International Trade

Research published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) has found that a United Kingdom-United States pharmaceutical deal could cause 229,000 excess deaths as a result of the diversion of billions of pounds away from Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).

In December, the UK and US signed a pharmaceutical trade deal, under which the US government agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceutical and medical technology exports for the next three years.

In return, the British government committed to increasing NHS spending on new US medicines from 0.3 percent in 2026 to at least 0.6 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) by 2036. This means that medicine spending overall should increase from 10 percent to 12 percent of the NHS budget.

UK politicians defended the deal with Science Minister Patrick Vallance saying in April that the arrangement gives patients across the NHS access to “life-changing new medicines that they previously would have been denied”.

“Not only this, but as the first country in the world to benefit from a zero percent tariff on pharmaceuticals to the US, Britain’s life sciences sector will be further boosted,” Vallance argued.

But the research published in the BMJ found that the commitment to spend so much more on new branded medicines over the next decade without any increase in NHS funding will “create substantial opportunity costs elsewhere, having a direct effect on population health”.

Samuel Cross, a professor in the department of pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of Liverpool, who coauthored the report, said the agreement “benefits pharmaceutical companies and comes at a cost of NHS patients”.

“There’s really no way to sugar-coat that. The numbers speak for themselves,” Cross told Al Jazeera.

Here’s what we know about the report:

What is in the US-UK deal?

The agreement signed on December 1 was hailed as a landmark deal between British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump on pharmaceutical trade and pricing.

The US agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceutical and medical exports for the following three years – until January 19, 2029.

According to a policy paper published by the British government, the preliminary understanding of the agreement recognised that the US and UK shared a “mutual interest in developing a global medicines system that supports development and commercialisation of new innovations”.

 What did the research find?

In February, Vallance disclosed that funding for the increased spending on medicines would come from the Department of Health and Social Care, which funds the NHS in England, rather than the Treasury.

The study in the BMJ forecast that if spending targets are met and the economy grows as forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the NHS would need to spend an extra 1.3 billion pounds ($1.73bn) a year by 2028 – about 25 million pounds ($33.4m) a week. By 2036, this would rise to an extra 8.8 billion pounds ($11.74bn) a year – about 170 million pounds ($227m) a week). Over the course of the agreement, that would add up to about 44.7 billion pounds ($59.7bn) by the end of 2036.

“Costs are even higher if the impact on publicly funded adult social care is also considered – modelling of English local authority data indicates that every £1bn [$1.33bn] the NHS must find to fund this deal will increase the costs of adult social care by £118m [$157.5m] because of increases in morbidity and mortality,” the report found.

Ultimately, the study predicted, excess deaths are likely as a result.

“Even if we restrict attention to the direct effect of reductions in available NHS expenditure, by 2036 this deal is likely to result in roughly 229,000 excess deaths – more than during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and June 2022 (137,000). If the indirect effect on adult social care is also included, the increase in excess deaths is even greater (291,000),” the report stated.

The report added that the findings are “unsurprising” given the existing pressures on the NHS and the “large burden of unmet need in highly cost-effective areas of care”.

It also referred to shortfalls in NHS funding and pharmaceutical pricing as “opportunity costs”.

Cross said that in health economics, opportunity costs are the “key to all of this”.

“In the NHS, we have a finite budget – we’re not made of money – and if you take money away to pay for, in this case, more medicines. then that comes at an opportunity cost of the places that the money has been diverted away from,” he explained.

Which health sectors will be worst affected?

The research predicted that the greatest number of deaths would occur in cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cancer patients.

It added that there will also be broader harm caused to quality of life for patients in those sectors as well as “neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mental health problems”.

“Despite this evidence and reassurances that ‘frontline services’ will be protected, the NHS will need to fund this deal from allocations made six months before the deal was agreed. The evidence suggests that if additional public expenditure was available, it could be more effectively deployed within the NHS itself,” it added.

The report also called the government’s claims that the US-UK agreement would encourage pharmaceutical innovation in the country “uncertain”.

“Pharmaceutical research and development operate within a global market, of which the UK represents a relatively small share. As such, there is limited evidence that UK domestic pricing materially influences global investment decisions,” the report stated.

“Even so, evidence suggests in most cases the UK is already paying more than 100 percent of the long-term value of new medicines; incentivising production of new medicines under this deal will do long-term harm to the public health objective of the NHS,” it added.

Cross added that because money has in effect been diverted away from the NHS, there is no way for the government to offset the impact on the service.

“If the funds are used to pay for new medicines, we will lose positive health outcomes elsewhere, and that is as simple as that,” he said.

He called for the government to release an impact assessment to trigger a public discussion about how good the US-UK deal really is for Britain.

EXPLAINER

China and Sudan signed off on a waiver of $50m as Sudan’s military-led government seeks support amid Western sanctions.

China has waived loans worth $50m that it had given to Sudan, the two countries said over the weekend. The agreement comes three years into a war between Sudan’s army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) that has shrunk the country’s economy by roughly 40 percent, according to the United Nations.

The sum is small compared with what Sudan owes overall to external governments or agencies, an amount estimated at more than $56bn before the war. But the waiver lands at a moment when Khartoum has few other international lenders extending any financial support.

China’s relationship with Sudan predates the war by decades, built on oil and infrastructure interests that survived multiple changes of government in Khartoum. But the war has narrowed Sudan’s options elsewhere, as Western governments have largely held back or imposed sanctions.

Here’s why this deal is significant for Sudan and China:

What do we know about the deal?

The signed protocol in Port Sudan cancels four interest-free loans worth 344 million yuan, about $50m, with immediate effect, according to Sudan’s official news agency, SUNA.

Sudan’s Finance Minister Gibril Ibrahim welcomed the move, reportedly saying that China has continued investing in the country throughout the war while Western governments, including the United States and European Union members, have largely held back. Gibril himself was added to the US Treasury sanctions list in September 2025 for his alleged “involvement in Sudan’s brutal civil war and … connections to Iran”.

China’s charge d’affaires in Sudan, Xu Jian, reportedly said at the signing ceremony that China was ready to help rebuild what was destroyed during the war in Sudan.

What’s in it for Sudan?

Sudan’s external debt of more than $56bn before the war is expected to have ballooned since.

The $50m debt relief amounts to not even 1 percent of the total external pre-war debt. In fact, Sudan was close to a far bigger debt write-off in 2021. It was on track with the IMF and the World Bank Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative to have more than $50bn of its debt forgiven within three years. The 2021 military coup in October derailed that debt relief plan, and the process was formally suspended a year later.

Still, China’s waiver arrives at a moment of acute need for the country. The war is now in its third year. More than 1.5 million people have been killed, according to the UN, and the war has displaced about 14 million people – about a quarter of the Sudanese population. The World Health Organization says less than 14 percent of health facilities are still functioning. Jobs have vanished in many parts of the country, and the rising cost of living has made it difficult for households to survive.

The Sudanese pound has collapsed since the start of the war. It went from roughly 600 to the dollar before the war to more than 5000 to the dollar by June 2026.

What’s in it for China?

In many ways, Beijing’s decision to waive the $50m loan is in keeping with a broader approach it has taken in recent years, one that has helped cement China as Africa’s largest trading partner for 17 consecutive years.

China has provided interest-free loan forgiveness as a diplomatic gesture to multiple countries, and these decisions are recurrent announcements at Beijing’s frequent leader-level summits with African nations. This is especially true for smaller loans. Research from the Johns Hopkins China Africa Research Initiative found that China forgave at least $3.4bn of these kinds of debts across the African continent between 2000 and 2019.

By contrast, larger loans are usually commercial loans through state banks that come with interest, and waiving those is harder.

At a time when the West is largely trying to isolate Sudan’s leadership, a small loan waiver gives China outsized influence in a country that sits at the intersection of the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

What have China-Sudan ties been like historically?

Oil has long served as a catalyst for their relationship. From the mid-1990s on, China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) poured billions of dollars into Sudanese oil fields and the pipelines carrying that crude oil to Port Sudan. This was a time when many Western companies were pushed out due to sanctions.

The relationship changed when the southern part of the country voted in favour of independence in 2011. The world’s newest country, South Sudan, left the north and took most of the country’s oil fields with it.

Chinese investment largely dried up afterwards, but Sudan still has more than $5bn of outstanding debt to China. The war has aggravated Sudan’s economic challenges. The CNPC requested a formal exit from Sudan in December 2025.

China has added 10 United States-based companies to its export control list and barred government procurement from nearly 50 US companies two weeks after the Pentagon blacklisted some of China’s best-known companies for their alleged ties to the Chinese military.

China’s Ministry of Commerce announced the export order on Monday, barring Chinese companies from exporting “dual-use” items that can be used for civilian or military purposes to the US firms.

The list of companies includes rare-earth mine operator MP Materials Corp, rare-earth magnet maker USA Rare Earths, and US defence contractors specialising in fields such as aerospace, drones, synthetic-aperture radar, and shipbuilding and repairs.

Under the order, “foreign institutions and individuals worldwide are also prohibited from transferring or providing Chinese dual-use goods to them” while ongoing export transactions must be suspended immediately.

The Commerce Ministry said the export ban had been issued to “safeguard national security and interests and fulfil international obligations such as non-proliferation”.

China’s Ministry of Finance on Monday separately barred Chinese government procurement from 46 companies, including subsidiaries of major US defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Atomics and General Dynamics. US-funded, locally registered companies, however, have been given an exemption by the ministry.

Experts described Beijing’s orders as a retaliation, albeit a largely symbolic one, against the US after the Pentagon in early June added about 80 Chinese companies and their subsidiaries to its list of “Entities Identified as Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States”.

The designation means the Pentagon either believes the companies are owned or controlled by the Chinese military or they are “military-civil fusion contributors”, a term for commercial companies that contribute to China’s military development despite their civilian status.

The updated list includes Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Holdings, search engine giant Baidu and electric automaker BYD, some of China’s largest and best-known companies.

While the order does not bar US companies from doing business with them, it does impact US defence contractors and their future supply chains.

“We can interpret this as a tit-for-tat response, and that fits into China’s playbook any time we’ve seen escalation from the US side in terms of trade and investment tools,” said Nick Marro, global trade lead analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

China-based supply chain consultant Cameron Johnson said the Commerce Ministry’s order mirrors US semiconductor export controls designed to keep the most advanced chips out of Chinese hands.

“They basically say it doesn’t matter where or who you are, you are bound by this regardless of circumstance,” said Johnson, who is also a senior partner at the Shanghai consultancy Tidal Wave Solutions. “Organisations or individuals in any country or region are prohibited from transferring dual-use materials that originated in China.”

He said Beijing’s orders in practice may be hard to enforce and many of the companies named in those orders have already moved their supply chains out of China or begun to “de-risk” their operations there.

Johnson said the wide scope of companies included in Washington’s and Beijing’s directives could be a sign of more to come and may signal a new front in the US-China trade war.

“This is probably just the beginning of the back and forth,” he said. Last year, after returning to the White House for a second term, US President Donald Trump reignited the US-China trade war, leading Washington and Beijing to impose escalating rounds of tariffs on each other.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a trade truce in October, which was extended during a summit between the two leaders in Beijing in May.

Despite promises to “enhance economic cooperation” during the meeting, observers like Singapore-based geopolitical analyst Steve Okun predicted the goodwill may be short-lived.

“The US’s recent closure of chip export loopholes and China’s continuing addition to its export bans show the national security lane remains active in both capitals regardless of the diplomatic niceties at the recent Trump-Xi summit,” Okun told Al Jazeera.

“There is no ‘truce’ in the US-China trade war. Expect further actions from both sides as well on export controls and investment restrictions,” he said.

Ship tracking data shows sharp fall in transits as US and Iranian officials hold talks to save fragile peace framework.

Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has plunged following Iran’s announcement that it has closed the waterway once again over Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, according to ship tracking data.

A total of 12 vessels crossed the strait on Sunday, down from 35 transits the previous day, an analysis by maritime intelligence company Windward showed on Sunday.

Five of eight vessels entering the strait had their Automatic Identification Systems turned off, according to Windward.

“The current traffic profile: dark, sanctioned, Iranian-linked, resembling the late-blockade baseline more than a functioning open strait,” Windward said in a post on X.

Maritime traffic in the strait had been showing signs of recovery since US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday signed a memorandum of understanding on ending the US-Israel war on Iran.

Twenty-five vessels transited the strait on Thursday, the highest number since mid-April, according to data from maritime intelligence provider Kpler.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Saturday declared the waterway shut, citing Israeli “crimes” in Lebanon and the failure of the US to maintain a ceasefire in the country.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) on Saturday denied that Iran had closed the strait, which normally carries about one-fifth of global oil and liquified natural gas supplies, saying that safe passage through the waterway remained “intact”, with 55 merchant ships transiting that day.

The cause of the discrepancy between the transit figures provided by CENTCOM and commercial ship tracking providers is unclear.

US and Iranian negotiators on Sunday held make-or-break talks in Switzerland as the conflict in Lebanon threatened to derail efforts to turn their 60-day ceasefire extension into a permanent peace deal.

In a briefing to Iranian media after the talks, Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the sides had discussed the safe passage of ships through the strait, and “a mechanism was set up, which is important”.

Despite renewed tensions between Washington and Tehran and signs of slowing traffic in the strait, oil prices moved lower on Monday morning in Asia.

Brent crude, the primary international benchmark, was down about 0.9 percent as of 01:30 GMT, at just below $80 a barrel.

Asia’s major stock markets opened higher, with key indices in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan making substantial gains.

Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 and Seoul’s Kospi were up 1.8 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively, while the Taiex in Taipei surged 2.6 percent.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index bucked the rally, dipping 0.7 percent.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has signed a US-Iran memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war between the two countries. US President Donald Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian signed on Wednesday.

For half a century, a handful of wealthy Western democracies wrote the rules of the global economy.

But the world order is becoming crowded, and even as the Group of Seven (G7) remains one of the world’s most influential clubs, a challenger has emerged.

BRICS has expanded, and says it wants a bigger voice for the Global South. This bloc of nations speaks for nearly half the world’s population – and accounts for a growing share of global output, energy and raw materials.

In the space between the two, a third force is gathering pace: the so-called middle powers, nations too big to ignore and unwilling to pick a side.

EXPLAINER

US President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders say a deal has been agreed to end more than 100 days of war that killed thousands.

United States President Donald Trump and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Sunday that they had reached an initial deal to end the war and to resume traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on February 28.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday.

The US and Iran will sign a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland on Friday, said the prime minister of Pakistan, whose country has served as a mediator.

Monday marks 108 days since the war began, with the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Here is what’s happening:

What we know about the deal

• The content of the agreement, which follows weeks of fraught negotiations and periodic threats from Trump of new hostilities unless Iran reaches a deal, remained unclear.
• Strait of Hormuz to reopen: Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency said the draft deal called for reopening the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days under Iranian arrangements. Trump, who turned 80 on Sunday, said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on December 28.
• Frozen assets to be released: Iran’s Mehr news agency reported that the US would release $12bn in frozen assets to Iran before the start of negotiations.
• Iran’s enriched uranium: In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Trump said Washington was still negotiating whether Iran would suspend its enrichment for 20 years. Trump hinted that he might settle for a 15-year suspension, but said he did not want to negotiate via the press.
• Israel has not commented: There has been no official comment from Israel about the peace agreement.

In Iran

• The secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said on Monday that the deal with the US includes the immediate suspension of hostilities on all fronts. “Based on the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end immediately and permanently as of tonight, and in addition, the naval blockade against Iran will end immediately and completely,” it said in a statement.

In the US

• Democrats slam Trump over war: While Democratic lawmakers welcomed the deal, they criticised the Trump administration’s decisions pertaining to the war. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said that while the deal moves the situation in the “right direction”, several questions remain. He warned that competing interpretations of what was agreed upon could pose risks. Senator Chris Murphy, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the deal is a “surrender to Iran” but that the US should be “glad about it because every day this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker”.

In Lebanon

• Trump rebukes Israeli attack on Beirut: On Sunday, shortly before the deal was announced by Trump, Israel launched an air attack on Beirut. Trump angrily blamed Israel for delaying the deal’s signing after launching this attack. In an expletive-laden phone interview with US news outlet Axios, Trump fumed about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying: “I was so pissed off. I let him know.”

Global response

• Western leaders praise deal: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was ready to aid the further technical talks between the US and Iran, adding that he hopes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will stabilise energy markets.
• French President Emmanuel Macron also praised the deal and said Paris would support the Lebanese government.
• European Union chief Antonio Costa welcomed a deal between the US and Iran to end the Middle East war, adding that the bloc was ready to contribute to a strategy for “lasting peace”.
• UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said it was a “critical step” towards resolving the war in the Middle East.

Global economy

• Oil prices drop: Oil prices slipped to their lowest since March on Monday, with global benchmark Brent crude futures falling $4.08, or 4.7 percent, to $83.25 a barrel by 04:15 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate was at $80.53, down $4.35, or 5.1 percent. Both contracts fell to their lowest levels since March 10 on Monday after tumbling more than 3 percent on Friday.
• Asian markets soar: Markets in Japan soared, more than 5 percent up; in South Korea, they were up 5.3 percent; in Taiwan, they were up 2.4 percent. In Shanghai, they were up 1.3 percent; and in Hong Kong, they were up half a percent; while in Indonesia, they were up 2.07 percent; and in the Philippines, they were up 5.2 percent.

Volker Turk, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, has issued some of his harshest criticism yet of the recent sanctions the United States has imposed on Cuba.

On Monday, Turk drew a line between the increasing restrictions on the Cuban economy and reports of heightened death rates, particularly among children.

“The fuel restrictions imposed since early 2026 and recent tightening of extraterritorial sanctions, taken together, are directly harming Cubans, especially the most vulnerable,” Turk said in a statement.

“Children are dying because doctors lack access to essential medical supplies and medicines. This is unacceptable.”

Such “severe sanctions”, he added, run contrary to the “basic principles of international human rights law”. He called for them to be “lifted immediately”.

Turk’s comments are a direct response to the suite of actions taken under US President Donald Trump to tighten pressure on Cuba, a Caribbean island that has already weathered a decades-long US trade embargo.

Starting in January, the Trump administration moved to cut off Cuba’s foreign oil supply, a linchpin for its ageing energy grid.

First, it severed supplies of oil and funds from Venezuela. Then, on January 29, Trump issued an executive order declaring Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security. As such, he said, any country that supplied it with oil would be subject to steep tariffs.

In the months since, the Trump administration has continued to layer sanctions on Cuba. In May, for instance, penalties were announced against Cuba’s Interior Ministry, its National Police and its Directorate of Intelligence.

Those were followed this month by sanctions targeting Cuba’s president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, as well as members of his family.

The sanctions are designed to penalise those “responsible for repression” in Cuba, an island whose communist government has been accused of stifling dissent, as well as imprisoning and torturing activists.

Turk on Monday acknowledged Cuba’s human rights record and called on the country to “release all those arbitrarily detained”.

But he also pointed to the mounting death toll associated with the US sanctions, which have isolated the island country from much of the world.

The sanctions freeze any US-based assets the target may have, but they also prohibit entities from conducting business with the sanctioned parties. That can result in difficulties accessing global financial systems and other international platforms.

The de facto oil blockade has also resulted in the increasing frequency of power outages, and essential services like public transportation and medical care have faced reductions. Turk pointed to those downstream effects in his remarks.

“Cuba faces increasing isolation,” he said. “Companies are leaving. Fewer airlines fly to the country. It is almost disconnected from international payment systems.”

Turk’s office has also highlighted the human costs of the sanctions. According to the statistics it cited, infant death rates have doubled, reaching 9.9 for every 1,000 births. The survival rate for childhood cancer, meanwhile, has declined from 85 to 65 percent.

In March, the Cuban government also warned of medical needs going unanswered as a result of the energy shortage. It estimated that there was a backlog of 96,387 people awaiting surgery, 11,193 of whom were minors.

It also underscored that 16,000 patients needed radiotherapy, and another 2,888 required dialysis, two treatments that depend on steady electrical supplies.

Turk’s remarks also pointed to the risks posed by the Atlantic hurricane season and other natural disasters. Within hours of his remarks, western Cuba was rattled by a powerful 6.1-magnitude earthquake. Summer heat alone could cost lives, he explained.

“Rising summer temperatures risk increasing the spread of vector borne and waterborne diseases,” Turk said.

“The hurricane season further increases exposure. This creates a perfect storm for social and economic deterioration and suffering for the Cuban people.”

Trump has repeatedly suggested that he is considering military action in Cuba to remove its leadership after the US-Israel war on Iran reaches an end.

Since January, only one Russian oil tanker has been allowed to reach the island, leaving its foreign fuel supplies largely depleted.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang on Sunday is significant for one reason.

It’s not that they are meeting: The two men met in Beijing just a year ago when China held a massive military parade to mark 80 years since Japan surrendered unconditionally to Allied forces, bringing an end to the second world war.

What’s surprising is that Xi is travelling at all.

The Chinese leader has not travelled to Pyongyang since 2019, having steadily cut down his travel in recent years, and world leaders like US President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin generally come to him these days.

“We need to remember that Xi Jinping has not really travelled abroad that much,” William Yang, Crisis Group’s senior analyst for Northeast Asia, told Al Jazeera. “The growing trend is foreign leaders heading to Beijing to meet with him.

“For Xi Jinping to be the one who decides to travel to Pyongyang, it shows the level of significance that China attaches to this trip.”

Xi averaged about 14 trips a year between 2013 and 2019, but dropped to approximately six a year between 2022 and 2025, according to the Asia Society. In 2020, he made just one overseas trip, and in 2021, he made none, as China grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic.

He may be travelling now, though, amid concerns about North Korea’s relationship with Russia, Yang said.

Senior partner no more?

Traditionally, Beijing played the role of senior partner in the China-North Korea relationship, with North Korea heavily dependent on China for as much as 95 percent of its trade, according to one 2022 estimate from the National Committee on North Korea, a US-based nonprofit.

That dynamic has been changing since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, however. North Korea has provided Russia with critical weapons, artillery and manpower and is credited by observers with helping to keep Moscow’s war machine going.

South Korea’s Institute for National Security Strategy, a government-funded research institute, estimates that since 2023, Moscow has paid North Korea as much as $14.4bn for troop deployments and the export of “artillery, shells, and guided and ballistic missiles”.

The report said that North Korea may only have received between $580m and $1.5bn of that in the form of “goods”, which means there is a “significant possibility that the majority of the payment from Moscow was in the form of ‘sensitive military technology or related precision parts and materials that are difficult to observe via satellite’,” according to a translation.

Although China shares a mutual defence treaty with North Korea, it is still wary of North Korea acquiring new military technology, Yang said.

“Beijing has always been very careful about providing military assistance to North Korea because they do not see a militarily stronger North Korea as necessarily in its favour,” he said. “A North Korea that is militarily emboldened through its relationship with Russia could be a potential source of disruption to the balance of power and status quo on the Korean Peninsula.”

North Korea has already carried out eight missile launches since the start of the year, and in May unveiled a new AI-guided tactical cruise missile, according to North Korean media and the US Naval Institute.

Earlier this week, North Korean state media also released photos of Kim touring a new “weapons-grade nuclear materials” factory, which would be used to expand Pyongyang’s nuclear capability at an “exponential rate”.

Fluctuating tensions

North Korea has technically been at war with South Korea since 1950, with the conflict suspended by a 1953 armistice agreement. The two countries are divided by a 250-kilometre-long (155-mile-long) Demilitarized Zone, splitting the Korean Peninsula.

Tensions have fluctuated dramatically over the years, reaching a recent low point in 2024 when Kim abandoned the long-term goal of Korean unification.

He has largely cut off communications ever since, according to observers. On Friday, South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it hopes that Xi’s trip will “play a constructive role in addressing issues related to the Korean Peninsula” – suggesting that Seoul may have lobbied the Chinese leader to try to smooth over relations.

South Korean Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young separately told reporters last month that he expects the two leaders to discuss a possible meeting between Kim and Trump later in the year.

Xi may also be alarmed by other security developments in East Asia, including news of a possible military-logistics ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌support pact between South Korea and Japan, which was raised at the Shangri-La Dialogue of regional defence officials in Singapore last weekend.

While China and South Korea’s relationship fluctuates, its ties with Japan are acrimonious due to longstanding grievances dating back to Imperial Japan’s occupation of China in the 1930s and 1940s. Beijing has also objected to recent moves by Tokyo to expand its de facto military.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has proposed new tariffs of up to 12.5 percent on imports from 60 economies after determining they had failed to curb trade in goods made with forced labour, an assertion that was rejected by US trading partners.

The proposal from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), issued late on Tuesday, comes from a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation designed to help rebuild US President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, struck down by a US Supreme Court decision in February.

Despite laws banning them, the products of forced labour are deeply embedded in supply chains across the world. European lawmakers bristle at the accusation that the region is less effective than the US at curbing the trade in such goods, with one describing the US findings as “utterly absurd”. Business leaders said the US move created more confusion for companies.

The USTR proposed 10 percent additional duties on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain. The USTR said all had plans or partial schemes in place.

The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5 percent on the remaining 45 countries that it investigated. These include China, India, Nigeria, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.”

The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10 percent temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on February 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It also shows how determined the Trump administration is about building a wall of tariffs around the US economy, the world’s largest, despite repeated setbacks in court.

After the loss in the Supreme Court, Trump turned to another law to impose temporary 10 percent tariffs globally. But those stopgap levies expire July 24. And a specialised trade court ruled last month that they, too, were illegal – though the government can continue collecting them while that case works its way through the courts.

Unjustified tariffs

The European Commission said the tariffs were unjustified and reiterated its commitment to the trade deal sealed with Washington last year.

Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, which voted on Tuesday to accept that trade deal, said the new tariffs were expected, but said the results of the US investigation were still “utterly absurd” given a 2024 EU law to ban imports of forced labour products.

“The impression is increasingly emerging that a tariff measure is sought first, and only then is a suitable legal justification found,” he said. However, he added that the key question would be whether the additional tariffs would exceed those agreed between both sides last July.

The US’s largest trading partner, the EU, agreed last July to accept tariffs of 15 percent on a broad range of its exports. In its report, the USTR said the EU anti-forced labour measures only came into force in December 2027 and lacked key elements.

It was unclear whether the proposed tariffs – which the US release described as “additional duties” – would come on top of levies agreed in bilateral deals signed with the US.

Britain said it was in regular talks with the US and was taking action to tackle forced labour. It added that the preferential access to US markets that it had negotiated for UK businesses remained in place.

Mexico said that goods that were compliant under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) would be exempt from the new tariffs.

Taiwan said it was “hopeful and confident” that the final results would reflect agreements already reached, securing relatively preferential treatment.

Beijing, facing 12.5 percent tariffs, said that it opposed all forms of unilateral tariffs and that there was no forced labour in China. India, confronted with the same rate, said it was engaged with Washington on the Section 301 proceedings, noting the proposed tariffs were not final.

“There will be deep concerns in the international business community that the US [forced labour law could] become a global template,” said Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce.

“Anyone can make a claim, get a shipment impounded and the company has to prove no forced labour in supply chain.”

Certain exemptions

The USTR said it would exempt from tariffs products including energy, rare earths and some other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.

It also said it was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports to enter the US at a reduced tariff rate, without giving details.

The ICC’s Wilson said the list of exemptions, stretching for more than 76 pages, suggested sensitivities over the potential cost-of-living hit to food and other goods with known forced-labour risks.

“It doesn’t make sense if the object of this is to enhance controls on modern slavery,” he said.

Mexico and Canada have backed extending the USMCA trade agreement for another 16 years as negotiations over its future continue. The proposal comes amid an ongoing trade dispute with the United States.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has proposed a new 25 percent tariff on imports from Brazil amid allegations of unfair trading practices.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced the new punitive tariffs late on Monday, stemming from issues including digital trade and illegal deforestation.

The new tariffs would be imposed under Section 301 of US trade policy — a statute that gives the US government broad authority to impose trade sanctions based on violations of trade agreements, as well as what it deems “unfair” trade practices under the Trade Act of 1974.

Greer said there has been an investigation that began in July. The practices under investigation were related to issues such as illegal deforestation, ethanol market access, and anticorruption enforcement, among other key issues, according to the summary released by the US Department of Commerce on Tuesday.

In the 107-page document, the US government said that trade practices between the two nations “are unreasonable and burden or restrict US commerce”, and pointed to agreements that Brazil has with Mexico and India.

“Brazil’s trade arrangements with Mexico and India also create incentives to offshore US production by creating a financial advantage to exporting to Brazil from these countries, as opposed to exporting from the United States,” the document says.

There is a comment period for the general public to weigh in on the proposed tariffs, which begins on Thursday. The written comment period ends on July 1, and there will be a public hearing in Washington on July 6.

Beef, coffee, rare earths, other metals, energy, and aircraft parts are among the products that would be exempt from the tariffs.

On CNBC, Greer said that it would release more findings on unfair trade practices in the next several weeks in order to address what Greer called a “giant” trade deficit.

However, the data shows that the US maintains a trade surplus with Brazil. In March, Brazil bought more goods, worth $3.3bn, from the US than it exported at $2.9bn, representing a $420m trade surplus.

Other countries under investigation include China and Vietnam.

The new tariff would partially replace a tariff of 50 percent on many Brazilian goods imposed last year by Trump, with 40 percent serving as a punishment for Brazil’s prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally.

The White House also recently dropped tariffs on select aluminium, copper, and steel imports, which include agricultural equipment such as harvesters. Those tariffs will drop from 25 percent to 15 percent. The tariffs expire in December 2027.

The new tariffs come after the Supreme Court, in February, struck down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the White House used to impose its sweeping global tariffs.

“They are the first of many new tariffs to replace the IEPPA national security tariffs. The period of public comment will allow for potential modest tweaks and exemptions. Ultimately, it will add to some inflation pressure compared to the last few months but not compared to a year earlier,” Rachel Ziemba, a senior adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

Political tensions

The changes come despite President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s visit to Washington last month, as relations have deteriorated in recent months.

The US State Department has also designated two of Brazil’s criminal gangs as “terrorist organisations”, a move that supported Senator Flavio Bolsonaro’s position, Lula’s main rival in October’s election, and over the objections of Brazilian officials.

“I expressly asked President Trump not to tariff our companies,” Bolsonaro wrote on X on Tuesday. “Tariffs are not the solution.”

The White House did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Department of Commerce issues guidance on chip restrictions amid concerns about loopholes in export control regime.

The United States has issued a notice affirming its restrictions on shipments of semiconductors to subsidiaries of Chinese companies located outside China amid concerns about loopholes in Washington’s export control regime.

The Department of Commerce said in the guidance issued on Sunday that its licensing requirements for the export of advanced AI chips applied to all businesses with headquarters or a parent company in China.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which falls under the Commerce Department, said it issued the clarification in response to questions about whether it was enforcing preexisting licence requirements after it had overturned former President Joe Biden’s AI Diffusion Framework.

“The answer is yes,” the BIS said in the notice.

Unveiled in the final days of the Biden administration, the AI Diffusion proposed the implementation of a globe-spanning framework to control access to AI chips, including export caps for all but the closest US allies.

The framework drew backlash from tech firms, including Nvidia, the world’s most valuable chip company, which cast the proposal as a threat to innovation and cross-border collaboration.

President Donald Trump’s administration scrapped the framework last May, ahead of its implementation, citing the “burdensome new regulatory requirements” and the harm it would do to Washington’s diplomatic relations with other countries.

Chip giant Nvidia, whose top-of-the-line Blackwell GPUs are banned for export to China, said it had already been operating in keeping with the clarified rules.

“The guidance reaffirms that NVIDIA’s sales and vetting process is correct – consistent with our existing approach, licences are required to ship controlled products to PRC headquartered companies,” a Nvidia spokesperson told Al Jazeera, using the acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

AMD and Intel, Nvidia’s main competitors in the GPU space, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

TSMC, which manufactures the most advanced chips on behalf of clients such as Nvidia, did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The BIS also did not respond to inquiries.

Chris McGuire, a former State Department official who worked on technology policy in the Biden administration, accused the Trump administration of providing Chinese companies a loophole to buy export-controlled chips.

“Chinese companies have been buying these chips, very likely at scale. And because BIS has not updated export control regulations to clearly state what it IS enforcing, all of this was legal,” McGuire said in a post on X.

“This clarification does make clear that Blackwell shipments to China-headquartered companies outside of China are now illegal again – which is good, although obviously we have to see how many shipments have already gone to assess how much damage was done,” McGuire said.

“BIS’ statement acknowledges these shipments have been happening when it says companies who bought chips under this loophole don’t have to stop using them.”

The US has rolled out numerous restrictions on the supply of high-end technology to China, as Washington and Beijing battle for dominance in AI.

In December, Trump announced that he would allow Nvidia to sell its H200 chip to China, in a major loosening of Washington’s export controls.

While not Nvidia’s most advanced chip, the H200 is about six times as powerful as the H20, the most advanced chip previously allowed for export to China.

US President Donald Trump posted online that he’s heading into the Situation Room at the White House to make a “final determination” on potentially finalising a peace deal with Iran. Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane reports from the White House.

Canada has announced plans to buy a fleet of early warning planes from Sweden’s Saab rather than a competing option from Boeing as it seeks to reduce its reliance on the United States.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Wednesday that Canada would opt for Saab’s GlobalEye, which is based on Bombardier’s Global 6500 jet. Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail plane – which has suffered from delays and cost overruns – had also been in contention.

“With a suite of advanced sensors and mission systems, Saab’s GlobalEye will be a key resource for the Canadian Armed Forces to detect and deter threats across the Arctic,” Carney told a defence conference in Ottawa.

The Prime Minister pledged in March that Canada would take full responsibility for protecting its vast Arctic territory, after relying for decades on a partnership with the US to monitor its more than 4.4 million square km (1.7 million square miles) of land and sea, a territory larger than India.

Carney’s Liberal government last year announced plans to ramp up defence spending. The US and other allies had complained for years that Canada was not meeting longstanding NATO targets on military expenditure; Carney announced in March that Canada hit that target of spending 2 percent of its GDP on defence last year.

In a statement, Saab said it planned to invest in research and development work in Canada as part of any deal.

Although Carney did not give details of the fleet size or the cost of a potential contract, military officials had earlier said they were looking to buy six early warning aircraft.

Philippe Lagasse, associate director of international affairs at Ottawa’s Carleton University, said Canada’s decision to buy the GlobalEye planes was “an important test case for the Carney government’s policy of pivoting away from American military capability”.

He said in a statement that the decision confirms Canada’s relationship with Sweden, a new NATO ally that has also been eager to strengthen its ties to the Canadian military.

Canada has previously said it wants to work more closely with the Nordic countries in the Arctic on defence and other issues, in a global environment in which the US has become a less reliable partner.

“GlobalEye is already creating jobs in Canada, and working with the Canadian supply chain. This decision ties our two nations even closer together,” Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said in a social media post.

Saab is also in the running to sell Canada some of its Gripen fighters.

Canada has a deal to buy 88 F-35 jets from Lockheed-Martin, but last year, after the US slapped tariffs on key Canadian imports, Carney asked the military to probe whether it could cut back the order and buy some planes from another manufacturer.

Carney later told reporters Ottawa would make a decision on the fighter fleet in due course and declined to comment when asked whether the military would be operating two jets.

Last week, a Pentagon official, speaking after Washington suspended planned biannual defence talks with Canada, said the delay in making a decision on the F-35s showed how Ottawa was prioritising politics over defence issues.

Still, Lagasse of Carleton University said he expected Canada would ultimately decide to stick with a fleet of F-35 jets rather than splitting the fleet by buying some Saab Gripens.

“If the government was determined to buy Gripens, I would have expected them to make the announcement alongside this [GlobalEye] decision,” he said.

Trade tensions

The announcement came amid ongoing trade tensions between US and Canada after US President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on Canada after taking office last year, alongside multiple comments threatening to annex the country and make it the 51st state of the US.

Historically, nearly 80 percent of Canada’s exports have been to the US. While the vast majority of those were protected under the USMCA, the trade agreement between the two countries that also includes Mexico, that is now due for a review, which starts on July 1, and Trump has said the US does not really need that deal.

While the US has announced bilateral talks with Mexico, there has been no mention of Canada.

Deputy US Trade Representative Jeffrey Goettman will lead bilateral talks in Mexico City on Thursday and Friday focused on “economic security and rules of origin for key industrial goods,” the department said in a statement on Wednesday.

USTR said the US and Mexico will hold a second round of negotiations in Washington on June 16-17, focused on agriculture and “a level playing field,” with a third set of talks in Mexico City scheduled for the week of July 20.

The first Trump administration held trilateral negotiating rounds with both Mexico and Canada to create the existing USMCA, which replaced the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020.

But so far, there have been few discussions between US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and his Canadian counterpart, Canada-US Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc, since early March, and no formal launch of a US-Canada negotiating process.

European Union agriculture ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss the availability of fertiliser as the war on Iran disrupts global supply chains.

The talks come as the European Commission pushes a new Fertiliser Action Plan aimed at supporting farmers who face a significant rise in costs for fertilisers. It is hoped the measures could boost agricultural production and reduce Europe’s dependence on food imports.

The plan includes possible fertiliser stockpiles, emergency support for farmers and measures to increase imports from countries other than Russia and Belarus, which are involved in the war with Ukraine.

It comes amid disruption in the Strait of Hormuz caused by the US-Israel war on Iran. The vital shipping route normally carries about one-third of the world’s seaborne fertiliser trade, raising fears that rising fuel and fertiliser costs could place further pressure on farmers already struggling with high expenses.

While the EU is less directly impacted by fertiliser shortages than some other parts of the world, disruptions to supplies have exposed divisions within the bloc about how to protect food supplies and shield farmers from rising costs.

How exposed is Europe?

Europe imports large volumes of fertiliser, bringing in two million tonnes of ammonia, 5.8 million tonnes of urea and 6.7 million tonnes of nitrogen fertilisers and mixtures in 2024, according to EU data.

The EU also produces its own nitrogen fertiliser, but this depends heavily on imported gas. When conflicts in the Gulf region pushes up gas prices, it also makes fertiliser made inside Europe more expensive.

The blockade has raised concerns over global food security, particularly in Africa and South Asia, where countries are more dependent on Gulf supplies.

The Middle East accounts for only about 3 percent of the EU’s ammonia imports and 1 to 2 percent of its nitrogen fertiliser imports, so the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has not significantly affected European supplies.

But the bloc is still being hit through higher global prices and rising energy costs because European nitrogen fertiliser is made using gas, which has increased in price due to the disruption in the strait –  while some countries are more at risk to rising costs due to low stockpiles.

Nitrogen fertiliser prices in Europe are now about 70 percent above their 2024 average, according to reporting on the commission’s plan.

That vulnerability became clear after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when soaring gas prices forced several European fertiliser plants to scale back or temporarily shut down because production was no longer profitable.

The commission says its new plan combines immediate measures to improve affordability and security of supply with longer-term steps to strengthen domestic production and reduce dependence on imports.

What is the EU proposing?

The plan includes emergency financial support for farmers through the EU agricultural budget, liquidity schemes and more flexible advance payments under the Common Agricultural Policy.

The commission is also looking at ways to support farmers who reduce their reliance on synthetic fertilisers, including through bio-based alternatives and more efficient fertiliser use.

In a second measure, the EU has moved to suspend duties on some nitrogen fertilisers, including urea and ammonia, from countries other than Russia and Belarus. Some nitrogen fertiliser imports currently face tariffs of between 5.5 and 6.5 percent. The Reuters news agency reported that the suspension could save importers about 60 million euros ($68m).

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the plan was aimed at building “a stronger European fertiliser industry” while supporting farmers and accelerating “sustainable, home-grown solutions”.

But Irish Agriculture Minister Martin Heydon warned that rising fertiliser prices caused by the Middle East crisis would affect the cost of food production and the competitiveness of European farmers.

“The rise in fertiliser prices as a result of the Middle East crisis will impact on the cost of food production and, consequently, on the economic sustainability and competitiveness of European farmers,” he said.

Which countries are most exposed?

The impact is not evenly spread across Europe, with Ireland particularly vulnerable because it has little domestic fertiliser production and depends heavily on imports. Its livestock-heavy farming system also relies on nitrogen fertiliser for grassland, with many farmers buying supplies between February and September.

Ireland imported 1.7 million tonnes of fertiliser in 2025, leaving farmers exposed to international price swings.

Other countries are better prepared. Finland has long maintained security-of-supply stockpiles that include fertiliser, grain and fuel. Sweden has also announced plans to stockpile fertiliser, seeds and grain as part of its “total defence” strategy after joining NATO.

There are also divisions inside the EU over how far Brussels should go. Italy and France have pushed for relief from the bloc’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which adds costs to carbon-intensive imports.

Some farming unions argue that the carbon levy has become another cost for farmers at a time of crisis. Environmental groups, however, have warned Brussels not to weaken nitrogen pollution rules, saying that doing so could increase pollution and health costs if excess nitrates enter water supplies.

Poland and Germany, meanwhile, home to major nitrogen fertiliser producers, have been more focused on opposing any measures that could weaken protections for domestic industry – and are therefore more opposed to reducing levies on imports.

Will food prices rise?

EU officials are not expecting an immediate food price shock, with many farmers in the bloc still using fertiliser bought long before the Iran war disrupted supply chains.

But officials are concerned that higher fertiliser costs could create problems in supply chains later in the year. Fertiliser affects food prices with a delay, as gas becomes fertiliser, fertiliser then feeds crops, and crops eventually become food – so the effects are often felt up to six months after the initial disruption.

Meanwhile, there are fears that anger in rural areas already hit by higher fuel, energy and input costs could lead to a backlash against green policies in the EU at a time when right-wing and populist parties are gaining ground in Europe.

But Europe still remains less exposed than many regions. The most severe risks are in countries more dependent on Gulf fertiliser and energy supplies, especially in parts of Africa and South Asia.

At least 24 people were killed and more than 50 injured when a suicide car bomb detonated on a train carrying soldiers in Quetta, capital of the southwestern Pakistani province of Balochistan, on Sunday.

The attack came amid Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s four-day visit to China, and the day before his meeting in Beijing with China’s President Xi Jinping, marking 75 years of diplomatic ties between the two nations.

Pakistan is among an exclusive group of countries China regards as an “all-weather strategic partner”, with ties featuring close economic, trade and security cooperation.

Responsibility for the train attack was claimed by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), an armed Baloch separatist group which, apart from calling for an independent state, also strongly objects to large-scale Chinese investment in the region.

While the BLA has long carried out attacks that have killed civilians and members of the security forces in Balochistan and beyond, there has been a recent uptick in such incidents.

We examine what is behind this increase in attacks:

What happened in Sunday’s attack?

Reporting from the scene, Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder said several houses and buildings adjacent to the railway line were severely damaged in the blast, which caused train carriages to overturn and catch fire.

According to local media reports, a state of emergency was declared at public hospitals in Quetta, with doctors and other medical staff ordered to remain on duty.

Footage shared online showed charred vehicles and train carriages lying on their sides, with thick plumes of black smoke rising into the sky.

Pakistan has experienced several attacks by separatist groups in recent months. The attacks have increased in ferocity and have also targeted Chinese workers amid protests over Beijing-backed infrastructural projects in Balochistan.

As part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project – one of the main arms of China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” designed to improve trading routes – China’s Xinjiang region has been connected to Pakistan’s deep-sea Gwadar port on the Arabian Sea in Balochistan.

Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif condemned Sunday’s train attack in Quetta in a post on X.

“Such cowardly acts of terrorism cannot weaken the resolve of the people of Pakistan. We remain steadfast in our determination to eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,” he said.

He added that while initial reports indicated a suicide bombing, this has not been officially confirmed. If it is, Yunas Samad, an emeritus professor of South Asian Studies at the University of Bradford in the UK, told Al Jazeera, “this would reflect tactics that insurgent organisations in the region have increasingly adopted over recent years”.

“There are also persistent claims regarding the circulation of sophisticated weaponry originating from stockpiles left behind after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan,” he said.

Are we seeing a new phase of armed separatist attacks in Balochistan?

According to research gathered by the independent, Islamabad-based think tank Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, Balochistan recorded at least 254 attacks in 2025 – roughly 26 percent more than in 2024.

A December 2025 report published by independent conflict monitor Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) found that separatists had also intensified attacks and pressure on security forces. The report said the number of attacks using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and grenades, mainly targeting convoys and police stations, grew by more than 65 percent in the first 11 months of 2025, compared to the same time period in 2024.

The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) report this year found that there has been more Baloch armed group activity in Pakistan in 2025 as well. The GTI is an annual report published by the Australia-based independent think tank Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).

Its 2026 report states that the BLA was responsible for Pakistan’s largest terror attack of 2025 – when the Jaffar Express, a train travelling from Quetta to Peshawar, was hijacked in March.

The BLA claimed responsibility and reported that six military personnel had been killed. Hundreds of people were taken hostage from the train, which was carrying 400 passengers.

“What can reasonably be said is that, following the earlier coordinated attack on the Jaffar Express, the Pakistani authorities appear to have intensified security measures around transport infrastructure, military personnel and key lines of communication,” Samad, of Bradford University, told Al Jazeera.

“The fact that this latest incident nevertheless occurred may suggest that militant groups retain a significant operational capability despite those efforts,” he noted.

The group stunned Pakistan’s security establishment in 2022 when it ‌stormed army and navy bases. In August 2024, militants carried out coordinated ⁠attacks across Balochistan, including highway assaults in which passengers were pulled from buses and shot after identity checks.

“While statistics in such conflicts are always contested and should be treated cautiously, they do indicate that the intensity of the conflict has not significantly diminished,” Samad said.

“Whether this constitutes an entirely ‘new phase’ is perhaps too strong a conclusion at present. However, it does appear to indicate a degree of resurgence in militant capability and confidence among sections of the Baloch insurgency.”

Who are the BLA and major Baloch armed groups?

The BLA, which has a suicide squad called the Majeed Brigade, says it is fighting for the independence of Balochistan, a province located in Pakistan’s southwest and bordering Afghanistan to the north and ⁠Iran to the west.

It is the largest of several ethnic separatist groups that have been fighting the federal government for decades. Balochistan’s mountainous border region serves as a safe haven and training ground for both Baloch separatist fighters and Islamist armed groups.

The BLA often targets infrastructure and security forces in Balochistan, but has also struck in other areas – most notably the southern port city of Karachi.

The BLA has deployed women suicide bombers, including in an attack on Chinese nationals in Karachi, and was designated a “foreign terrorist organisation” by the United States in August 2025 in a move welcomed by the Pakistani government. Analysts say BLA is particularly known for its ability to recruit young, often well-educated fighters.

The group, separately, was at the centre of tit-for-tat strikes in 2024 between Iran and Pakistan over what each said were armed group bases on each other’s territory, which brought the neighbours to the brink of war.

What is the Baloch cause?

Home to about 15 million of Pakistan’s roughly 240 million people, according to the 2023 census, Balochistan is the country’s poorest region despite its wealth of natural resources, including coal, gold, copper and gas.

These resources generate significant revenue for the federal government – unfairly, according to the BLA, which wants Balochistan’s natural wealth to belong to its people and rejects federal control over resource extraction and security.

The province is Pakistan’s largest by area, but smallest by population. It has a long Arabian Sea coastline, not far from the Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz oil shipping lane.

Balochistan is also home to one of Pakistan’s major deep-sea ports at Gwadar, a crucial trade corridor for China’s $65bn investment in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a wing of President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road initiative.

The province is home to key mining projects, including Reko Diq, which is operated by Canadian mining giant Barrick Gold and is believed to be one of the world’s largest gold and copper mines.

China also operates a gold and copper mine in Balochistan.

The province – which was annexed by Pakistan in 1948, six months after partition from India in August 1947 – has a long history of marginalisation. It has since experienced at least five separatist uprisings.

Separatist sentiment was particularly high in the 2000s, around the time the BLA emerged. Analysts of Baloch resistance movements say it was led by Balach Marri, the son of veteran Baloch nationalist leader Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri.

After the government of military ruler Pervez Musharraf killed prominent Baloch nationalist leader Nawab Akbar Bugti in 2006, the separatist movement escalated.

Rebel fighters have targeted Pakistan’s army and Chinese interests, in particular the strategic port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, accusing Beijing of helping Islamabad to exploit the province. Fighters have killed Chinese citizens working in the region and attacked Beijing’s consulate and language centre in Karachi.

More recently, the BLA has also attacked civilians and migrant labourers from other provinces, a shift that officials say marks an escalation in tactics.

Pakistan accuses India and Afghanistan of backing Baloch armed fighters, an allegation both countries deny.

“Baloch separatist groups themselves have, at times, sought to internationalise their cause and last year publicly appealed for diplomatic recognition by India,” Samad said.

“However, establishing clear evidence of direct state support is considerably more difficult, and much of the discussion in this area remains politically contested.”

Hundreds of Baloch activists, many of them women, have protested in Islamabad and Balochistan over alleged abuses by security forces – accusations the government denies.

Over time, the BLA has set itself apart as a group explicitly committed to Balochistan’s full independence from Pakistan. Unlike more moderate Baloch nationalist parties, which press politically for greater provincial autonomy, the BLA has consistently rejected compromise.

Why is this significant now?

Regional stability and international investment

The attack comes as Prime Minister Sharif meets with China’s President Xi in Beijing to discuss economic and security cooperation – something the BLA is strongly opposed to.

The movement could pose a challenge to Pakistan’s attempts to retain Chinese and American investment, experts say, if it reveals a deeper instability.

The Baloch separatist movement is one of the major unresolved questions over Pakistan’s statehood. It is a constant reminder of the challenges of the Pakistani state to stay united, they say.

“More broadly, the persistence of insurgency has had implications for Pakistan’s wider political system,” Samad explained. “Security concerns in Balochistan have increasingly shaped governance and political discourse, strengthening the role of the military and security establishment in national affairs and undermining the democratisation process.”

“Internationally, the issue matters because Pakistan remains a nuclear-armed state of enormous strategic importance,” Samad told Al Jazeera.

“While speculation about state fragmentation is highly premature, any significant escalation in internal instability in a country with nuclear capabilities inevitably attracts international concern. For that reason alone, developments in Balochistan are likely to remain closely watched both regionally and globally.”

Rare-earth metals

Another major issue is that geological assessments suggest Balochistan contains 12 of the 17 rare-earth minerals on the periodic table. Rare earths are critical minerals used to manufacture a vast array of modern items, including batteries, clocks, wiring, military hardware, smartphones and semiconductors, among other technological products.

Since the start of his second term, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed plans to diversify Washington’s stockpile of critical minerals in order to reduce reliance on China, which currently dominates the supply and processing of the world’s rare-earth minerals.

When Pakistan’s Prime Minister Sharif met with Trump at the White House in September 2025, he offered the US access to critical minerals and rare earths.

Then, in December 2025, the US announced a $1.25bn investment in critical minerals mining at Reko Diq to drive “economic growth in Balochistan”.

Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in China on Tuesday evening for a two-day visit centred on talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, as Moscow and Beijing draw closer amid war, sanctions and an increasingly fractured global order.

Putin’s visit is the second face-to-face meeting he has held with Xi in less than a year and coincides with the 25th anniversary of the 2001 Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, the agreement that formalised ties between Russia and China following decades of ideological rivalry and mutual suspicion.

The visit comes just days after United States President Donald Trump left Beijing following his own two-day visit to the Chinese capital for meetings with Xi.

Both Moscow and Beijing are navigating tricky relations with Washington, with analysts saying the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy has had the effect of pushing Russia and China even closer together.

Their deepening partnership also comes against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, mounting tensions around Iran, and disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz – a crisis that has rattled global energy markets and renewed Beijing’s concerns over the security of its oil and gas supplies.

With one of the world’s most strategically vital waterways under threat, China has increasingly turned towards Russia as a reliable overland energy supplier.

Analysts say Xi’s decision to host Trump and Putin within the space of a week is no coincidence, reflecting Beijing’s attempt to cast itself as a trusted actor in an increasingly fragmented and volatile world order.

How have China-Russia relations changed over the decades?

China and Russia have long occupied a complicated place in each other’s histories. Once bound together through communist ideology and shared opposition to Western capitalism, the Soviet Union and Maoist China later became bitter rivals, with tensions along their 4,300km (2,670-mile) border bringing the two countries close to conflict during the Cold War.

However, that border has since transformed from a frontier of insecurity into one of strategic cooperation and trade.

Neither Xi nor Putin is a frequent international traveller. Putin is the subject of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant over the war in Ukraine, while Xi rarely leaves China other than for carefully choreographed state visits. But both leaders have invested heavily in maintaining personal ties with each other.

The two have repeatedly called each other “friends”, and their relationship has deepened, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which pushed Moscow further into international isolation and forced the Kremlin to look southeastwards for trade amid Western sanctions.

“Russia and China look confidently towards the future,” Putin said in remarks carried by Russian state media ahead of the visit.

He said the two countries were “actively developing cooperation in politics, economics, defence, expanding cultural exchanges, and fostering interpersonal interaction”.

“In essence, jointly doing everything to deepen bilateral cooperation and advance global development for the wellbeing of both nations,” Putin added.

Why Russia needs China

China has become an economic lifeline for Russia as the country’s economy has shifted to a wartime footing, with two-way trade between the countries more than doubling between 2020 and 2024, when it reached $237bn for the year.

But the relationship is also uneven. While China is Russia’s largest trading partner, Russia accounts for only about four percent of China’s total international trade. China’s economy is also vastly larger, and Beijing holds considerably more leverage in negotiations between the two sides.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has become increasingly reliant on Chinese technology and manufacturing. A recent Bloomberg report found Russia was sourcing more than 90 percent of its sanctioned technology imports from China, including components with military and dual-use applications vital to drone production and other defence industries.

China has also emerged as a crucial buyer of Russian oil and other energy products at a time when European markets have largely closed to Moscow in response to the Russia-Ukraine war. With Western sanctions restricting Russia’s options, the Kremlin has few viable alternatives to China’s scale of demand.

Analysts say the imbalance means Beijing is often able to negotiate from a position of strength, securing access to Russian oil and gas at discounted prices while expanding its influence over Moscow’s economic future.

Why China still needs Russia

While the relationship is uneven, it is not one-sided. Russia provides something increasingly valuable in a turbulent world: secure access to vast energy resources beyond vulnerable maritime trade routes.

The war surrounding Iran and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have heightened Beijing’s concerns over energy security, given China’s heavy dependence on imported oil and gas passing through contested shipping lanes.

That has renewed attention on the proposed Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, a long-delayed project expected to feature prominently in this week’s discussions.

If completed, the pipeline would transport 50 billion cubic metres of Russian gas annually to China via Mongolia, significantly expanding energy flows between the two countries.

But it is more than just an economic relationship. China also values Russia as a geopolitical partner. Both countries are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and frequently align diplomatically in opposition to US-led policies.

While analysts say China has been careful not to become formally tied to Moscow through a rigid military alliance, the two countries have still gradually reinforced their partnership through increasingly regular joint military exercises, including the “Joint Sea” naval drills that began in 2012.

Last year, China and Russia launched fresh naval drills in the Sea of Japan near the Russian port of Vladivostok, with exercises focused on submarine rescue, anti-submarine warfare, air defence, missile defence and maritime combat operations. Analysts say the drills help signal strategic alignment between Beijing and Moscow without the mutual defence commitments of a formal alliance.

Experts say the strength of the partnership lies in its flexibility. While Western governments have often portrayed the relationship as fragile and driven largely by a shared opposition to the West, analysts say, it may prove more durable because it is rooted in shared economic and strategic interests rather than ideology alone.

China will buy ‘at least’ $17bn worth of US agricultural goods annually, the White House says.

China will buy “at least” $17bn worth of agricultural goods from the United States annually following US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s summit in Beijing, the White House has said.

China will make the purchases through 2028, with the 2026 target applying to the remainder of the year on a proportionate basis, according to a fact sheet released on Sunday.

The White House said the deal is in addition to China’s commitment to buy at least 87 million metric tonnes of US soya beans, which was made at Trump and Xi’s summit in South Korea in October.

China will also restore market access for US beef by renewing the expired listings of more than 400 production facilities, and resume imports of poultry from states determined by the US Department of Agriculture to be free of avian influenza, according to the fact sheet.

Trump and Xi also agreed to establish two new bodies – the US-China Board of Trade and the US-China Board of Investment – to manage trade and investment between the sides, the White House said.

China has yet to confirm or comment on the White House’s announcement.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The White House’s update provides further clarity on the outcome of Trump and Xi’s two-day summit, which was heavy on pageantry and camaraderie but light on concrete agreements.

During their two days of talks in Beijing, Trump and Xi sought greater alignment on economic issues and trade, while largely skirting the sensitive issues of Taiwan and the US-Israel war on Iran.

In a readout after the summit wrapped up on Friday, the White House said the two sides had discussed ways to “enhance economic cooperation”, and that they agreed on the need to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Beijing did not explicitly state that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but stressed the importance of reaching “a settlement on the Iranian nuclear issue and other issues that accommodates the concerns of all parties”.

Neither White House statement contained any mention of Taiwan, the self-governing island that Beijing views as an integral part of its territory.

The omission of any reference to the island – the defence of which Washington is committed to supporting under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act – came after Xi warned of “clashes and even conflicts” between the superpowers if the issue is not “handled properly”.

After nearly a decade of tit-for-tat economic salvoes between Washington and Beijing, US-Chinese trade is down sharply from its peak.

Their bilateral trade in goods last year came to some $415bn, down from more than $690bn in 2022.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi says his talks with the Dutch PM also focused on expanding cooperation in defence and security.

India’s Tata Electronics has signed a deal with Dutch technology giant ASML to build a major semiconductor plant in western India, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the Netherlands during his European tour.

The agreement, announced on Saturday, will support the development of Tata’s semiconductor facility in Dholera, Gujarat – Modi’s home state.

ASML, Europe’s largest technology company by market value, manufactures advanced lithography machines used to produce high-end microchips found in products ranging from mobile phones to cars.

The Dutch company said it would help “establish and ramp up” production at the plant by supplying its cutting-edge chipmaking tools.

Tata Electronics plans to invest $11bn in the facility, which is expected to manufacture chips for artificial intelligence, the automotive industry and other sectors.

ASML chief executive Christophe Fouquet said the company saw “many compelling opportunities” in India’s growing semiconductor industry.

“We are committed to establishing long-term partnerships in the region,” Fouquet said in a statement.

The deal comes as India and the Netherlands move to deepen economic ties, with New Delhi seeking foreign technology and investment to boost manufacturing and create jobs.

The European Union has increasingly viewed India – the world’s most populous country and one of its fastest-growing economies – as a key future market.

During his visit, Modi held talks with Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten and met King Willem-Alexander.

“My conversations with Prime Minister Rob Jetten were extensive and covered a wide range of topics,” Modi wrote on X.

“One of them was defense and security. I spoke about the possibility of drawing up an action plan for the defense industry as quickly as possible. We can also collaborate in sectors such as space travel, maritime systems, and maritime security.”

Modi also addressed members of the Indian diaspora and is expected to inspect centuries-old Chola copper plates being returned to India by Leiden University.

Indian and Dutch officials are also discussing a more flexible visa arrangement for Indian students and workers in the Netherlands.

Modi will next travel to Sweden for talks with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson focused on trade, innovation and green technology cooperation. The visit marks his second trip to the country since attending the first India-Nordic summit in 2018.

Early signs point to the United States and China moving towards a relationship focused on pragmatic areas of common interest following US President Donald Trump’s trip to China, according to analysts, setting aside the turmoil that marked 2025.

Trump was in Beijing for three days this week to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, accompanied by a delegation of American CEOs, including the heads of Apple, Nvidia, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs.

The meeting between the two leaders came just over six months after they agreed to pause the US-China trade war for a year on the sidelines of a multilateral summit in South Korea. While a frequent critic of China’s economic policies at home, Trump appeared to get along with Xi in person throughout his trip and lavished praise on the Chinese leader.

“It’s an honour to be with you, it’s an honour to be your friend, and the relationship between China and the USA is going to be better than ever before,” Trump told Xi on Thursday.

The White House readout of the Trump-Xi meeting on Thursday stressed areas of common ground, stating that the leaders had “discussed ways to enhance economic cooperation between our two countries” by “expanding market access for American businesses into China and increasing Chinese investment into our industries”.

Notably absent from the statement was any mention of China’s export controls on rare earths, critical materials used across the tech, defence and energy sectors. China controls nearly the entire industry, and it has moved to restrict US access.

William Yang, senior Northeast Asia analyst at the Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s remarks showed he would likely try to compartmentalise US-China relations into areas where the two sides can work together without being overshadowed by geopolitical concerns.

Xi, while less effusive, also spoke of his desire to move towards a new US-China framework based on “constructive strategic stability”, meaning that the US and China should try to “minimise competition, manage differences and allow stability to be the foundation of the bilateral relationship”, according to Yang.

Both leaders appear to have sidestepped other controversial issues, such as the status of Taiwan, a 23 million-person democracy claimed by Beijing but unofficially backed by Washington.

Xi told Trump during their meeting that Taiwan was the “most important issue” in the US-China relationship, and that mishandling it could lead to “clashes and even conflicts” between the two sides. Beijing objects to Washington’s ongoing military support of Taiwan and has pressed the US to take a more explicit line on Taiwan’s political status.

Although the US does not recognise the government in Taipei, it maintains a deliberately vague policy on China’s territorial claims. Despite the controversy, neither the Chinese nor the US readout mentioned whether Trump discussed Taiwan or the future of arms sales – suggesting he either disagreed with Xi or avoided the topic.

Analysts like Yang say it is still too soon to know whether Trump will heed Xi’s remarks by blocking or delaying a $14bn arms deal reportedly in the works for Taiwan. The deal would need Trump’s sign-off to move forward, according to US legislators.

Xi was equally circumspect on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, which has been shuttered since the US and Israel launched a war on Iran on February 28.

Trump has previously pushed China to encourage Iran to reopen the strait, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passed each year before the war, because of its close relationship with Tehran. China and Iran signed a 25-year “strategic partnership” in 2021, and Beijing buys 80 to 90 percent of Iran’s oil annually.

Trump raised the points again in his meeting with Xi in Beijing, according to the US readout, which said the two leaders “agreed that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy”.

“President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to the militarisation of the Strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use, and he expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce China’s dependence on the Strait in the future. Both countries agreed that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,” the readout said.

The Chinese readout of their meeting on Thursday did not include mention of Iran or its nuclear programme.

Chucheng Feng, founding partner of Hutong Research based in Beijing, told Al Jazeera that the omissions reflect that Xi and Trump still disagree on key issues, including Iran, but that the overall message from the summit was a desire to move forward.

“For Beijing, the most important thing is to find a floor for the relationship, to set up and enhance guardrails so that no surprises or uncontrolled escalations suddenly emerge. For that, item-by-item disagreements are largely secondary,” he said.

Before arriving for his high-stakes summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, United States President Donald Trump aimed to set expectations high.

He said he would urge Xi to “open up” China’s economy and announced a delegation of top business executives, including Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, to accompany him.

As Trump and Xi prepare to wrap up two days of meetings on Friday, the expectations for their summit’s outcome among observers generally are modest at best.

While Trump and Xi are anticipated to extend the one-year pause in their trade war agreed to in South Korea in October, the expectations are for a stabilisation – not revitalisation – in ties between the world’s two largest economies, which are locked in a rivalry that spans everything from trade and artificial intelligence to the status of Taiwan.

“It is important to be clear-eyed about the state of relations here,” Claire E Reade, a senior counsel at Arnold & Porter who previously worked on China at the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), told Al Jazeera.

“China does not trust the US, and China wants to beat the US in what it sees as long-term global competition,” Reade said.

“This limits what can be agreed.”

While Trump and Xi have yet to announce the final contours of any trade agreement, the US side has flagged various business deals in the pipeline.

In a pre-recorded interview with Fox News that aired on Thursday, Trump said that China would invest “hundreds of billions of dollars” in companies run by the CEOs in his delegation, without providing further details.

Trump also said that Beijing had agreed to purchase US oil and 200 Boeing aircraft.

Trump administration officials have said that the sides are also discussing the establishment of a “Board of Investment” to manage investments between the countries.

“A realistic ‘opening up’ of the Chinese market would likely focus first on sectors where the economic complementarity is most obvious,” Taiyi Sun, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Virginia, told Al Jazeera.

“Agricultural goods such as soybeans and beef, as well as high-value-added manufacturing products like Boeing aircraft, are natural areas for expansion because they match existing Chinese demand with American export strengths.”

Sun said a “gradual” opening for US firms in sectors such as financial services could also be possible.

“But those areas are politically and institutionally more sensitive inside China, so progress would likely be incremental rather than immediate,” he said.

Gabriel Wildau, a senior vice president at global business advisory firm Teneo, said both sides will be seeking to address supply-chain vulnerabilities exposed by their trade war.

“The Iran war has likely increased the US’s vulnerability to export controls on rare earths, given the need to rebuild the munition stocks depleted in that war,” Wildau told Al Jazeera.

“Washington will therefore be willing to offer tariff relief – or at least assurances not to impose new tariffs – in exchange for Beijing’s commitment to keep rare earth exports flowing.”

While Trump and Xi agreed to roll back some trade barriers at their summit in South Korea, US-Chinese business and trade remain severely constrained after a decade of tit-for-tat economic salvoes between the sides.

The average US tariff on Chinese goods stood at 47.5 percent after the South Korea summit, up from 3.1 percent before Trump’s first term, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

China’s average tariff on US goods stood at 31.9 percent, up from 8.4 percent in 2018, according to the think tank.

Two-way goods trade amounted to about $415bn in 2025, down sharply from its 2022 peak of $690bn.

Carsten Holz, an expert on the Chinese economy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said China has less incentive to make concessions to the US than before, amid the rise of its domestic industries.

“Across many industrial sectors, PRC [People’s Republic of China] firms hold leading or controlling positions,” Holz told Al Jazeera.

“As a result, the PRC economy has little to gain from opening further to the US and is likely to only offer largely symbolic gestures.”

Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, voiced similar sentiments about the limits of US leverage.

“Basically, Trump expects China to buy more stuff from America and let US companies operate more freely in China,” Elms told Al Jazeera.

“What is he offering?” Elms said. “Very little, largely because Trump sees the bilateral relationship as one where the US has been fair and China has not.”

Reade, the former USTR official, said Xi would not agree to any measures that “harm Chinese interests in any way.”

“Instead, China will potentially give the US no-cost ‘gifts,’” Reade said, suggesting such measures could include the removal of trade barriers it placed on US beef.

“It may buy US goods it needs,” Reade said.

“If it allows purchases of US tech products, it will only be because it needs them right now,” she added, “But this does not interfere with China’s strategic plans to eliminate dependence on US technology over the longer term.”