front

This summer, the global economic stage is hosting two wildly contrasting blockbusters in trade policy, each promising a different future for international commerce. On one side, we have China, rolling out the red carpet for a grand gala of zero-tariff delights for a vast swathe of African nations. On the other, we see the specter of a protectionist act, with U.S. President Donald Trump announcing plans to send out 150-plus letters to countries worldwide, each containing a polite (or not-so-polite) invitation to pay a new 10% or 15% cover charge. It’s a tale of two philosophies: one building bridges with open arms, the other, perhaps installing a very large, very expensive global toll booth.

Let’s first RSVP to China’s “Open Arms” party. Beijing’s commitment to high-level opening-up is currently in full swing, underscored by its long-standing and now significantly expanded zero-tariff policy for African nations. This isn’t just a fleeting summer fling; it’s a deepening relationship. Starting December 1, 2024, China granted 100% zero-tariff treatment to products from 33 African Least Developed Countries (LDCs) that have diplomatic ties with Beijing, making it the first major developing economy to do so. In a bold move this June 2025, China announced its intention to extend this 100% zero-tariff treatment to 98% of taxable goods from all 53 African nations with diplomatic ties, a policy set to fully mature through new economic partnership agreements. Imagine: a vast market of 1.4 billion consumers, suddenly accessible without the usual customs hurdles for everything from Rwandan dried chilies to Malagasy lamb.

This isn’t merely about trade figures; it’s a strategic embrace. China frames this as fostering “shared prosperity” and helping African nations build their “blood-making” capabilities – a rather vivid metaphor for self-sustaining economic growth. It’s about supporting industrialization, enhancing local value chains, and providing a crucial diversified export market for African goods, especially as traditional markets face headwinds. In essence, China is inviting Africa to a grand buffet, where the food is free, and the kitchen is open for new recipes. The message is clear: “Come on in, bring your best, and let’s grow together.” While some analysts raise eyebrows, suggesting it benefits China more or could impact local industries, the sheer scale and intent of this open-door policy represent a significant commitment to multilateralism and South-South cooperation.

Now, let’s turn to the other side of the global stage, where the curtain might soon rise on a very different kind of show: the “Global Toll Booth” policy. Reports indicate that Trump, known for his unique approach to trade, is currently sending out letters to over 150 countries, informing them that they’ll soon be subject to a blanket 10% or 15% “reciprocal tariff.” Think of it as a universal cover charge for entering the American market, with a potential surcharge for those deemed to have “taken advantage” in the past.

This approach, rooted in an “America First” philosophy, aims to slash trade deficits, encourage “reshoring” (bringing production back home) and “de-risking” (reducing reliance on specific, often adversarial, supply chain nodes). It’s less about a shared feast and more about ensuring America gets the biggest slice of the pie, even if it means baking a smaller pie for everyone. The humor here lies in the sheer audacity and scale: imagine the postal service grappling with 150-plus individually tailored tariff notices, each potentially sparking a new round of trade negotiations or, more likely, retaliatory tariffs. The central economic joke, of course, is the argument that “they pay for it,” while most economists agree that tariffs are largely paid by domestic consumers and businesses through higher prices, potentially increasing the overall U.S. price level by over 2% and leading to a significant loss in real GDP.

The contrast between these two approaches couldn’t be starker. China’s strategy is akin to a seasoned architect, meticulously designing new, interconnected trade routes and inviting everyone to build along them, especially those who need a leg up. It’s about fostering a complex, interwoven tapestry of global supply chains where every thread, no matter how small, contributes to the strength of the whole. The goal is deep integration, shared growth, and a vision of resilience through interdependence.

Conversely, the U.S. strategy resembles a determined gardener, carefully pruning away what it perceives as unhealthy or risky branches from the global supply chain tree. While the stated aim is resilience, the method risks fragmentation, higher costs, and a more unpredictable global trade environment. One approach seeks to expand the pie for all; the other aims to secure a larger, more controlled slice of a potentially shrinking pie.

For global businesses and consumers, these divergent paths present a fascinating, if somewhat bewildering, future. China’s zero-tariff policy offers tangible incentives for market access and development, potentially creating new growth poles in Africa and beyond. It signals stability and a long-term commitment to global engagement. Trump’s tariffs, however, introduce a significant element of volatility. Businesses would face increased costs, disrupted supply chains, and the constant uncertainty of shifting trade policies, forcing them to re-evaluate sourcing, production, and market strategies on a global scale. The humor might be lost when the price of your morning coffee or favorite gadget suddenly jumps due to an unexpected “reciprocal tariff.”

In the grand theater of global economics, China is betting on an ensemble performance where everyone gets a chance to shine, especially the emerging stars. The U.S., under Trump presidency, seems poised for a solo act, where the star demands a hefty entrance fee from the audience, regardless of their role in the show. As this summer unfolds, the world will be watching to see which blockbuster strategy ultimately fosters genuine prosperity and stability, and which one merely leaves everyone paying more for the ticket.

Ron Washington was beaming in his black suit, complete with a red tie, as he sat at a table perched on a platform in the Home Plate Club of Angel Stadium on Wednesday.

The 71-year old manager from New Orleans, the newest in Angels history, scanned the room, taking in his moment as his new general manager, Perry Minasian, boasted about him. Minasian gave him his official Angels gear and Washington affixed his newest cap to his head and meticulously buttoned each button on his newest jersey.

“Now I’m legit,” Washington said and smiled.

It had been nine years since Washington had been in this position, the manager of a major league baseball team. Now that he was back, he stated his message clearly: The Angels will be a force to be reckoned with while he’s in charge.

“Our whole focus is going to be to run the [American League] West down,” Washington said in front of a crowd of Angels players, alumni, media members and team employees. “And you can take that to the bank and deposit it.”

Washington, hired by Texas Rangers ahead of the 2007 season, has had a chip on his shoulder after not winning a World Series despite AL pennants in 2010 and 2011 and a wild-card berth in 2012.

He left the Rangers before the end of the 2014 season — stating, at the time, that his decision to leave was because he had been unfaithful to his wife. Of the nature of his departure from the Rangers, Minasian said Wednesday that he had done his due diligence and felt comfortable hiring Washington.

Washington had been trying to return to a managerial position since then, interviewing with at least three other clubs over the years, he said, but he never stopped believing his next opportunity would come.

He has a World Series ring, having been an integral part of the 2021 campaign of the Atlanta Braves, the team he had been the third base coach for since the 2017 season.

Angels new manager Ron Washington, left, and general manager Perry Minisian hug during a news conference Wednesday at Angel Stadium.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

And he spoke with more than just determination, but a conviction in the Angels, with his confidence in himself and down-to-the-soul belief in a better Angels future paving the way.

The Angels have not reached the playoffs since 2014 and have eight straight losing seasons. In addition, Angels two-way star Shohei Ohtani is a free agent and could leave the team. While some view the roster as weak, Washington sees potential.

“I really have been, since I’ve been here these past three days, focusing in on these young arms we got,” Washington said. “I am very impressed with the young arms we got. That’s why we trying to find us a pitching coach to guide them in the right direction.

“Pitching and defense is the key to success. The rest of it, I’m going to take care of as we move along. … The defense, you’re looking at the best in the business, and that’s not patting myself on the back. That’s a fact.”

The Houston Astros have won the AL West six of the last seven seasons. The Rangers won this season’s World Series.

While some view beating the top teams in the division as a tall order, Washington says so what.

“Yeah, the Astros [have] been there,” Washington said matter-of-factly. “When I took over in Texas, guess who was the big dog? The Angels. And what happened? We ran them down. So my intent is to run Houston down.

“I’m not saying that’s gonna happen this year. But we don’t know when it’s gonna happen. I can tell you what, we’re gonna get back on top.”

Washington’s official candidacy for the Angels job began with a dinner with Minasian in New Orleans a few weeks ago — though Washington’s familiarity with the Minasian family dates back much further. After that, Washington was invited to meet with Minasian and other members of the front office in Scottsdale, Ariz., for a brunch on the Tuesday of the general manager meetings last week.

Team owner Arte Moreno picked Washington up from the airport and Minasian and the rest of the Angels contingent talked with him for more than three hours, Minasian said, and he was offered the job. The next day, the Angels announced Washington as their new manager.

Washington’s Angels have already secured their new third base coach, Eric Young Sr., who followed Washington from Atlanta, as well as their new infield coach, Ryan Goins. Washington also said Wednesday that he knows who his first base coach is, though he did not give a name. The Angels confirmed Bo Porter as their new first base coach on Friday. The Angels also confirmed on Friday that they promoted Jerry Narron to major league catching coach after previously serving as their minor league catching coordinator. The Angels subsequently named Johnny Washington as their hitting coach and Barry Enright as pitching coach.

Next up on Washington’s agenda: making calls to the team’s biggest leaders for the foreseeable future: Mike Trout and Anthony Rendon.

Washington and Dave Roberts of the Dodgers are the only Black managers in the majors, after Dusty Baker retired from his position with the Astros last month. Washington replaces Phil Nevin, whose contract for next season was not picked up by the Angels.

If we are going to make an overview of what is going on now through the lens of the so-called dangerous opportunity, we can list some challenges and opportunities that Iran and China both face through this tension. I will try to name challenges and opportunities.

Challenges

The first challenge is that the United States of America is in a big competition and rivalry against China, which is the main actor trying to compete against the Western order. The US tries to create a “burned land” within the Middle East by using the major strategy of balkanization. In this strategy, the United States attempts to create a weak, failed, chaotic space for China throughout the region to actually block any attempts to initiate the Belt and Road Initiative and land corridors from China to the western part of the world. You can see a clear idea of balkanization throughout the region, and of course, we can see this example in Syria. The main role that Israel and the United States try to duplicate in different parts of the region may be seen in Yemen, Iraq, and even Afghanistan. The challenge is that we will have a burnt land in the Middle East that actually makes it impossible to follow initiatives like the Belt and Road.

The second challenge could be an energy crisis in the Middle East. We know that China tries its best to mediate between Saudi Arabia and Iran to secure regional security and stability, and of course, energy stability within the Middle East and at the global scale. This crisis and tension, which Israel initiated through unprovoked actions, could lead to a worldwide energy crisis because Iran and Tehran have mentioned multiple times that there are different options available for Iran to affect the whole region if there is more tension or further attacks from any foreign actors, especially the United States or Israel.

The third challenge we can name is the corridor blockade or dead-end. We can name different initiatives and corridors made and created by the United States, such as I2U2, Quad, AUKUS, and of course IMEC, as initiatives to create a kind of blockade for China through maritime corridors. If the United States and Israel follow through with their goals in the current tension, there would be a kind of corridor blockade from the East to the West.

Another challenge we can name is about the Abraham Accords. China and Beijing should understand that this kind of alliance is not really just about Palestine or normalization with the Zionist regime; it is a big alliance and outsourcing of the regional order from Washington to Tel Aviv. In this regional order, which is totally supported and facilitated by Washington, the Middle East—or better said, Southwest Asia—would be a total ally of the United States. This could strongly affect the national interests of Beijing.

Last but not least, a challenge after the current tension between Iran and Israel is the possibility of initiating the next big conflict. Currently, we have two big open wounds from previous years: the Ukraine crisis and Palestine. The result and balance of power around these two hot zones will create a balance of power around a third hot zone, which is Taiwan. Therefore, the outcomes of Ukraine and Palestine will directly affect the Taiwan situation in the upcoming months and years.

Opportunities

The Chinese letter for crisis shows us that there is an opportunity in this kind of crisis. If we can name them:

The first opportunity is that supporting policy, especially for the nations of the region and the Global South, is simply being on the right side of history. Every actor who supports Palestine gains favorability within nations, especially in the Global South. As you can see, Iran has gained much soft power within the current tension with Israel in the region. This is a real comeback from the Arab Spring for Iran’s image in the eyes of the Middle Eastern people. Actually, China may understand that in the region there is a deep real desire to resist Israel. Every actor who stands against the operations of Israel will gain and has gained much favorability in the region and even the world. This is the big, big side of the resistance idea.

The second opportunity during this kind of conflict is that Iran can show and test its military capability against the Western alliances. It is not a clear and accurate vision if you consider the current situation and tension as a simple war between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Tehran, in the current 12-day war, stands and fights against Washington, the whole NATO, and some regional actors. Iran has not only avoided defeat in this situation but also tried to push the whole Israel and Western alliances to a ceasefire point.

The third opportunity is the chance and moment for almost all old actors in the region to shift their ideas towards a strong region without the US. It seems that even countries like Saudi Arabia and other regional states are thinking about a region without the presence of the United States. The good news is that if Iran and its allies can play a good role during the conflict and upcoming tension, there could be a regional order emerging from the regional actors, and there would be no vacuum of power.

The next opportunity I want to mention, after the experience of this war, is really important for Beijing nowadays and the current situation of the international order. China could not find any other strategy or reliable partner within the region with the capability of military, social soft power, enormous energy resources, and favorable geography other than Iran.

Conclusion

It seems that the fundamental strategy of the United States during the Trump administration for the Middle East, called “peace through strength,” is just a choice between two options: surrender or war. Surrender would mean a regional order controlled by Tel Aviv. Iran, as it seems, is trying to prepare itself for full-scale war. As mentioned in the early stage of this note, during the tension, this is a period of rebalancing of actors’ powers. Therefore, the ability and will of order-writers like China to play a role in this conflict will determine the upcoming role of this actor in the new world order.

BEAVERTON, Ore. — Parents at a preschool in a Portland suburb are reeling after immigration officers arrested a father in front of the school during morning drop-off hours, breaking his car window to detain him in front of children, families and staffers.

“I feel like a day care, which is where young children are taken care of, should be a safe place,” Natalie Berning said after dropping off her daughter at the Montessori in Beaverton on Friday morning. “Not only is it traumatizing for the family, it’s traumatizing for all the other children as well.”

Mahdi Khanbabazadeh, a 38-year-old chiropractor and citizen of Iran, was initially pulled over by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers while driving his child to the school Tuesday. After asking whether he could drop off the child first, he continued driving and called his wife to tell her what happened, according to his wife, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of privacy concerns for her and her child.

His wife rushed to the school, took their child from his car and brought him inside. Khanbabazadeh stayed in the vehicle in the parking lot and asked whether he could move somewhere not on school grounds out of consideration for the children and families, his wife said. He pulled out of the lot and onto the street and began to open the car door to step out when agents broke the window and took him into custody, according to his wife.

Kellie Burns, who has two children attending the preschool, said her husband was there and heard the glass shatter.

“More than anything we want to express how unnecessarily violent and inhumane this was,” she said. “Everyone felt helpless. Everyone was scared.”

ICE said it detained Khanbabazadeh because he overstayed his visa, which his wife disputes.

“Officers attempted to arrest Khanbabazadeh during a traffic stop when he requested permission to drop his child off at daycare,” ICE said in a statement. “Officers allowed him to proceed to the daycare parking lot where he stopped cooperating, resisted arrest and refused to exit his vehicle, resulting in ICE officers making entry by breaking one of the windows to complete the arrest.”

Immigration officials have dramatically ramped up arrests across the country since May. Shortly after President Trump took office in January, his administration lifted restrictions on making immigration arrests at schools, healthcare facilities and places of worship, stirring fears about going to places once considered safe spaces.

After U.S. military strikes on Iran in June, officials trumpeted immigration arrests of Iranians, some of whom settled in the United States long ago.

Khanbabazadeh’s wife said he has always maintained lawful status. After he arrived on a valid student visa and they subsequently married, she said, they submitted all required paperwork to adjust his status and were waiting for a final decision following their green card interview months ago.

Khanbabazadeh is being held at the ICE detention facility in Tacoma, Wash., she said.

Guidepost Global Education, which oversees the Montessori school, called the incident “deeply upsetting.”

“We understand that this incident raises broader questions about how law enforcement actions intersect with school environments,” Chief Executive Maris Mendes said in a statement. “It is not lost on us how frightening and confusing this experience may have been for those involved — especially for the young children who may have witnessed it while arriving at school with their parents.”

Parents said they want to support the family and teachers.

“We know it’s happening across the country, of course, but no one is prepared for their preschool … to deal with it,” Burns said. “It’s really been a nightmare.”

Rush writes for the Associated Press.

The specter of global food insecurity looms larger than ever, with 783 million people facing chronic hunger and 18 hunger hotspots—spanning Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and conflict zones like Sudan and Syria—teetering on the brink of famine. From a progressive perspective, acute food shortages are not merely logistical failures but symptoms of deep-seated inequities rooted in colonialism, neoliberal trade policies, and inadequate global governance. Diplomacy, when wielded with a commitment to justice and solidarity, can be a powerful tool to address these crises. By prioritizing multilateral cooperation, dismantling systemic barriers, and centering the needs of the Global South, progressive diplomacy can pave the way for sustainable solutions to food insecurity.

Hunger is not an isolated issue but a consequence of structural injustices. Decades of extractive economic policies, driven by wealthy nations and multinational corporations, have left low-income countries vulnerable to food crises. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, reliance on cash-crop exports, often mandated by IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs, has undermined local food sovereignty. Climate change, disproportionately caused by industrialized nations, exacerbates droughts and floods, devastating smallholder farmers who feed much of the world. Conflicts in regions like Sudan, where 12 million people are displaced, and Gaza, where 96% of the population faces acute food insecurity, are compounded by sanctions and blockades that restrict aid flows. These are interconnected crises requiring diplomacy that challenges power imbalances rather than perpetuating them.

Multinational efforts to improve the situation on the ground must prioritize multilateral frameworks to ensure food security is treated as a global public good. The United Nations, despite its imperfections, remains a critical platform for coordinating responses. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) must lead efforts to scale up emergency food aid, but they require robust funding and political support. Diplomats must push for increased contributions to the WFP, which faces a $4.5 billion funding gap for its humanitarian operations. Wealthy nations, particularly G7 members, should commit to doubling their pledges, redirecting funds from military budgets to humanitarian aid—a move aligned with progressive values of prioritizing human welfare over militarism.

Moreover, diplomacy should reform global trade rules that disadvantage poorer nations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) must address subsidies that allow Western agribusiness to flood markets with cheap imports, undercutting local farmers. A well-planned diplomatic agenda would advocate for trade agreements that protect smallholder agriculture, promote agroecology, and ensure fair pricing for producers in the Global South. For example, negotiations at the WTO’s 2026 ministerial conference could prioritize exemptions for food security programs, allowing countries like India to maintain public stockholding for staple crops without facing punitive measures.

Conflict is a primary driver of acute food shortages, and progressive diplomacy must focus on peacebuilding to ensure aid reaches those in need. In Syria, where sanctions have crippled food and medical supply chains post-Assad, diplomats should negotiate humanitarian exemptions to facilitate aid delivery. The U.S. and EU, often quick to impose sanctions, must adopt a human-centered approach, prioritizing civilian access to food over geopolitical leverage. Similarly, in Sudan, where 25.6 million people face acute hunger, regional diplomacy through the African Union can mediate ceasefires and establish safe corridors for aid distribution. Diplomats should amplify the voices of local civil society, ensuring that peace processes are inclusive and address root causes like resource inequity.

Climate change, a crisis disproportionately affecting the Global South, demands diplomatic efforts rooted in justice. At COP30 in Brazil, diplomats must advocate for a $300 billion climate finance package, with a significant portion allocated to adaptation for smallholder farmers. This includes funding for drought-resistant crops, irrigation systems, and community-led seed banks. Wealthy nations, responsible for 80% of historical emissions, owe a moral and financial debt to vulnerable countries. Diplomacy should also push for technology transfers, enabling poorer nations to adopt sustainable farming practices without reliance on corporate-controlled inputs like genetically modified seeds.

A decisive diplomatic approach centers the agency of food-insecure regions. Initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offer opportunities to strengthen regional food systems, reducing dependence on volatile global markets. Diplomats should support capacity-building programs that empower local farmers, particularly women, who produce up to 80% of food in some African nations. By facilitating South-South cooperation, such as knowledge-sharing between Latin American and African cooperatives, diplomacy can foster resilient, self-sufficient food systems.

Acute food shortages are a moral and political failure, but coordination among nations offers a path forward. By reforming global trade, prioritizing humanitarian exemptions in conflict zones, securing climate finance, and empowering the Global South, diplomats are able to address the root causes of hunger. This requires a rejection of failed policies that prioritize profit over people and a commitment to equity, solidarity, and systemic change. In 2025, the world cannot afford half-measures—diplomacy must be bold, inclusive, and unwavering in its pursuit of a hunger-free future.

The Moroccan Sahara dispute is one of the most persistent and complex regional conflicts in North Africa, lasting over forty years. This ongoing disagreement involves the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front, which is supported by Algeria. The conflict centers on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national identity, making it a highly sensitive and crucial issue for regional stability.

In this ongoing dispute, China’s role as an emerging global power and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council is particularly significant. China’s involvement is strategically important due to its increasing influence in international affairs and its promotion of a multilateral approach to global stability. As a result, China’s position on the Sahara issue holds critical strategic importance, not only for Morocco but also for the broader regional and international community.

Recently, Moroccan scholars and researchers have been actively examining and questioning China’s stance on the Sahara conflict. They ask whether China recognizes the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco in 2007 as a valid political solution. There is also an ongoing debate about whether the Chinese Communist Party holds a neutral position or leans toward supporting one side. These questions are important because they influence how Morocco and its allies perceive China’s diplomatic approach.

Furthermore, experts are eager to determine China’s official stance on Morocco’s sovereignty over its southern territories. Given China’s foreign policy focus on non-interference and respect for territorial integrity, the analysis assesses whether China follows these principles in this situation or if its actions suggest a departure. Overall, China’s changing position in this dispute has significant implications for regional stability and the future diplomatic landscape of North Africa.  

First: The evolving strategic landscape of Moroccan-Chinese relations

Since the announcement of the strategic partnership between Morocco and China in May 2016, bilateral relations have experienced significant growth across various sectors. These include the economy, infrastructure development, energy projects, technological progress, and higher education initiatives. Morocco also actively participated in China’s ambitious “Belt and Road” initiative, which aims to enhance connectivity and foster economic cooperation among participating countries. Through this involvement, Morocco has established itself as a key financial partner for Beijing in North and West Africa, strengthening regional ties.

This expanding cooperation and engagement have transformed Morocco into a strategic launchpad for China’s broader strategy in Africa. The partnership has enhanced the country’s international reputation, presenting Morocco as a stable, open, and welcoming partner for foreign investment and diplomacy. Furthermore, this strengthened relationship has indirectly influenced China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue, where China has adopted a more cautious, pragmatic, and balanced approach, demonstrating a deeper diplomatic understanding and respect for regional sensitivities.

Second: China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue

China’s official position at the United Nations is neutral, consistent with its traditional foreign policy principles of non-interference and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

During discussions on extending the MINURSO mission’s mandate, China emphasizes the need for a realistic, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution. It advocates for the “continuation of dialogue” between the involved parties, refrains from harsh language toward Morocco, and seeks to maintain a balanced tone while not recognizing the Polisario Front as a sovereign state. Although this position seems “neutral,” it implicitly supports Morocco’s sovereignty.

Third: China’s position on the Moroccan autonomy proposal

In 2007, Morocco proposed its autonomy initiative as a practical political solution within the framework of national sovereignty for the ongoing conflict, and this initiative gained support from many major countries in Africa, as well as in the Arab and Western worlds, including France, the United States, Britain, Germany, and Spain.

Regarding China, it did not explicitly support or oppose the initiative but expressed indirect approval, noting that it “contributes positively to international efforts to find a solution to the conflict.” Since then, China has not opposed the Moroccan proposal but has shown tacit acceptance, especially when calling for “realistic and viable” solutions.

Fourth: Factors Affecting China’s Position

Many key factors and influences shape China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue.

The principle of sovereignty and national territorial integrity: China rejects any efforts at secession, as it faces similar challenges within its territory, such as those in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet. Therefore, it tends to support countries that uphold their territorial integrity, although it has not explicitly stated this.

Relations with Algeria: Despite the increasing closeness between China and Morocco, Algeria remains a key energy partner for China, especially in the gas sector. This leads China to carefully balance its diplomatic efforts to protect its interests with both countries. Investing in regional stability: China believes that regional stability benefits its economic interests, so it prefers peaceful and stable solutions to disputes without supporting separatist movements that could cause chaos or armed conflicts.           

Fifth: Is China’s stance shifting?

This question poses a challenge for researchers and those interested in the Moroccan Sahara conflict, as increasing signs suggest a possible gradual shift in China’s stance in the years to come.

– Growing Chinese trade and investments in Morocco, including the Mohammed VI Smart City project, the Atlantic port in Nador, and solar energy initiatives.

– Enhancing strategic visits and high-level diplomatic meetings between China and Morocco.

– China’s diplomatic language, like “realistic solution” and “viable political solution,” hints at autonomy and is a key reference for the Moroccan autonomy proposal.

– China’s ties with the West, especially the U.S., are weakening, pushing China to build and diversify its alliances in the Global South, including with Morocco.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Chinese Communist Party’s approach to the Moroccan Sahara issue is marked by a kind of “thought-out neutrality,” balancing core principles of Chinese foreign policy with increasing strategic interests in Morocco. Despite China’s public commitment to the policy of “neutrality,” its diplomatic and economic actions imply implicit support for Morocco’s sovereignty over its deserts, or at least a practical acceptance of the autonomy initiative. Therefore, in light of international geopolitical shifts, Morocco has a strategic opportunity to strengthen its ties with Beijing and convince it that supporting the autonomy proposal does not conflict with its political and diplomatic principles but aligns with its vision of global stability.  

ATLANTA — In 2021, Times columnist Bill Plaschke incurred the wrath of Atlanta by blaspheming the entertainment district surrounding the Braves’ ballpark as a “sterile shopping mall.” The district, called The Battery, prefers the grand descriptor of “the South’s preeminent lifestyle destination.”

Let’s take a walk around The Battery, so you can understand why it could become one of the flash points in the coming holy war between owners and players.

If you leave the ballpark through the right-field gates, you are in The Battery. You’ll see a plaza in front of you, and around you places to ride a mechanical bull, go bowling, navigate an escape room or take in a concert.

You can eat, drink, shop, dance, stay in a hotel. You can live here, in apartments above the storefronts. You can work here, in office towers housing corporate giants.

“To create an environment where you can spend eight, nine hours at The Battery and the field, and still feel like you have all the time in the world, I think they’ve done a wonderful job building this place,” Dodgers and former Braves All-Star first baseman Freddie Freeman said.

The Braves built all this, not only to lure fans to come early and stay late on game days but to make money from the property 365 days a year rather than 81. On that front, it is a spectacular success: Nine million people come here each year, and the Braves generated $67 million in revenue from The Battery last year.

This, according to major league officials, is the template for the modern team. The Angels had planned a ballpark village twice as large as The Battery. Imagine what the Dodgers could build, and how much revenue they could generate, on property twice as large as the Angel Stadium site.

And, speaking of revenue, Rob Manfred has something he likes to say to players about it. The MLB commissioner spoke at the Braves’ Investor Day last month and said he tells players that their share of the sport’s revenue has dropped from 63% in 2002 to 47% today.

Baseball is the only major sport in America without a salary cap system, in which owners agree to spend a designated percentage of revenue on player salaries.

“If we had made a deal 10 years ago to share 50-50, you would’ve made $2.5 billion more than you made,” Manfred said he has told players, in comments first reported by Sports Business Journal.

The players and their union rolled their collective eyes at those comments. It is no secret that many owners want a salary cap, and the cost certainty that comes with it.

“It’s all tactics,” Dodgers All-Star catcher Will Smith said. “It’s all early negotiating stuff.”

Said Arizona Diamondbacks All-Star outfielder Corbin Carroll: “Owners don’t want to put money in our pockets. For them to emphasize how we need this so much, there’s a reason for that.”

Tony Clark, the union’s executive director, said the revenue numbers the league shares with the union are not consistent with Manfred’s statements. And, when you consider a percentage of revenue, you have to define what counts as revenue: What goes into the pool to be shared with players?

Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB players’ union.

(Brynn Anderson / Associated Press)

So let’s go back to The Battery, and to the revenue opportunities that such ballpark villages create for teams.

A report released in April by Klutch Sports, the Los Angeles-based agency, called such villages “the sports industry’s $100+ billion growth engine,” particularly as media revenue wanes. Within the pitch to team owners: Those villages “generate attractive financial returns that stand outside of league revenue sharing requirements.”

Translation: You can make all these millions without sharing any of it with the players.

The Braves are building here because the team plays here. That is the new issue looming over the next round of collective bargaining: If a team builds around its ballpark, should that revenue be shared with players?

“Oh yeah,” Athletics All-Star designated hitter Brent Rooker said. “Revenue is just any dollar that teams bring in that ultimately could be turned around and used to put a better product on the field. It’s got to include tickets, TV, concessions, all the things around the stadium. It’s got to include all of it.”

Is the money a team makes from renting office space outside the ballpark really relevant to the team?

Here’s what Braves president and chief executive Derek Schiller told ESPN about The Battery: “You’ve got a whole other set of revenues from the real estate development that can then be deployed for the baseball team.”

I asked Clark whether, if negotiations turn to the possibility of revenue sharing along the lines Manfred discussed, the money from ballpark villages needs to be part of the conversation.

“Yes,” Clark said.

He declined to elaborate. Understand this about Clark: He can filibuster a yes or no question into a 45-second monologue without actually answering yes or no. That he would say a clear “yes” and nothing else leaves no doubt about his position.

If the players do ask that owners share revenue from such ballpark villages, the response would be predictable: First, we share baseball revenue from baseball operations, and real estate developments are not baseball operations. Second, if you want to share in the revenue, you can share in the risk too, by helping to fund construction of the ballpark village, say, or by assuming some of the losses when a tenant drops its lease and leaves storefronts or office buildings unoccupied.

Said Carroll: “I think that’s a conversation that won’t need to happen, because it won’t get to that point. A salary cap is a nonstarter from the union’s perspective.”

Enjoy the All-Star Game Tuesday, because this summer is one of relative peace. The collective bargaining agreement expires after next season, which means the rhetoric between players and owners ought to be flying this time next year. If the owners insist on pushing a salary cap, a lockout almost certainly would follow.

And, if the owners push revenue sharing, The Battery could provide the push for the players’ pushback.

Ireland and Leinster tight-head prop Tom Clarkson will join the British and Irish Lions squad to provide additional front row cover before the first Test against Australia on Saturday.

The 25-year-old was given his Ireland debut by Andy Farrell, the Lions head coach, in November and has gone on to win eight caps.

England hooker Jamie George was called up by the Lions on Saturday, with Luke Cowan-Dickie a doubt for the first Test in Brisbane after suffering a suspected concussion in Saturday’s big win against the AUNZ Invitational XV.

Ireland’s leading tight-head props Tadhg Furlong and Finlay Bealham are already in Australia, with Clarkson linking up after starting Ireland’s 106-7 win over Portugal on Saturday to bring the Irish contingent in the squad up to 18 players.

Clarkson has benefited from Furlong’s injury troubles this season at both club and international level.

His Leinster and Ireland team-mate Jamie Osborne, who is comfortable at centre and full-back, has arrived in Brisbane after being called up earlier in the week as training cover for Blair Kinghorn.

The 23-year-old utility back was due to start against Portugal but was pulled out of the game after being called up by the Lions.

Airline pilots are told they should let rip in the cockpit, according to an air hostess who has revealed some wild facts from her experiences in the sky

It’s one of those taboo habits that most travellers would agree is just not on.

Farting on a plane is simply wrong for the same reason car wind and lift trumps are ‘illegal’ – the victim is trapped and cannot escape.

Sitting next to another passenger with wind is indeed a very unfortunate event and a rotten start to your holiday or trip. You either have to keep getting up out of your seat to let them go to the toilet every time they need to privately pop off, or you suffer the revolting indignation of breathing the foul air that has blasted out directly from their intestines into your lungs.

READ MORE: Flight attendant shares three ‘horrendous’ popular holiday destinations to fly to

However, if you’re a pilot rather than a passenger, you will have been told you MUST toot freely while in the cockpit, according to an one Argentine flight attendant.

Barbara Bacilieri, also known as Barbie Bac to her almost 2.65milion YouTube million followers, claims pilots are “prohibited” from holding in their gas because the discomfort it causes can distract them from their crucially important role.

To make matters worse, flatulence is heightened when the plane reaches an altitude of 30,000 feet. “At high altitudes, atmospheric pressure is lower, which increases the volume of internal gases,” she explained. “This can cause discomfort and distraction in the cockpit when the pilots should be focused on doing their job, not in pain from being full of gas. That’s why it’s always recommended that pilots, if they have to, just release them.”

Her wild assessment is even backed up by a 2013 study by Danish and British gastroenterologists. Hans Christian Pommergaard, Jakob Burcharth, Anders Fischer, William Thomas and Professor Rosenberg told the New Zealand Medical Journal that holding your farts in may seem preferential but they suggested that for the sake of their health and comfort, passengers and crew should set them free.

Not doing so could lead to pain, bloating, indigestion, stress and even nausea, they said. According to the Sydney Morning Herald they concluded: “There is actually only one reasonable solution – just let it go.” The medics did recognise that air cabin quality may be diminished for other passengers though.

The gassy dilemma also applied to the cockpit and pilots, the specialists found. “If the pilot restrains a fart, all the drawbacks previously mentioned, including diminished concentration, may affect his abilities to control the airplane. If he lets go of the fart his co-pilot may be affected by its odour, which again reduces safety on board the flight.”

Barbie Bac also claims the pilots eat different meals – not to see who can produce the biggest back draft but so they don’t both suffer another unfortunate bowel incident. “The commander and the copilot choose different meal options. One will choose chicken and the other will choose pasta,” she says.

This apparently is to lessen the chances of them both getting food poisoning, which would mean no one would be able to fly the plane – not ideal. “It’s almost always the captain who makes the choice, and the copilot is the one who has to accept the alternative,” explained Bacilieri, who works for a Spanish budget carrier.