Global

States no longer employ war as a tool to achieve their goals. Preferring to utilize more peaceful methods, states employ it to pursue highly consequential objectives. BRICS serves as a manifestation of this notion. The emergence of BRICS increasingly challenges the Global North. The establishment of this cooperation reflects the efforts of the Global South to alter the global order and break free from the long-standing dominance of the Global North.

BRICS represents more than a symbol of cooperation. It is actively engaged in a geopolitical chessboard that shapes today’s global economy. Gradually yet steadily, it is shifting the global balance of power through the strength it has accumulated. This is evident in the growing interest among developing countries to join the group.

Led by two major powers perceived as threats to the Global North, China and Russia hold substantial leadership roles. China dominates the global economic landscape and poses a challenge not only to the United States but also to Europe. The European Union consistently asserts that China is a rival in the renewable energy sector, particularly in electric vehicles. Russia, on the other hand, holds significant energy leverage over Europe and poses a geopolitical challenge to NATO, which is led by the United States. The development of this cooperation is further reinforced by the accession of strategically significant global actors such as Iran and the United Arab Emirates, with their vast oil reserves; Ethiopia, with its port access; and Egypt, with its strategic geographic position in relation to the West.
The inclusion of these countries further destabilizes the seemingly absolute dominance of the Global North.

Power has long been synonymous with the realist approach, which is grounded in strength.
However, the definition of strength and power has evolved. Power is no longer solely defined in terms of military capability or weaponry. In today’s global context, power is also measured by a state’s influence in shaping the rules of the game. Cooperation serves as the foundation of this new form of power.

BRICS leverages this expanded notion of power and influence. It builds coalitions to undermine dominance not by overt force, but by subtly shifting the balance—leaving its opponents unaware that a transformation is underway. BRICS undoubtedly presents a substantial challenge to the Global North’s dominance. In response, Western countries have adopted equally measured diplomatic strategies aimed at undermining BRICS from within.

During a G7 summit, former U.S. President Donald Trump expressed regret over Russia’s removal from the G7 following its annexation of Crimea in 2014.

“I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if Russia were still in, and you wouldn’t have a war right now if Trump had been president four years ago.”

Trump also did not object to the possibility of China joining the G7, stating:

“Well, it’s not a bad idea. I don’t mind that. If someone wants to suggest China joining, I think we should suggest it, but you want people you can talk to,” he added.

At first glance, these remarks appear to suggest a constructive approach to U.S.–China relations. However, upon closer examination, they may be interpreted as part of a broader strategic effort to weaken U.S. involvement in China’s global agenda.

This statement illustrates the extent to which the Global North powers are monitoring and responding to the actions of two principal BRICS members—China and Russia—as part of their efforts to undermine alliances among the Global South countries. Beyond these two core members, the G7 extended invitations to three strategically important BRICS countries—India, South Africa, and Brazil—to attend the forum as guest participants. This move represents a calculated geopolitical effort by the Global North to engage selectively with the Global South actors on the international stage.

In early July 2025, BRICS convened a summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 6–7 July. The summit was attended by all member states, including Indonesia as the newest addition to the group. Amid widespread global instability, the summit focused on pressing international issues, particularly those concerning the global economy and sanctions imposed by the United States. The meeting also addressed and condemned the Israel–U.S. military action against Iran, characterizing it as a violation of international law. These discussions served to foster a shared perspective and unity among BRICS members, with the expressed objective of challenging and dismantling systemic dominance.

The global chessboard, once governed exclusively by the most powerful Global North actors, is now being gradually redefined by emerging powers. These new actors, having grown weary of external direction, are seeking to establish their own platforms for influence and victory.

In conclusion, cooperation may serve as a strategic instrument for gaining power—one that cannot be easily condemned by any state. It represents the power to shape a new world order. Moreover, cooperation can also function as a tool for existing powers to engage with emerging actors and potentially undermine them from within the very system those new actors have established. Thus, cooperation in this context is not merely a symbol of unity but a form of conflict—one that is waged without conventional weaponry or the noise of warfare, yet still aimed at securing or contesting global dominance. Whether that dominance is preserved or overtaken remains the central struggle.

UN chief Antonio Guterres says ‘the fossil fuel age is flailing and failing’ as renewable energy becomes cheaper.

The global switch to renewable energy has passed a “positive tipping point”, and solar and wind power will become even cheaper and more widespread, according to two reports.

Last year, 74 percent of the growth in electricity generated worldwide was from wind, solar and other green sources, according to a report compiled by multiple United Nations agencies called Seizing the Moment of Opportunity. It was published on Tuesday.

It found that 92.5 percent of all new electricity capacity added to the grid worldwide in 2024 came from renewables. Meanwhile, sales of electric vehicles were up from 500,000 in 2015 to more than 17 million in 2024.

The three cheapest electricity sources globally last year were onshore wind, solar panels and new hydropower, according to an energy cost report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an intergovernmental organisation. Solar power now is 41 percent cheaper and wind power is 53 percent cheaper globally than the lowest-cost fossil fuel, the reports said.

“The fossil fuel age is flailing and failing,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a speech at the UN headquarters in New York City.

“We are in the dawn of a new energy era. An era where cheap, clean, abundant energy powers a world rich in economic opportunity.”

“Just follow the money,” Guterres said, quoting the reports, which showed last year there was $2 trillion in investment in green energy, which is about $800bn more than in fossil fuels.

Renewables are booming despite fossil fuels getting nearly nine times the government consumption subsidies as they do, Guterres and the reports said.

In 2023, global fossil fuel subsidies amounted to $620bn, compared with $70bn for renewables, the UN report said.

Still, the UN warned that the switch to renewable energy is not happening fast enough.

Despite the boom in renewables, fossil fuel production globally is still increasing instead of going down in response. UN officials said that’s because power demand is increasing overall, spurred by developing countries, artificial intelligence data centres and the need for cooling in an ever warmer world.

Guterres warned nations that are hanging on to fossil fuels that they were heading down a dangerous path that would make them poorer not richer.

“Countries that cling to fossil fuels are not protecting their economies. They [are] sabotaging them – driving up costs, undermining competitiveness, locking in stranded assets,” Guterres said.

The global renewables growth has been mostly in countries like China – where one-tenth of the economy is tied up in green energy – as well as countries such as India and Brazil.

Africa represented less than 2 percent of the new green energy capacity installed last year despite having great electrification needs, the reports said.

“The Global South must be empowered to generate its own electricity without adding to already unsustainable level of debts,” Bahamian climate scientist Adelle Thomas of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who did not work on the reports, told The Associated Press news agency.

Guterres called on major technology firms to power data centres completely with renewables by 2030.

“A typical AI data centre eats up as much electricity as 100,000 homes,” Guterres said. “By 2030, data centres could consume as much electricity as all of Japan does today.”

“The future is being built in the cloud,” the UN chief said.

“It must be powered by the sun, the wind and the promise of a better world.”

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.

July 18 (UPI) — Latin America’s major currencies gained an average of 6% against the U.S. dollar in the first half of the year. Countries that include Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Peru saw their currencies strengthen amid global economic and political tensions.

The Brazilian real rose more than 11% this year. The Mexican peso followed with a gain of nearly 9%, while currencies such as the Peruvian sol and Chilean peso also posted increases, according to JPMorgan Private Bank.

Analysts say this is not just about a weakening dollar. “The strengthening of some Latin American currencies also reflects that several countries have managed to appear more reliable to international investors,” Paraguayan economist Víctor Pavón said.

But this strengthening is double-edged. According to Daniel Correa, chief economist at DCR Economic and Financial Consulting, a stronger currency can become a problem if not managed carefully.

“The appreciation could dampen future growth prospects, particularly in a context of stalled trade, inflationary pressures and broader economic uncertainty,” Correa said.

Correa also warned that “strong growth needs could be undermined by scenarios in which local economies become relatively more expensive.”

“It’s difficult to expect this to continue for long, given the impact on export growth In a scenario of rising commodity prices and ongoing supply chain disruptions. The supply of foreign currency is likely to decline, increasing the risk of depreciation in the medium term,” Correa added.

Economist Federico Sosa shared that concern.

“This can reduce export profitability, especially in sectors like agriculture, livestock and manufacturing, where contracts are set in dollars,” he said.

Sosa also noted that a stronger currency can encourage imports, putting pressure on local producers. Still, he said, there are positive effects: It helps lower inflation and improves the country’s ability to repay foreign debt.

In Brazil, Mexico and Peru, central banks have moved quickly to contain external shocks and maintain a degree of internal stability. According to JPMorgan, that timely response could help sustain currency stability in the coming months, though it may not be enough to keep the upward trend going.

Global dynamics also play a role. Pavón noted that the U.S. dollar, which for decades dominated international trade, has gradually lost ground.

“The dollar once accounted for nearly 90% of global trade; today, it’s below 70%. It’s still high, but it shows the dollar has lost some of its exclusivity,” he said.

Economist Víctor Raúl Benítez said he sees the dollar’s decline as part of a deliberate strategy.

“The Trump administration is willing to tolerate a weaker dollar — and even a mild recession — to regain global competitiveness against China. This is part of an economic realpolitik strategy aimed at preserving the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency,” he said.

Indonesia is apparently seeking a secure position in an unstable world situation. It fosters cooperation through partnerships for this purpose. In this situation, Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto has recently engaged in dialogue and cooperation with world powers. Last weekend, on 6-7 July 2025, Prabowo went to the summit in the BRICS meeting. They discussed economic orientation and a few of the members’ common interests. They called an emerging power against the old power that had ruled the world for decades. Indonesia seems to join the cooperation to get a huge benefit since it is the largest economy in the world, namely China, Russia, and India. As the 10th member of BRICS, Indonesia clearly focuses on economic development through cooperation among countries.

This is not just stopping there. Just a week later, on Sunday, 13 July 2025, Prabowo met and discussed in front of journalists cooperation between Indonesia and the EU in developing Indonesia’s economy. Not only for the economy but also for geopolitical reasons. Indonesia’s effort to make agreements, dialogue, and meetings with actors who highlight global issues recently seems to secure its position.

“We found out that Indonesia’s motto is ‘unity and diversity’; one of our core sentences in the European Union is ‘united in diversity.’” Ursula von der Leyen said they share common sense.

In the EU-Indonesia joint presser to officially announce their strategic partnership in an uncertain economy and a confusing world. The partnership between them is not only for their economic interest but also as a depiction of what countries should do amid the instability and confusing situation.

Europe favors this cooperation first to strengthen the supply chain of critical raw materials, which Indonesia has abundant resources for. Europe is also seeking power for the clean and digital transition. Moreover, Europe would like to set a goal on geopolitics and security, particularly in ASEAN. Indonesia clearly says that the European Union is a significant partner for Indonesia’s economy and geopolitical stability in the global situation right now.

“Partnership between Europe and Indonesia, also being a large part of ASEAN, I think will be a very important contribution to economic and geopolitical stability in the world. We consider Europe to be very important for us. That’s why we would like to see more European presence and more European participation in our economy,” said Prabowo Subianto.

Future action of this agreement EU-Indonesia, it potentially massive investment in mining since the EU mentions critical raw materials in Indonesia. Indonesia will please welcome the EU to invest in this sector to leverage economic development. Despite this future prediction, Indonesian societies will have easier access to Europe as Ursula von der Leyen said,

“I’m pleased to announce that the European Commission has adopted a decision on a visa cascade. It means that from now on, Indonesian nationals visiting the European Union for a second time will be eligible for a multi-entry Schengen visa. This will make it easier to visit, but also to invest, to study, and to connect.”

Both of them have a beneficial partnership with a long-term goal. It seems Indonesia does not want to lose its investor and 5th market for commodities. Also, Europe does not want to lose its core country to secure its position in Southeast Asia and its supply chain of raw materials, obviously for its goal of energy transition. To secure a position in an uncertain world is one of the most important things for the EU to maintain its leadership, especially in the energy transition.

To conclude, Indonesia’s action in making cooperation with the EU one of its strategies in this uncertain world. We can see that prior to this agreement, Indonesia had met the BRICS countries in a summit with the same purpose of economic development. This action is a reflection of Indonesia’s principle of action in foreign policy, called “bebas-aktif.” Bebas means “free” in English, which is the right of Indonesia to act however they want without relying on one side; aktif means “active.” Is Indonesia actively promoting peace throughout the world? We can see Indonesia’s effort, which is one reflection of this principle.

New Delhi, India – In a career marked by chart-topping music and highly acclaimed performances, Punjabi actor Diljit Dosanjh is cruising towards yet another milestone on his list: Delivering the highest-grossing Punjabi film.

“Sardaar Ji 3”, the latest horror-comedy by Dosanjh, one of Asia’s most bankable artists, has been shattering records abroad. But, in his own home country, India, the film has not been released and remains out of bounds for more than one billion people.

Dosanjh and his latest film – released globally on June 27 – have been marred by a political and cultural controversy over the nationality of his film’s co-star, Hania Amir, a Pakistani actor.

Last year, Dosanjh sold out arenas in the US, Canada, and across Europe during his Dil-Luminati world tour. He became the first Indian artist to perform at the Coachella festival in California and, more recently, walked down the Met Gala carpet in an iconic turban. Dosanjh has also carved out a unique space for himself in Bollywood as both a crowd-puller and a critical favourite.

But at home, he is now facing calls for a boycott and the impounding of his passport. Film critics and political analysts, however, say this is part of a growing pattern of censorship and an attempt to restrict artistic freedom in India, to heed the nationalists’ demands.

So, why is India blocking the work of one of its most successful artists?

Why is Dosanjh’s latest film controversial?

Sardaar Ji 3, the third instalment of the popular horror-comedy franchise directed by Amar Hundal, stars a popular Punjabi pair – Dosanjh and Neeru Bajwa – in lead roles, alongside Pakistan’s Hania Aamir.

Shortly after the film’s production was wrapped in April this year, suspected rebels in Indian-administered Kashmir’s resort town of Pahalgam killed 26 people, all but one of them tourists.

New Delhi immediately blamed Pakistan, which it said had supported the deadly “terrorist attack”, but Islamabad denied involvement. In the coming days, the two countries engaged in a four-day conflict, the most expansive between the nuclear-armed neighbours in decades.

When Dosanjh released the trailer for his upcoming film last month, the casting of Aamir took many by surprise – and prompted outrage.

Why has the Indian government blocked Sadaar Ji 3?

The film has not received certification from India’s Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and has not been released in Indian cinemas.

The Indian government also “geoblocked” (restricted online access to) the film’s trailer in India; however, the teaser and film’s album, which do not include shots of Aamir, remain accessible.

Following the Kashmir attack in April, the Indian government swiftly brought in a series of digital crackdowns. This included blocking thousands of Pakistani social media handles on platforms like Instagram and X (formerly Twitter), including the accounts of celebrities such as Aamir, Fawad Khan and Mahira Khan.

The government, which is led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, also blocked access to the social media accounts of Pakistani journalists and news outlets in India.

The government then issued an advisory on May 8, directing all video platforms, streaming services and digital intermediaries to immediately remove Pakistani-origin entertainment content, including web series, films, songs, podcasts and other media.

In addition, the government banned 16 prominent Pakistani YouTube channels, including those of Geo News, ARY News, and Samaa TV, which collectively had more than 63 million subscribers, for allegedly spreading misinformation, provocative narratives, and content targeting India’s armed forces and sovereignty.

Rahul Desai, a Mumbai-based film and TV critic, said blocking access to films over casting choices has become “an excuse to antagonise Pakistan” under the current government.

“It’s a vicious cycle because a lot of the cinema is informed by pro-establishment choices in India,” he told Al Jazeera.

“This has become a very neat medium for people to vent against Pakistan, just like cricket sometimes does.”

Today, the reality-based creative boundaries in India are neat, Desai said: “Do not cast artists from the other side of the border, and a lot of filmmakers self-censor themselves.”

Are cross-border artistic collaborations common?

Yes, they are. Pakistani actors are not allowed to work in India, so shoots involving them have to be carried out abroad.

“Music departments of [Pakistan’s] films used to contribute a lot to Indian cinema at least a decade or two ago in the 2000s,” said Desai. The release of the curated music show franchise, Coke Studio Pakistan, which had 15 seasons from 2008 to 2024, was almost “like a cultural moment in India”, he added.

But over the past two decades, there have been multiple instances of cross-border collaborations of artists, but they have faced boycotts and anger on both sides of the border due to political tensions between the South Asian neighbours.

For the Punjabi film and music industries, the situation is even more complex.

The partition of British India, which resulted in the creation of Pakistan with borders drawn overnight, cuts through Punjab, and millions on each side share culture and linguistic ties.

Successful Punjabi franchises like Chal Mera Putt, known for its Pakistani cast, face uncertainty, especially the upcoming Chal Mera Putt 4, amid growing demands to avoid Pakistani involvement.

“There’s obviously a lot of bullying involved by the establishment over casting Pakistani actors,” said Desai. “There’s a lot of banning and trolling involved. There’s a lot of anxiety and tension associated with such choices.”

What do Indian film bodies say about Sadaar Ji 3?

Indian film associations, particularly the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) and the All Indian Cine Workers Association (AICWA), have voiced strong objections to the casting of Aamir in Dosanjh’s Sardaar Ji 3.

FWICE, headed by President BN Tiwari, labelled the collaboration a “betrayal of the nation” and accused Dosanjh of “disrespecting national sentiments and the sacrifices of Indian soldiers”. It demanded a complete ban on the film in India.

The body also issued appeals to India’s CBFC to withhold certification for Sardaar Ji 3 and emphasised noncooperation with Pakistani artists.

AICWA echoed these sentiments, condemning the film’s producers for prioritising Pakistani talent over Indian artists and calling for a widespread boycott of Dosanjh across the industry, including by music companies and event organisers.

Ashoke Pandit, the president of the Indian Film and Television Directors’ Association, told a local newspaper: “We are going to take action and tell the producers not to work with [Dosanjh].

“He should be fully boycotted in the country by music labels and the Punjabi film industry. Diljit is a compulsive Pakistani lover.”

However, Ira Bhaskar, a former CBFC Board member and retired professor of film studies at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, said this episode is a reflection of the establishments of India and Pakistan, rather than pointing to a deeper divide between the people of the two countries.

“The Indian government [since Modi came to power] has not only understood the power of mass media, especially cinema, but is invested in taking control of the narratives that circulate in the public domain,” Bhaskar said.

What has Dosanjh said about the furore over Sadaar Ji 3?

Dosanjh told BBC Asian Network earlier this month: “When this film was made, everything was fine.

“We shot it in February, and things were OK back then. After that, a lot of big things happened that were beyond our control,” the singer-actor said, referring to the Kashmir attack and the ensuing conflict.

“So the producers decided that the film obviously won’t be released in India now, so they’ll release it overseas. The producers have invested a lot of money, and when the film was being made, nothing like this was happening,” Dosanjh said.

How well has Sardaar Ji 3 done globally?

Dosanjh told the BBC that the film’s producers were aware of the potential financial loss from pulling out of a territory like India, the world’s most populous country. The previous film in the franchise – Sadaar Ji 2 – made nearly $3m at the box office in India.

Dosanjh has continued promoting his film on his social media handles, including sharing images from sold-out shows in Pakistan, where the movie has shattered records for Indian releases. Globally, the film has taken $7m at the box office, against a budget of $4m. In Pakistan, it is the highest-grossing Indian-made film in history, pulling in $1.4m so far.

In India, Desai, the critic, said “censorship goes way beyond casting … It extends to the themes of the stories that people are allowed to tell now in India.”

Are any other of Dosanjh’s works facing problems?

Yes. The release of Dosanjh’s film, Panjab ’95, directed by Honey Trehan in 2022, has stalled, primarily because of stringent demands from India’s Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which has delayed its clearance since the project was submitted in December 2022.

The biographical drama about the life of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who exposed 25,0000 extrajudicial killings and disappearances of Sikhs in Punjab during the 1980s and 1990s, was given 120 suggested cuts, including removing references to political figures, documented human rights abuses, and even the protagonist’s name.

Trehan told Al Jazeera: “The CBFC was established as an independent body, which could protect artists, so that the government should not influence the art … [but] the government is arm-twisting filmmakers and their films.”

Desai, the critic who watched Panjab ’95 in a private screening, told Al Jazeera: “It’s such a well-made film that it might incite a sense of revolution among people today, especially people who are not happy with the establishment. So, we can see where a lot of the insecurity is coming from.”

Dosanjh and Trehan have publicly refused to accept the suggested cuts. And the film remains in limbo. Its scheduled premiere was pulled from the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) in 2023, and subsequent invitations from other international festivals were declined.

Globalization is generally understood as a characteristic feature of the contemporary world, and there is no unified definition of this phenomenon that can be given. What it basically comes down to is that globalization is a complex of processes that have successfully rearranged economic, political, and social ties across the borders, creating high-density interregional and intercontinental webs. Although the importance of globalization to enhance technological advancement, economic integration, and cultural exchange is commonly hailed, it has also put states at new and advanced vulnerabilities, especially in the cyberspace sector. In spite of the claims that it is an ineluctable side product of human innovation, the rate of globalization has advanced considerably due to improved digital communication and transportation technology. Other researchers advance the idea that its origin can be traced to ancient migration and trade networks, and the interconnectedness is the property of human evolution. The digital age has, however, increased this connectivity to the extent that it is no longer what it was. The advent of the internet and instant communication has transformed relations and life in the world, raising the living standards of the developed countries and also bringing in developed forms of threats. Among these, the most urgent is the so-called cyber warfare one, as a brand-new area that breaks the inner paradigms of national security and national sovereignty.

In the modern world characterized by hyperconnectivity, the global digital networks have the capacity to enable the state and non-state actors to dictate cyber operations that are cross-border with far-reaching consequences. The chain of modern society, including the financial system, healthcare, energy, and military communication systems, is both a strength and a weak point to take advantage of. An attack on a single node may spread horizontally across systems and into borders of different countries, endangering social equilibrium. This necessitates the need to comprehend the motives, what they can do, and the strategies they are likely to use, and to develop adaptive national security models that can adapt to this changing environment. Technology is the powerful aspect that can present change in almost all spheres of life. The spread of the use of smartphones, the construction of smart cities, and the implementation of blockchain systems indicate the high rate of transformation of personal life and institutional life, as well as their digitalization. This digital transformation, however, also came with an abundance of cyber risks. Not only is the new threat environment vigilant, but it is advanced enough to require precedent defense. Such qualities of cyberspace as anonymity, easy accessibility, legal confusion, and unequal distribution of power make the latter a beneficial environment for conflicts, spying, and interference by an extended number of opponents.

The changes of cyber threats have been gradual yet far-reaching. The history of cybersecurity could be established back in the early 1970s when the Creeper and its antivirus Reaper became the first self-replicating and antivirus applications, respectively. Commercial Antivirus software was introduced in the 1980s, the same decade that the 90s witnessed a boom of online crime since more people got access to the internet worldwide. Cybercrime was being organized and more technologically advanced in the early 2000s, with state-sponsored cyber manipulation starting to take shape. By 2026, the worldwide cybersecurity market is expected to exceed 345 billion, which can be seen as a way of demonstrating the magnitude of the problem and the necessity to take measures in preventing it. Cyber capabilities are being more and more incorporated as part of the greater strategic arsenals of states. Hybrid warfare, the idea of a combination of conventional military methods and digital warfare, has turned out to be one of the central concepts of modern combat. Of particular interest is the use, in 2010, of the Stuxnet malware, apparently by the United States and Israel, to destroy nuclear centrifuges in Iran. These cyber operations have the potential to create strategic disruption to adversaries at no political or humanitarian cost of direct warfare, and they can be covered behind the plausible deniability of it. This is because the Russian-Ukraine conflict presents one of the most vivid examples of the practicality of cyber warfare. Beginning in 2013, Russia has carried out a series of cyberattacks on Ukrainian infrastructure that grew in intensity in the run-up to its full-scale invasion in 2022. The malware was used to carry out operations like attacks using destructive malware referred to as the Acid Rain, which interfered with satellite communications and even the monitoring of wind turbines, as well as the internet being cut off through parts of Europe and even North Africa. Such cyberattacks were not isolated maneuvers but rather a part of Russia’s broad hybrid warfare policy. They wanted to disrupt Ukrainian rule, create disinformation, disorient people, and tear the society apart without the specificity of any military attack.

The non-state actors have also become substantial sources of cyber menace. The organizations and groups that operate in the cyberspace now include the hacktivist groups and criminal syndicates, terrorist organizations and inclusion of corporate groups as well. They have different motives. Their motives could be as varied as financial gain, ideological expression, or strategic disruption, but their capability to cause harm is real. In 2007, there were Estonian cyberattacks, largely blamed on Russian patriotic hackers, that led to the paralysis of banking systems, ministerial websites, and media houses. The incident was not scientifically connected to the Russian state, but it revealed the nature of destruction of non-state actors. At least, these groups are involved in cyber espionage and/or sabotage with or without official state sponsorship to make it more difficult to attribute culpability and strike back. The consequences upon national security are enormous and extremely troubling. Hacking is capable of bringing the most vital services to their knees, stealing classified information, and undermining democratic efforts in the minds of a citizenry. A case in point is the Ghostnet which was found out in 2009 and had penetrated networks in over 100 countries expressly posing a challenge of digital sovereignty and spying. In a similar vein, in 2016 Russia was charged with influencing the US presidential election race via cyber incursion, disinformation, and explorations of electoral infrastructure, which was a move designed to discredit democracy as well as geopolitical stability. With cyber warfare still being in development, the boundary between the peaceful and aggressive becomes more grey. Digital battlefield involves situations where attacks cannot be tracked and consequently acknowledged, where it is difficult to ascribe such an attack, and where effects, though sometimes silent, are vast. The necessity of taking good care of cybersecurity is pressing and hard to exaggerate. In order to combat such threats, the states have to invest in integrated cybersecurity systems. Not just firewalls, intrusion and detection systems, and encrypting data, but more sophisticated threat intelligence using the technology of artificial intelligence and machine learning. The critical systems have to be secured through proactive monitoring, protocols of quick responses and regular vulnerability checks.

Nevertheless, system-based countermeasures are not enough. It is also crucial to have a subtle perception of how humans conduct themselves online. Behavioral science insights have to be involved in cybersecurity strategies in order to predict, prevent, and respond to internal and external threats more effectively. The high security levels of cyber resilience can be achieved through awareness campaigns, psychological profiling of threat actors, and an education program for both users and professionals. The other pillar of success in cybersecurity is international cooperation. No nation can take on these threats independently because of the nature of the internet, which is borderless. International rules and conventions, codes of ethics, and laws have to be developed to govern cyberspace behavior and punish the violators. Moreover, the worldwide issue of cybersecurity talent shortage will require making large investments both in learning and educating the current generation of cybersecurity experts and investing in innovative approaches like gamified learning, virtual labs, and outreach strategies to appeal to people of different backgrounds and interests to the industry. Globalization has finally facilitated and strengthened the emergence of cyber threats. Though interconnectedness may be one of the most effective drivers of economic and social development, it also ensures the spawning of fresh opportunities through which dangerous outcomes may be realized should it be left unchecked, acting devastatingly to malicious parties. It is not cybersecurity and only a technical need; it is a national need that is necessary to protect sovereignty, stability, and the democratic order in the twenty-first century.

NoName057(16) had carried out thousands of attacks on Ukraine and its supporters.

An international operation spanning North America and Europe has taken down a pro-Russian cybercrime group linked to thousands of attacks on Ukraine and its allies.

In recent days, law enforcement working together in 19 countries jointly dismantled the operations of cybercrime network NoName057(16), according to a statement issued by Europol on Wednesday.

The pro-Russian group, which has been operating since 2022, initially targeted Ukraine but expanded to countries across Europe. They carried out attacks on Swedish authorities and bank websites, more than 250 German companies and institutions, and on the latest NATO meeting in the Netherlands, Europol said.

The police agency said the international operation “led to the disruption of an attack-infrastructure consisting of over one hundred computer systems worldwide, while a major part of the group’s central server infrastructure was taken offline”.

Law enforcement and judicial authorities from France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and the United States took simultaneous actions against offenders and infrastructure belonging to the pro-Russian cybercrime network, it said.

The group had used the Telegram messaging app to enlist more than 4,000 volunteers, who made their systems available for swamping critical institutions’ servers with so-called distributed denial of service attacks, German prosecutors said.

The premises searched included those linked to volunteers in the Telegram group, they said.

Judicial authorities in Germany issued six arrest warrants for suspects in Russia, two of them accused of being the main leaders of the group, Europol said. Five of them were identified on Europol’s Europe’s Most Wanted website.

One suspect was placed under preliminary arrest in France and another detained in Spain, Europol said. The Paris prosecutor’s office said one person is in custody in France and communications equipment has been seized. No charges have yet been filed. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was involved in the operation.

The attorney general’s office in Switzerland, which is not an EU member country, said in a statement on Wednesday that joint investigations between Europol and Swiss federal police helped identify three leading members of the group, which is alleged to have targeted more than 200 Swiss websites.

Swiss prosecutors opened a criminal case over the incidents in June 2023, and since then, identified several other denial-of-service attacks attributed to the activist group. The attacks included a video address by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the Swiss parliament and the popular Eurovision Song Contest, held in Basel earlier this year.

In recent years, the collective, known for promoting Russian interests, has allegedly carried out successful cyberattacks in Ukraine and on government, infrastructure, banking, health services and telecom websites in European countries that have opposed Russia’s invasion.

European authorities are increasingly concerned at the scale of the hybrid threats they say emanate from Russia, which is in the third year of its invasion of Western ally Ukraine.

Those threats, which have included killings and alleged bomb plots against institutions and cargo aircraft, have largely been attributed to state actors. Russia has denied the accusation.

Europol said that people recruited by the group were paid in cryptocurrency and motivated using online-gaming dynamics like leader boards and badges.

“This gamified manipulation, often targeted at younger offenders, was emotionally reinforced by a narrative of defending Russia or avenging political events,” Europol said.

Francesca Albanese addresses delegates from 30 countries to discuss ways nations can try to stop Israel’s offensive.

The United Nations’s special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian Territories has said that it is time for nations around the world to take concrete actions to stop Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.

Francesca Albanese spoke to delegates from 30 countries meeting in Colombia’s capital, Bogota, on Tuesday to discuss Israel’s brutal assault and ways nations can try to stop the offensive in the besieged enclave.

Many of the participating nations have described Israel’s war on Gaza as a genocide against the Palestinians.

More than 58,000 people have been killed since Israel launched the assault in October 2023, according to Palestinian health authorities. Israeli forces have also imposed several total blockades on the territory throughout the war, pushing Gaza’s 2.3 million residents to the brink of starvation.

“Each state must immediately review and suspend all ties with the State of Israel … and ensure its private sector does the same,” Albanese said. “The Israeli economy is structured to sustain the occupation that has now turned genocidal.”

The two-day conference organised by Colombia and South Africa is being attended mostly by developing nations, although Spain, Ireland and China have also sent delegates.

The conference is co-chaired by South Africa and Colombia, which last year suspended coal exports to Israeli power plants. It includes the participation of members of The Hague Group, a coalition of eight countries that earlier this year pledged to cut military ties with Israel and comply with an International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

For decades, South Africa’s governing African National Congress party has compared Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank with its own history of oppression under the harsh apartheid regime of white minority rule, which restricted most Black people to areas called “homelands”, before ending in 1994.

The gathering comes as the European Union weighs various measures against Israel, which include a ban on imports from illegal Israeli settlements, an arms embargo and individual sanctions against Israeli officials who are found to be blocking a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Colombian Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Mauricio Jaramillo said on Monday that the nations participating in the Bogota meeting, which also include Qatar and Turkiye, will be discussing diplomatic and judicial measures to put more pressure on Israel to cease its attacks.

The Colombian official described Israel’s conduct in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as an affront to the international order.

“This is not just about Palestine,” Jaramillo said in a news conference. “It is about defending international law and the right to self-determination.”

Special rapporteur Albanese’s comments echoed remarks she made earlier on Tuesday addressed to the EU. The bloc’s foreign ministers had been meeting in Brussels to discuss possible action against Israel.

In a series of posts on X, Albanese wrote that the EU is “legally bound” to suspend its association agreement with Israel, citing its obligations under international law.

Albanese said the EU is not only Israel’s top trading partner but also its top investment partner, nearly double the size of the US, and “trade with an economy inextricably tied to occupation, apartheid and genocide is complicity”.

The global economy is on tenterhooks in the run-up to United States President Donald Trump’s July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to reach trade deals or face sharply higher tariffs.

Wednesday’s deadline comes after Trump announced in April a 90-day pause on his steepest tariffs after his “Liberation Day” plans sent markets into a tailspin.

With billions of dollars in global trade at stake, US trade partners are racing to negotiate deals to avoid damage to their economies amid continuing uncertainty over Trump’s next moves.

What will happen when the deadline expires?

The Trump administration has indicated that trade partners that fail to reach deals with the US will face higher tariffs, but there are big question marks around which countries will be hit and how hard.

On Sunday, Trump said he would begin sending letters to particular countries this week outlining new tariff rates, while also indicating that he had sealed a number of new trade deals.

Trump told reporters that he would send a letter or conclude a deal for “most countries”, without specifying any by name, by Wednesday.

In an interview with CNN on Sunday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said countries that do not reach a deal would face higher tariffs from August 1.

Bessent disputed the suggestion that the deadline had moved and said tariffs for affected countries would “boomerang back” to the levels originally announced on April 2.

On Friday, however, Trump suggested the tariffs could go as high as 70 percent, which would be higher than the 50 percent maximum rate outlined in his “Liberation Day” plan.

Adding to the uncertainty, Trump on Sunday threatened to impose an additional 10 percent tariff on countries that aligned themselves with the “anti-American policies” of BRICS, a bloc of 10 emerging economies, including Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as the founding members.

“There will be no exceptions to this policy. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“It’s getting harder to guess what might happen given conflicting information from the White House,” Deborah Elms, the head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, told Al Jazeera.

“With the lack of ‘deals’ to announce before July 9, I’m not surprised that the US is both issuing threats of new, potentially higher rates to be imposed in letters and suggesting that deadlines could be extended to some if offers are deemed to be sufficiently attractive.”

Which countries have reached trade deals with the US?

So far, only China, the United Kingdom and Vietnam have announced trade deals, which have reduced Trump’s tariffs but not eliminated them.

Under the US-China deal, tariffs on Chinese goods were reduced from 145 percent to 30 percent, while duties on US exports fell from 125 percent to 10 percent.

The deal, however, only paused the higher tariff rates for 90 days, rather than scrapping them outright, and left numerous outstanding issues between the sides unresolved.

The UK’s agreement saw it maintain a 10 percent tariff rate, while Vietnam saw its 46 percent levy replaced by a 20 percent rate on Vietnamese exports and a 40 percent tariff for “transshipping”.

A host of other key US trade partners have confirmed that negotiations are under way, including the European Union, Canada, India, Japan and South Korea.

Trump administration officials have indicated that negotiations are primarily focused on a dozen-and-a-half countries that make up the vast bulk of the US trade deficit.

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the EU, the US’s largest trading partner, was working to conclude a “skeletal” deal that would defer a resolution on their most contentious differences before the deadline to avoid Trump’s mooted 50 percent tariff.

India’s CNBC-TV18 also reported on Sunday that New Delhi expected to finalise a “mini trade deal” within the next 24-48 hours.

The CNBC-TV18 report, citing unnamed sources, said the agreement would see the average tariff rate set at about 10 percent.

Andrew K McAllister, a member of Holland & Knight’s International Trade Group in Washington, DC, said while Trump is likely to announce a small number of deals that resemble those signed with China, Vietnam and the UK, most countries are probably looking at significant across-the-board tariffs.

“My view is that tariffs are here to stay,” McAllister told Al Jazeera.

“I view the bargaining chip to be the level at which the tariff is set. For countries in which the president and administration view tariffs and other non-tariff barriers against US products as significant, he is much more likely to impose higher levels of tariffs.”

What will be the economic impact of Trump’s trade war?

Economists widely agree that steep tariffs over a sustained period would push up prices and hinder the growth of both the US and global economies.

The World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) last month downgraded their outlook for the global economy, cutting their forecasts from 2.8 percent to 2.3 percent, and from 3.3 percent to 2.9 percent, respectively.

At the same time, anticipating the impact of Trump’s trade war has been made more challenging by his administration’s repeated U-turns and conflicting signals on tariffs.

Trump’s steepest tariffs have been put on pause, though a 10 percent baseline duty has been applied to all US imports and levies on Chinese exports remain at double-digit levels.

JP Morgan Research has estimated that a 10 percent universal tariff and a 110 percent tariff on China would reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by 1 percent, with the hit to GDP falling to 0.7 percent in the case of a 60 percent duty on Chinese goods.

So far, the fallout from the tariffs introduced has been modest, though analysts have warned that inflation may still take off once businesses burn through inventory stockpiles built up in anticipation of higher costs.

Despite fears of sharp price rises in the US, annualised inflation came in at a modest 2.3 percent in May, close to the Federal Reserve’s target.

The US stock market, after suffering steep losses earlier this year, has bounced back to an all-time high, while the US economy added a stronger-than-expected 147,000 jobs in June.

Other data points to underlying jitters, however.

Consumer spending fell 0.1 percent in May, according to the US Commerce Department, the first decline since January.

“As for the economy generally, the jury’s out on whether we’re still waiting on the worst of the tariff hit,” Dutch bank ING said in a note on Friday.

“The delay in China’s tariff levels probably came just in time to avert a more serious recessionary threat. The latest jobs report certainly doesn’t point to the bottom falling out of the labour market, though if we’re talking about time lags, this is usually the last place economic damage shows up. Sentiment remains fragile, remember.”

French officials allege China’s foreign embassies leading charge to undermine Rafale sales after India-Pakistan conflict in May, says report.

French military and intelligence officials claim China has deployed its embassies to spread doubts about the performance of French-made Rafale jets following the aerial combat between India and Pakistan in May.

The Associated Press news agency, quoting French officials, reported on Sunday that Beijing is working to harm the reputation and sales of France’s flagship fighter aircraft.

French officials say they have found that the Chinese embassies are trying to undermine Rafale sales by persuading countries that have already ordered the jets, notably Indonesia, not to buy them and instead choose Chinese-made fighters.

The AP report said the findings were shared by a French military official on condition that they should not be named.

Four days of India-Pakistan clashes in May were the most serious confrontation in years between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, which included air combat involving dozens of aircraft from both sides.

Military officials and researchers have since been digging for details of how Pakistan’s Chinese-made military hardware – particularly warplanes and air-combat missiles – fared against weaponry that India used in air strikes on Pakistani targets, notably French-made Rafale fighters.

Sales of Rafales and other armaments are big business for the French defence industry and help Paris to strengthen ties with other nations, including in Asia, where China is becoming the dominant regional power.

India confirms losses

Pakistan says its air force downed five Indian planes during the fighting, including three Rafales. French officials say that prompted questions about their performance from countries that have bought the fighter from French manufacturer Dassault Aviation.

India acknowledged aircraft losses but did not say how many. French air force chief General Jerome Bellanger said he has seen evidence pointing to just three aircraft losses – a Rafale, a Russian-made Sukhoi and a Mirage 2000, which is an earlier generation French-made jet.

It was the first known combat loss of a Rafale, which France has sold to eight countries. “Of course, all those, the nations that bought Rafales, asked themselves questions,” Bellanger said.

French officials have been battling to protect the plane from reputational damage, pushing back against what they allege was a concerted campaign of Rafale-bashing and disinformation online from Pakistan and its ally, China.

They say the campaign included viral posts on social media, manipulated imagery showing supposed Rafale debris, AI-generated content and video-game depictions to simulate supposed combat.

More than 1,000 social media accounts newly created as the India-Pakistan clashes erupted also spread a narrative of Chinese technological superiority, according to French researchers who specialise in online disinformation.

French claims

Military officials in France say they have not been able to link the online Rafale-bashing directly to the Chinese government.

But the French intelligence service said Chinese embassy defence attaches echoed the same narrative in meetings they held with security and defence officials from other countries, arguing that Indian Rafale jets performed poorly and promoting Chinese-made weaponry.

The defence attaches focused their lobbying on countries that have ordered Rafales and other potential customer nations that are considering purchases, the intelligence service said. It said French officials learned of the meetings from nations that were approached.

The French Ministry for Armed Forces said the Rafale was targeted by “a vast campaign of disinformation” that “sought to promote the superiority of alternative equipment, notably of Chinese design”.

“The Rafale was not randomly targeted. It is a highly capable fighter jet, exported abroad and deployed in a high-visibility theatre,” the French ministry wrote on its website.

Asked by AP to comment on the alleged effort to dent Rafale’s appeal, the Ministry of National Defence in Beijing said: “The relevant claims are pure groundless rumours and slander. China has consistently maintained a prudent and responsible approach to military exports, playing a constructive role in regional and global peace and stability.”

Dassault Aviation has sold 533 Rafales, including 323 exported to Egypt, India, Qatar, Greece, Croatia, the United Arab Emirates, Serbia and Indonesia. Indonesia has ordered 42 planes and is considering buying more.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur says some of the world’s largest companies are complicit in and profiting from Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Francesca Albanese’s landmark report identified Microsoft, Amazon and Google as just some of the major United States tech firms helping Israel sustain its genocide in Gaza.

But UN reports like this have no legal power. And Israel has rejected Albanese’s findings as “groundless”, saying it would “join the dustbin of history”.

So, will big companies, despite their financial interests, start to question their ties with Israel?

And will consumers around the world bring commercial pressure on those implicated firms?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Omar Barghouti – Cofounder of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement

Vaniya Agrawal – Former software engineer at Microsoft, who resigned earlier this year

Michael Lynk – Human rights lawyer and a former UN special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory

It takes a little over an hour for “Nobu” to marinate long enough to approach a point of complexity, not exactly bitter but no longer cloyingly sweet. Nobu Matsuhisa, the celebrated sushi master, is running quality-control checks in one of his restaurants. A poor chef is sweating the test so badly, he won’t need soy sauce soon enough. His dish keeps being sent back: Chop the chives finer. Why is this pile of raw crudo smaller? Why did you paint a line of salt instead of a dot? The scene goes on, excruciatingly. A few minutes later, Robert De Niro — an early investor and co-founder — dominates a private board meeting with concerns about too-rapid growth. It’s not quite the ominous Waingro showdowns of “Heat” but in the ballpark.

Fastidiousness, precision and a kind of reputational exclusivity are at the heart of Matsuhisa’s enterprise. These are hard things to make a documentary about. But it’s also why Nobu needed to come to Beverly Hills for his concept to take root — not just any Los Angeles but the ’80s-era boomtown of power lunches and spend-to-impress dining. Spago’s Wolfgang Puck makes an appearance in director Matt Tyrnauer’s half-interesting film, fawning over his longtime friend sitting next to him but not quite articulating the essence of their revolution: high-end branding. You wish more time was spent on that conceptual idea, enabled by celebrities throwing around money on food they barely ate.

The kind of doc that “Nobu” more often resembles (as do most foodie-targeted profiles) is a gentle chronology of a humble genius and everyday guy who just happens to fly private. Matsuhisa bows to euphoric local fishmongers, does a lot of hugs and selfies with his staff, visits his roots in Japan and Peru. There are family interviews and a detour to Alaska, where, years before he had a 300-person nightly waitlist, an early restaurant of his caught fire — in the bad literal way (Tyrnauer cuts to the Anchorage newspaper headline). These false starts are somehow exhausting, lacking in suspense. He contemplated suicide, then came to California.

The food sails by: wedges of black cod with miso, delicate plates of thinly sliced fish adorned with tweezer-manipulated herbs. All of it is crazy-making and delicious. Still, apart from former Los Angeles Times food editor Ruth Reichl, who witnessed the rise of Nobu as it happened, there are few on-camera voices who speak directly to Matsuhisa’s gifts and experimentation with form. 2011’s “Jiro Dreams of Sushi” does a better job of delivering the intimate discipline of cutting and shaping. More testimony to the experience of eating at Nobu would have helped this feel less like a commercial.

“Nobu” is a film oddly unconcerned with the communal experience of dining. We hear about the way his sushi workstations are elevated (a “stage,” Matsuhisa calls them) and that’s central to the performance going on here, also the remove. Something clicks when the film heads to Nobu Malibu and visits the table of supermodel Cindy Crawford, whose “Cindy rice,” a dish he invented for her, adorns the menu. There’s a deep mutual gratitude between them that goes back years. An appreciation of the finer things? No doubt. Game recognizing game? Definitely.

At a minimalist matcha bar in Los Angeles, United States, powdered Japanese tea is prepared with precision, despite a global shortage driven by the bright green drink’s social media stardom.

Of the 25 types of matcha on the menu at Kettl Tea, which opened on Hollywood Boulevard this year, all but four were out of stock, according to the shop’s founder, Zach Mangan.

“One of the things we struggle with is telling customers that, unfortunately, we don’t have” what they want, he said.

With its deep grassy aroma, intense colour and pick-me-up effects, the popularity of matcha “has grown just exponentially over the last decade, but much more so in the last two to three years”, the 40-year-old explained.

It is now “a cultural touchpoint in the Western world” – found everywhere from ice-cream flavour boards to Starbucks.

This has caused matcha’s market to nearly double over a year, Mangan said.

“No matter what we try, there’s just not more to buy.”

In the Japanese city of Sayama, northwest of Tokyo, Masahiro Okutomi – the 15th generation to run his family’s tea production business – is overwhelmed by demand.

“I had to put on our website that we are not accepting any more matcha orders,” he said.

Producing the powder is an intensive process: the leaves, called “tencha”, are shaded for several weeks before harvest, to concentrate the taste and nutrients.

They are then carefully deveined by hand, dried and finely ground in a machine.

“It takes years of training” to make matcha properly, Okutomi said. “It’s a long-term endeavour requiring equipment, labour and investment.”

“I’m glad the world is taking an interest in our matcha … but in the short term, it’s almost a threat – we just can’t keep up,” he said.

The matcha boom has been propelled by online influencers like Andie Ella, who has more than 600,000 subscribers on YouTube and started her own brand of matcha products.

At the pastel-pink pop-up shop she opened in Tokyo’s hip Harajuku district, dozens of fans were excitedly waiting to take a photo with the 23-year-old Frenchwoman or buy her cans of strawberry or white chocolate-flavoured matcha.

“Matcha is visually very appealing,” said Ella.

To date, her matcha brand, produced in Japan’s rural Mie region, has sold 133,000 cans. Launched in November 2023, it now has eight employees.

“Demand has not stopped growing,” she said.

Last year, matcha accounted for more than half of the 8,798 tonnes of green tea exported from Japan, according to Japan’s Agriculture Ministry data – twice as much as 10 years ago.

Tokyo tea shop Jugetsudo, in the touristy former fish market area of Tsukiji, is trying to control its stock levels given the escalating demand.

“We don’t strictly impose purchase limits, but we sometimes refuse to sell large quantities to customers suspected of reselling,” said store manager Shigehito Nishikida.

“In the past two or three years, the craze has intensified. Customers now want to make matcha themselves, like they see on social media,” he added.

The global matcha market is estimated to be worth billions of dollars, but it could be hit by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Japanese products – currently 10 percent, with a rise to 24 percent in the cards.

Shortages and tariffs mean “we do have to raise prices. We don’t take it lightly”, said Mangan at Kettl Tea, though it has not dampened demand so far.

“Customers are saying, ‘I want matcha before it runs out’.”

Japan’s government is encouraging tea producers to farm on a larger scale to reduce costs.

But that risks sacrificing quality, and “in small rural areas, it’s almost impossible”, grower Okutomi said.

The number of tea plantations in Japan has fallen to a quarter of what it was 20 years ago, as farmers age and find it difficult to secure successors, he added.

“Training a new generation takes time… It can’t be improvised.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump says he is not planning to extend a 90-day pause on tariffs on most nations beyond July 9, when the negotiating period he set would expire, and his administration will notify countries that the trade penalties will take effect unless there are deals with the United States.

Letters will start going out “pretty soon” before the approaching deadline, he said.

“We’ll look at how a country treats us — are they good, are they not so good — some countries we don’t care, we’ll just send a high number out,” Trump told Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures” during a wide-ranging interview taped Friday and broadcast Sunday.

Those letters, he said, would say, “Congratulations, we’re allowing you to shop in the United States of America, you’re going to pay a 25% tariff, or a 35% or a 50% or 10%.”

Trump had played down the deadline at a White House news conference Friday by noting how difficult it would be to work out separate deals with each nation. The administration had set a goal of reaching 90 trade deals in 90 days.

Negotiations continue, but “there’s 200 countries, you can’t talk to all of them,” he said in the interview.

Trump also discussed a potential TikTok deal, relations with China, the U.S. strikes on Iran and his immigration crackdown.

Here are the key takeaways:

A group of wealthy investors will make an offer to buy TikTok, Trump said, hinting at a deal that could safeguard the future of the popular social media platform, which is owned by China’s ByteDance.

TikTok

“We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way. I think I’ll need, probably, China approval, and I think President Xi [Jinping] will probably do it,” Trump said.

Trump did not offer any details about the investors, calling them “a group of very wealthy people.”

“I’ll tell you in about two weeks,” he said when asked for specifics.

It’s a time frame Trump often cites, most recently about a decision on whether the U.S. military would get directly involved in the war between Israel and Iran. The U.S. struck Iranian nuclear sites just days later.

Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order to keep TikTok running in the U.S. for 90 more days to give his administration more time to broker a deal to bring the social media platform under American ownership.

It is the third time Trump has extended the deadline. The first one was through an executive order on Jan. 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when a national ban — approved by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court — took effect.

Strikes on Iran

Trump reiterated his assertion that the U.S. strikes on Iran had “obliterated” its nuclear facilities, and he said whoever leaked a preliminary intelligence assessment suggesting Tehran’s nuclear program had been set back only a few months should be prosecuted.

Trump claimed Iran was “weeks away” from achieving a nuclear weapon before he ordered the strikes, contradicting his own intelligence officials.

“It was obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before,” he said. “And that meant the end to their nuclear ambitions, at least for a period of time.”

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Sunday on X that Trump “exaggerated to cover up and conceal the truth.” Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that his country’s nuclear program is peaceful and that uranium “enrichment is our right, and an inalienable right and we want to implement this right” under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. “I think that enrichment will not — never stop.”

Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said on CBS that “it is clear that there has been severe damage, but it’s not total damage.”

Grossi also said his agency has faced pressure to report that Iran had a nuclear weapon or was close to one, but “we simply didn’t because this was not what we were seeing.”

Of the leak of the intelligence assessment, Trump said anyone found to be responsible should be prosecuted. Journalists who received it should be asked who their source was, he said: “You have to do that and I suspect we’ll be doing things like that.”

His press secretary said Thursday that the administration is investigating the matter.

Immigration raids

As he played up his immigration crackdown, Trump offered a more nuanced view when it comes to farm and hotel workers.

“I’m the strongest immigration guy that there’s ever been, but I’m also the strongest farmer guy that there’s ever been,” he said.

He said he wants to deport criminals, but it’s a problem when farmers lose their laborers and it destroys their businesses.

Trump said his administration is working on “some kind of a temporary pass” that could give farmers and hotel owners control over immigration raids at their facilities.

Earlier this month, Trump had called for a pause on immigration raids disrupting the farming, hotel and restaurant industries, but a top Homeland Security official followed up with a contradictory statement. Tricia McLaughlin said there would be “no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine” immigration enforcement efforts.

China trade talks

Trump praised a recent trade deal with Beijing over rare-earth exports from China and said establishing a fairer relationship would require significant tariffs.

“I think getting along well with China is a very good thing,” Trump said. “China’s going to be paying a lot of tariffs, but we have a big [trade] deficit, they understand that.”

Trump said he would be open to removing sanctions on Iranian oil shipments to China if Tehran could show “they can be peaceful and if they can show us they’re not going to do any more harm.”

But the president also indicated the U.S. might retaliate against Beijing. When Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo noted that China has tried to hack U.S. systems and steal intellectual property, Trump replied, “You don’t think we do that to them?”

Klepper and Swenson write for the Associated Press.

LONDON — U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says the country is pulling its support from the vaccines alliance Gavi, saying the organization has “ignored the science” and “lost the public trust.”

A video of Kennedy’s short speech was shown to a Gavi meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, where the organization that has paid for more than 1 billion children to be vaccinated through routine immunization programs was hoping to raise at least $9 billion for the next five years.

Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, mentioned Gavi’s partnership with the World Health Organization during COVID-19, accusing them of silencing “dissenting views” and “legitimate questions” about vaccine safety. His speech also cast doubt on the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine — which WHO and other health agencies have long deemed to be safe and effective.

Gavi said in a statement Thursday that its “utmost concern is the health and safety of children,” adding that any decision it makes on vaccines to buy is done in accordance with recommendations issued by WHO’s expert vaccine group.

Some doctors in the United States criticized the decision. Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said it was “incredibly dangerous” and warned that defunding immunization would put millions of children at risk.

Gavi is a public-private partnership including WHO, UNICEF, the Gates Foundation and the World Bank, and it is estimated that the vaccination programs have saved 18 million lives. The United States has long been one of its biggest supporters; before President Donald Trump’s reelection, the country had pledged $1 billion through 2030.

In just under four minutes, Kennedy called on Gavi “to justify the $8 billion America has provided in funding since 2001,” saying officials must “consider the best science available, even when that science contradicts established paradigms.” Kennedy said until that happens, the U.S. won’t contribute further to Gavi.

The health secretary zeroed in on the COVID-19 vaccine, which WHO, Gavi and other health authorities have recommended for pregnant women, saying they are at higher risk of severe disease. Kennedy called that a “questionable” recommendation; his U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently stopped recommending it.

He also criticized Gavi for funding a rollout of a vaccine to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis in poorer countries, saying he’d seen research that concluded that young girls who got the vaccine were more likely to die from all other causes than children who weren’t immunized.

Gavi said scientists had reviewed all available data, including any studies that raised concerns, and that the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine has “played a key role in helping halve childhood mortality.”

Some observational studies have shown that vaccinated girls do have a higher death rate compared to unvaccinated children, but there is no evidence the deaths are caused by the vaccine. But Offit said the studies cited by Kennedy were not convincing and that research examining links between vaccinations and deaths did not prove a causal connection.

“There’s no mechanism here which makes biological sense for why the [diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine] might result in more children dying,” Offit said.

Doctors Without Borders on Thursday predicted “countless children will die from vaccine-preventable diseases” as a result of the U.S. withdrawing support for Gavi.

“To invoke misleading and inaccurate claims about vaccine safety as the pretext for cutting all global vaccine funding is cruel and reckless,” said Mihir Mankad, the charity’s global health advocacy and policy director in the U.S. “When we vaccinate in the community, parents line up for hours to give their children a chance to be protected from these deadly diseases.

“For these children, vaccination programs … are a matter of life and death.”

Kennedy’s recorded speech to Gavi came on the same day that his reconstituted U.S. vaccine advisory panel met for the first time. He fired the previous 17-member panel this month and replaced it with a seven-member group that includes several vaccine skeptics.

Cheng writes for the Associated Press. The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has announced that the United States will no longer contribute to Gavi, a global health programme that has vaccinated more than one billion of the world’s poorest children.

In a video that aired at a Gavi fundraising event in Brussels on Wednesday, Kennedy said the group had made questionable recommendations around COVID-19 vaccines. He also raised concerns about the diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis vaccine, known by the acronym DTPw, though he provided no evidence to support those fears.

“I call on Gavi today to re-earn the public trust and to justify the $8bn that America has provided in funding since 2001,” Kennedy said in the video.

Kennedy added that Gavi should consider all available science before investing in vaccines. “Until that happens, the United States won’t contribute more,” he said.

The details of the video were first reported by the publication Politico and later by the news outlet Reuters.

Gavi said in a detailed statement that safety was one of its top priorities and that it acts in line with World Health Organization recommendations.

The statement also indicated that Gavi has full confidence in the DTPw vaccine, which it credits with having helped to cut child mortality in half in the countries it supports since 2000.

“The DTPw vaccine has been administered to millions of children around the world for decades, and is estimated to have saved more than 40 million lives over the past 50 years,” the statement notes.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has previously indicated that it planned to cut US funding for Gavi, representing around $300m annually, as part of a wider pullback from international aid.

Advocacy groups called on the US to reverse its decision.

“Kennedy claims that Gavi ignored science are entirely false,” nonprofit consumer advocacy organisation Public Citizen wrote in a statement.

“Gavi’s recommendations are grounded in global evidence and reviewed by independent experts. His suggestion otherwise fuels the same disinformation that has already led to deadly measles outbreaks and the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases, including polio.”

A longtime vaccine sceptic, Kennedy has upended the US medical establishment since taking office in February. He has raised questions about possible ties between autism and vaccines, though numerous studies have shown there is no link.

Earlier this month, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the expert panel on vaccines at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Created 60 years ago, the committee serves as an independent government body to review data and make recommendations about who should get vaccines. Those recommendations, in turn, can affect which vaccines health insurance plans may cover.

Of Kennedy’s initial eight replacement members, about half have advocated against vaccines.

Kennedy’s new vaccine advisers hold inaugural meeting

The newly revamped committee met for the first time on Wednesday, under intense scrutiny from medical experts worried about Americans’ access to lifesaving shots.

But already, conflicts are starting to simmer in and around the panel.

Ahead of the two-day gathering, government scientists prepared meeting materials calling vaccination “the best protection” during pregnancy — and said most children hospitalised for COVID-19 over the past year were unvaccinated.

That advice, however, conflicts with Kennedy’s. The health secretary already announced COVID-19 vaccines will no longer be recommended for healthy children or pregnant women, and his new advisers are not scheduled to vote this week on whether they agree.

COVID-19 remains a public health threat, resulting in 32,000 to 51,000 US deaths and more than 250,000 hospitalizations since last fall, according to the CDC.

Kennedy’s newly reconstituted panel also lost one of its eight members shortly before Wednesday’s meeting.

Michael Ross, a Virginia-based obstetrician and gynecologist, stepped down from the committee, bringing the panel’s number to just seven. The Trump administration said Ross withdrew during a customary review of members’ financial holdings.

The meeting opened as the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that it will continue publishing its own vaccine schedule for children, but now will do so independently of the ACIP, calling it “no longer a credible process”.

ACIP’s recommendations traditionally go to the director of the CDC. Historically, nearly all are accepted and then used by insurance companies in deciding what vaccines to cover.

But the CDC currently has no director, so the committee’s recommendations have been going to Kennedy, and he has yet to act on a couple of recommendations ACIP made in April.

Separately, on Wednesday, Senate hearings began for Trump’s nominee for CDC director, Susan Monarez.

During the hearings, she said she has not seen evidence linking vaccines and autism and said she would look into the decision to cut Gavi funding.

“I believe the global health security preparedness is a critical and vital activity for the United States,” she said.

“I think that we need to continue to support promotion of utilisation of vaccines.”