beijing

Train service linking Pyongyang and Beijing will resume this week for the first time since it was suspended six years ago due to the COVID-19 pandemic, sources said Tuesday.

The Beijing-Pyongyang train route will resume operations Thursday, running four times a week, on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday, an official at China State Railway Group told Yonhap News Agency.

The train will depart from Beijing at 5:26 p.m. and arrive in Pyongyang at 6 p.m. the following day, stopping once at the Chinese border city of Dandong en route. The last two train cars will be reserved for passengers, according to sources.

The resumption marks the first cross-border train service between the two countries since operations were suspended following the outbreak of the pandemic.

Last year, North Korea resumed direct flight and train services between Pyongyang and Moscow, Russia’s capital.

The Chinese official said the upcoming Beijing-Pyongyang train will primarily serve diplomats and those on official business trips, while plans to accommodate general passengers will be considered if empty seats are available.

China’s foreign ministry said maintaining a regular passenger train service between China and North Korea takes on “significance” in facilitating exchanges of personnel between the two nations.

“China supports creating more convenient conditions for both sides’ exchanges of personnel by strengthening communication between relevant authorities of the two nations,” Guo Jiakun, spokesperson at the ministry, told a press briefing.

The move comes as North Korea and China appears to be seeking to promote cooperation amid the fluid international situation, highlighted by U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran and the subsequent intensifying conflict in the Middle East.

North Korea also seems to be trying to expand cooperation with China as speculation arises that U.S. President Donald Trump may seek to resume diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on the occasion of his planned trip to Beijing on March 31-April 2.

North Korea’s ties with China, the North’s traditional ally and economic benefactor, became cool amid Pyongyang’s deepening military cooperation with Russia on the occasion of Moscow’s war with Ukraine.

Kim held summit talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing in September last year on the occasion of a Chinese military parade and discussed ways to improve bilateral ties.

But relations between Pyongyang and Beijing do not appear to be restored in a full-fledged manner with no signs of high-level exchanges of personnel spotted.

“The government is closely monitoring the development of Korean Peninsula affairs, including North-China relations,” an official at South Korea’s foreign ministry said.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

WHEN you think of beautiful attractions to go to on holiday, toilets are rarely top of the list.

But a shopping centre’s bogs have been called the most beautiful in the world – and they hardly look like the ones in Westfield.

The toilets are on the sixth floor of the Deji Plaza Mall in Nanjing in China.

Dubbed the world’s most beautiful bathroom by Architectural Digest, they opened back in 2022 and were designed by X+Living, a Shanghai-based architecture firm.

Inside, are seven relaxation areas as well as male and female toilets.

Visitors enter through what is known as the ‘Experience Hall’ with dark greens and nods to insects and plant life.

Read more on travel inspo

ALL IN

I found the best value all inclusive London hotel… just £55pp with free food & booze

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

For example, black and white tiles on the floor mimic butterfly wings with touches of gold meant resemble bees.

There’s even a lounge between the men’s and women’s loos, with plush pink sofas designed to look like a ‘flower blooming’.

Guests can make use of glowing vanities too, as well as wireless charging points, with a dressing room per loo.

For mums there is a nursery room and in case of an incident, there is a medical room as well.

The same shopping mall has more themed toilets on other floors.

For example, on the second floor the toilets have a retro style, on the third floor the theme is futuristic.

The fourth floor has a Japanese theme and on the fifth floor the design is ‘extravagant’ and even features a piano.

The sixth floor toilets have several viral videos on social media with people commenting: “That’s a toilet? It looks so much better than most hotels.”

Another person said: “It’s an experience, so much outfit of the day spots.”

A third person commented: “Never thought toilets would be a public attraction but those toilets are very beautiful.”

While nowhere near as grand, London‘s has new loos as well.

New public toilets were unveiled at the Grade-II listed, Piccadilly Circus Tube Station this week, described as “London’s newest tourist attraction”, according to The Standard.

Inside the loos, visitors are greeted by bold blue, pink and yellow tiles.

Murals have been designed by London-based artist James Lambert, with each tile hand-painted and hand-made.

The design of the toilets is inspired by Anteros, the god of requited love and features winged-figures and an arrow motif, meant to show “energy, spectacle, and connection”.

The motif of different lines and shapes is meant to reflect the Art Deco history of the area.

This includes the redesign of the underground station in the 1920s by Charles Holden.

Other venues nearby that feature an Art Deco design include Brasserie Zedel, which has gilded columns and a lavish American cocktail bar.

To see the toilets (or actually use them) at Piccadilly Circus Tube Station, you’ll need to pay the 80p entrance fee.

The toilets are part of a £12.7million council project to upgrade a total of eight public toilets in London including at Green Park, Covent Garden and Leicester Square.

For more toilet-based tourist destinations, last year a Victorian public toilet was turned into a hotel – in the middle of a historic city.

Plus, Tripadvisor’s top-ranked UK toilet is in Scots seaside town and even has its own visitors’ book.

Russia and China, Tehran’s two most powerful diplomatic partners, have labelled the US-Israeli war on Iran that has killed more than 1,000 people a clear violation of international law.

President Vladimir Putin called the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday a “cynical violation of all norms of human morals”.

China’s Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi told his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Saar, that “force cannot truly solve problems” as he urged all sides to avoid further escalation.

Russia and China jointly requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

The reaction reflects the close relationship between Iran, Russia, and China. Moscow and Beijing have signed bilateral deals and expanded coordination through joint naval drills, projecting a united front against what they describe as a US-led international order that has long sought to isolate them.

Yet despite their sharp rhetoric, neither has indicated a willingness to intervene militarily to support Iran.

Russia-Iran: Strategic partners, not military allies

In January 2025, Russia and Iran signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty covering areas from trade and military cooperation to science, culture, and education.

The agreement deepened defence and intelligence coordination and supported projects such as transport corridors, linking Russia to the Gulf through Iran.

The pair carried out joint military drills in the Indian Ocean as recently as late February, the week before the US and Israel attacked Iran.

However, when the war began, Moscow was not obliged to respond as the treaty did not include a mutual defence clause, meaning it stopped short of forming a formal military alliance.

Andrey Kortunov, the former director general of the Russian International Affairs Council and a member of the Valdai Discussion Club, a Russian foreign policy think tank, told Al Jazeera via videolink from Moscow, that Russia’s 2024 mutual defence treaty with North Korea is an example of a “more binding” agreement on military support.

He said that, under that agreement, Russia would be obliged to join North Korea “in any conflict the country might get involved in”, whereas with Iran, “it just mentioned that both sides agreed to abstain from any hostile actions in case the other side is engaged in conflict”.

Kortunov said Russia is unlikely to take direct military action in support of Iran because the risks would be too high.

He added that Moscow appears to be “prioritising the United States mediation in the conflict with Ukraine”, and noted that Russia has previously taken a similar approach by criticising US actions in places like Venezuela after the US military attack and arrest of its President, Nicolas Maduro, in January.

Although the treaty clearly states that Russia is not obliged to intervene, he said some of his contacts in Tehran have expressed a “degree of frustration”, and there had been an “expectation that Russia should somehow do more than just diplomatic moves in the United Nations Security Council or in other multilateral forums”.

China–Iran ties and their limits

In 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year cooperation agreement aimed at expanding ties in areas such as energy, while also drawing Iran into China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Jodie Wen, a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University in China, who has travelled frequently to Iran, told Al Jazeera that the relationship is widely viewed in Beijing as pragmatic and stable.

“From the political side, we have regular exchange,” she said over the phone from Beijing, adding, “on the economic side, the cooperation is very deep; many enterprises have investments in Iran.”

Yet she stressed that Beijing has long drawn clear limits around the partnership, particularly regarding military involvement.

“The Chinese government always adheres to not interfering in other countries’ issues … I do not think the Chinese government would send weapons to Iran,” she said.

Instead, Beijing’s role is more likely to focus on diplomacy and crisis management.

“I think China is trying its way to talk with the US side and Gulf countries to keep calm,” she said.

That clarity about the relationship, she added, has helped build trust in Tehran.

Even so, she noted the relationship is not symmetrical.

Vessel-tracking service Kpler estimates that 87.2 percent of Iran’s annual crude oil exports go to China, underscoring how economically significant China is for Tehran, while Iran remains a relatively small partner in China’s global trade.

Dylan Loh, an associate professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, told Al Jazeera that he believes China’s role regarding Iran “has evolved into a protective one, accelerating its mediation effort to prevent a regional collapse that would threaten its own regional economic and security interests”.

“I think there will be some assessment of how to lower the political risks and what sorts of options are available; truth be told, this re-think already started after [the US attack on] Venezuela,” he said.

China officially announced in late January 2026 its refusal to join the Board of Peace at the “International Peace Council for the Administration of the Gaza Strip.” This council, proposed by the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump, is a new international entity launched by the US president as an alternative to traditional UN mechanisms. China confirmed in January 2026 that it had received a formal invitation from the United States to join the “International Peace Council” for Gaza, launched by President “Trump” as a global initiative to resolve the conflict. China’s stance toward this council is characterized by caution and a demand for further details while adhering to its established principles.

The reasons for China’s rejection of the US-sponsored peace council for the Gaza Strip are based on several strategic and legal justifications, the most important of which is the marginalization of the UN’s role by the International Peace Council, sponsored by Washington. Beijing believes that the council seeks to replace the role of the United Nations and the Security Council, and it affirms its commitment to an international system centered on the United Nations and based on international law. Regarding China’s criticism of the lack of Palestinian representation within the International Peace Council, China criticized the Council’s charter for failing to mention the Palestinians or respect their will, asserting that any arrangements for the future of Gaza must be based on the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine.” Furthermore, (China’s concerns about “American dominance” over the International Peace Council): Beijing warned that the Council could be a tool for Washington to impose “control” or establish military bases in the Gaza envelope area under the guise of reconstruction. Also, (China’s rejection of the financial membership criteria within the International Peace Council): The Council requires substantial financial contributions (up to one billion dollars for permanent membership), which China views as transforming peace into a “deal” driven by financial power rather than the legal rights of the Palestinians.

At the same time, China is demanding structural clarity regarding the resolution establishing the International Peace Council and its actual feasibility. China, through its Permanent Representative to the United Nations, “Fu Cong,” expressed concern that the resolution establishing the council lacks essential details, particularly concerning its structure, composition, and terms of reference, as well as the nature of the proposed “international stabilization force” in Gaza. Therefore, Beijing insisted on the UN’s authority in this matter, maintaining that any future arrangements for Gaza must be made under the auspices of UN Security Council resolutions and with broad participation including Palestinian parties and Arab states. China rejected any “closed” or “unilateral” mechanisms that could marginalize the UN’s role. Furthermore, China categorically emphasized the principle of “Palestinian governance of Gaza,” considering the Gaza Strip an integral part of Palestinian territory. China rejects any plans aimed at imposing external trusteeship or control over its administration, affirming that the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine” is the foundation for any post-conflict governance. China has supported Arab initiatives on post-war management of the Gaza Strip, explicitly endorsing reconstruction and peace plans proposed by Egypt and other Arab states, deeming them consistent with the aspirations of the Palestinian people. China firmly adheres to the two-state solution, maintaining that any peace efforts must ultimately lead to a two-state solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Therefore, the motives behind China’s rejection of the American request to join the International Peace Council on Gaza can be summarized as follows: China’s insistence on upholding the international legitimacy of the United Nations and its deep suspicions regarding the security and political objectives behind the council’s formation and Washington’s enthusiasm for it. The main reasons for China’s rejection of the International Peace Council on Gaza are China’s desire to protect the UN system. Beijing believes the proposed council seeks to replace or marginalize the role of the United Nations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry affirmed its commitment to an international system centered on the United Nations and based on its Charter and international law, rejecting any “alternative frameworks” outside of this scope. (Ambiguity in structure and tasks): The Chinese representative to the United Nations, “Fu Cong,” criticized the draft resolution concerning the council (Resolution 2803) for its lack of clear details regarding its structure, composition, and criteria for participation, describing it as “worrying.” In addition to China’s security concerns regarding the Gaza issue: Chinese intelligence reports indicate that one of the hidden objectives of the Washington-sponsored International Peace Council in Gaza is to destroy Hamas tunnels under the guise of “reconstruction,” which Beijing considers a “provocative and extremely dangerous” foreign military intervention. Furthermore, (China rejects American unilateralism in dealing with regional and global issues): China views the American International Peace Council initiative in Gaza as part of Washington’s attempts to impose “unilateralism” and exacerbate confrontation between blocs, which contradicts the “Global Governance Initiative” championed by Chinese President “Xi Jinping. ”.

Herein lies China’s alternative vision to the American initiative to form the International Peace Council: China, in its alternative to joining the Council, calls for the activation of the two-state solution as the only way to guarantee lasting peace in the Middle East and the implementation of the Beijing Declaration to support Palestinian national unity and strengthen the legitimacy of the Palestinian state. (UN Reform): Instead of creating parallel initiatives, Beijing calls for making the Security Council more responsive to the expectations of the world’s people on its 80th anniversary.

China proposes a different vision for managing the Gaza and Middle East issues, based on the following pillars: (Security Council Authority): This involves full adherence to UN Security Council resolutions as the sole basis for international legitimacy in Gaza. The Chinese call for (the principle of self-governance in the Gaza Strip): This involves China’s insistence that post-war administration of Gaza must be in the hands of the Palestinians themselves, rejecting any plans for forced displacement or external trusteeship. The Chinese call for a broad international peace conference on Gaza: Beijing calls for a more inclusive and credible international peace conference under UN auspices, with the aim of concretely implementing the two-state solution within a defined timeframe. With China prioritizing land routes over sea routes or temporary docks, as proposed by the US, China rejects maritime alternatives or “temporary docks” as substitutes for land corridors, viewing them as attempts to circumvent international obligations regarding humanitarian relief in the Gaza Strip.

From the preceding analysis, we understand that China considers itself a “positive stabilizing force” seeking to end the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip through comprehensive dialogue, in contrast to what it describes as the “unilateral” US approach, which it believes could deepen regional divisions. In short, while China does not reject participation in international dialogue on Gaza, it stipulates that the international peace council, sponsored by Washington, should be an instrument for strengthening international legitimacy, not a replacement for it, while preserving full Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza.