the snapback mechanism under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed in 2015 between Iran and world powers. The mechanism allows other parties to restore all international sanctions if Iran fails to comply with the agreement.
Tehran has repeatedly warned that it will respond decisively to the E3’s actions if this mechanism is launched. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Moscow, July 20 /Xinhua/ — Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov, speaking about the “anti-Russian militaristic ecstasy” in Europe over the issue of arms supplies to Ukraine, called this a very dangerous trend in general, which Russia takes into account and makes its plans based on it.
“Anti-Russian and militaristic ecstasy, thank God, has not yet found common understanding.” “But the trend as a whole is, of course, very bad and very dangerous,” the Kremlin spokesman said in an interview with the author and co-host of the program “Moscow. Kremlin. Putin” Pavel Zarubin.
“And we see this, we take this into account and proceed from this when drawing up our future plans,” D. Peskov pointed out.
As he noted, a number of Western countries “are creating an enemy for themselves, conducting such concentrated professional work both in their own society and abroad in order to present Russia as the spawn of hell.” “And in order to ensure the continuation of the war, in order to suppress Russia, this discussion is taking place about who will pay for the holiday,” added the press secretary of the Russian president.
D. Peskov noted that Germany is the economic locomotive of Europe, but it cannot bear the burden of paying for arms supplies to Ukraine alone.
Commenting on the statements of US President Donald Trump on the Ukrainian settlement, D. Peskov stated that “Russia is ready to move quickly. The main thing for us is to achieve our goals.”
“Our goals are clear, they are obvious, they do not change,” he emphasized.
According to Russian media, in March the European Union, under the pretext of a threat from Russia and Belarus, agreed on a plan to militarize Europe. The EU announced an increase in military spending and the development of circular defense plans.
D. Trump announced on July 14 that the United States would sell modern weapons to NATO member states for delivery to Ukraine. Western media reported that Hungary, Italy and France refused to finance such purchases. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
QINGDAO, July 20 (Xinhua) — Belarus-China cultural cooperation has become closer in recent years. The forms of cultural interaction between the two countries are constantly updated, and the content of exchanges is enriched, Vladimir Kukharev, Chairman of the Minsk City Executive Committee (Minsk City Executive Committee), said Saturday while delivering a speech at the opening ceremony of the event titled “Qingdao-Overseas Sister Cities Exchange Month.”
V. Kukharev listed the results of fruitful Chinese-Belarusian cooperation in the cultural sphere. According to him, in order to deepen the cultural dialogue, Belarus regularly hosts events organized jointly with the Chinese Embassy in Minsk and the Chinese Cultural Center.
He highlighted events such as the Happy Spring Festival, Chinese Language Day, regular exhibitions of traditional and contemporary Chinese art, as well as festivals of national cuisine and arts and crafts.
V. Kukharev particularly noted the important role of Confucius Institutes in the development of Chinese-Belarusian relations. “Currently, there are six Confucius Institutes operating in the Republic of Belarus. Their main efforts are aimed at studying and popularizing the language and culture of both countries, promoting intercultural dialogue, strengthening academic and scientific ties, as well as implementing joint research and educational projects,” he explained.
Meanwhile, he also named cinema, theatre arts and tourism as promising areas for cooperation.
According to V. Kukharev, in the context of global challenges, it is cooperation
in the field of culture and tourism contributes to the formation of a common cultural space, expanding opportunities for interpersonal communication and mutual enrichment.
“By developing such partnerships, states not only stimulate economic growth, but also contribute to the strengthening of peace, friendship and tolerance between peoples, which is the most important basis for the stable and harmonious development of modern society,” he concluded.
The event, “Qingdao Overseas Sister Cities Exchange Month,” is being held in Qingdao City, Shandong Province, East China. It is attended by representatives from 19 cities and organizations from 17 countries, including Belarus, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Japan, New Zealand, etc. -0-
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
