International

What is international legitimacy?

States have always needed to guarantee their existence and sovereignty; law and security became, therefore, the key to power dynamics in international relations. As the survival of the states has depended directly on the proper handling of their interrelationship, the international stage soon prevailed over the internal one as the reason for their existence.

The international society, anarchic by nature, has never allowed a previous binding legal order or even the ruling of a central authority. This amorphous and pulverized society has demanded from states the set of strategies aimed at the prevailing of its force in the world system, and due to various standards of expression and capacity they own, some states have used its legitimacy as a way of equating their place in the world and signing their international insertion.

If the international theatre is anarchic, the reasons of state are consequently selfish; nations have been conducting their mutual relations according to the customs originating from the accommodation of power. Paradoxically, a dialectic between sovereignties and the progressive interdependence of nations emerged as a phenomenon that has evinced the potential of international socialization, as well as the existence of a minimum coexisting ruled world community.

Considering that the international legal order is sovereignty-based and that there are no transcendent values—not even peace, justice, and equity—that can affirm its basic rule, interstate relations depend on intricate power and policy games.

Sovereign legal orders aimed at self-defense and security strategies have put in check the legal formalism in favor of realism in international society. This is the main characteristic of the international order that makes it entirely different from the internal one: the prevailing of policy over law. No matter how a domestic legal order forces political struggles, there will always be a founding rule that provides the state legal validity and a minimal government structure, with vertical authority, that enables the subsistence of its society.

On the other hand, international order, even surrounded by world organizations, law, and treaties, can’t do without policy, precisely because of being anarchic, horizontal, amorphous, and unequal. So, for prevailing in the strongly political world theater, states have to use something beyond pure international legal elements as a non-conventional way of equating power—authority, or rather, legitimacy.

This is not an easy task. The concept of international legitimacy is nebulous itself, as it gravitates beyond the borders of morality, ideology, and law, and it can simply be defined as a sort of moral acceptability that justifies states’ authority. Neither diplomacy nor international law can provide sufficient elements or concepts for defining it.

2. Why do nations need international legitimacy?

The friction between power and law is what moves interstate relationships, and it is responsible for encouraging states’ constant dissatisfaction concerning the international system status quo. Decolonization in Africa and Asia, the non-aligned movement, and the third-world onslaught against the international financial system are all phenomena that emphasize this friction.

Even the assumption of stability in the international system and its binding rules can’t mitigate the effects of the friction between power and law. Sovereignty remains the pillar of world relations rather than international law. States don’t abide by rules unless it seems convenient, helpful, and adaptable to their strategic geopolitical calculation.

The international society is a very heterogeneous environment in terms of power and capacities. Consent—and not consensus—is what moves interstate relationship structure, marked by an absolutely unequal distribution of power, which leads to its cyclical freeze and to the legitimacy crisis of hegemonic states.

Whether hegemonic or peripheral, states depend on the consent of the others to achieve their strategic aims. Tradition, besides consent, also aggregates nations, and this is why the international law itself is based on a tradition derived from natural law. It is no coincidence that nations handle their diplomatic strategies of insertion and chase for consent using their reasons of state—the real meaning of their political traditions.

The U.S. molded its political tradition and the basis of its international legitimacy on hegemonic leadership. The relations of power between the U.S. and the rest of the world have always followed this premise, but President Trump’s recent actions are undermining the consent achieved by Washington, as well as its own international insertion. He seems to ignore the fact that, like any other nation, the U.S. depends on the consent of the world community to keep its leadership role.

3. Hegemony: the U.S. international insertion

Since its very early years the U.S. reason of state was forged in a biblical and messianic character based on Puritanism. The resulting collective consciousness led the Americans towards expansionism in their own territory and afterwards to international hegemony.

The U.S. arrogated to itself a leading role in the world on behalf of a supposedly elevated social order, responsible for conducting progress and democracy wherever needed. Based on the idea that the U.S. was divinely ordained to preserve the unequivocal rights given to men by God—equality, liberty, life, and happiness—and to promote democracy ideals, the world consented to the Manifest Destiny Doctrine, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Roosevelt Corollary as acceptable sources of Washington’s international legitimacy.

European countries, which had long resisted American initiatives in Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific, now accepted Washington’s supremacy. The world wars gradually affirmed the international community’s consent to U.S. authority, side by side with the Soviet Union during the bipolar era, and now as a hegemonic nation struggling for world power with earlier peripheral China.

The U.S. hegemonic legitimacy would not have survived the Cold War if it wasn’t for the consent derived from Washington’s objective behavior and respect for formal institutions like NATO, the Security Council of the U.N., or even the accepted currency in the world’s financial system.

Above consent, the West block nourished the belief that the policy of the U.S. really supported free peoples who were resisting attempted subjugation by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Both the Truman and Eisenhower Doctrines gained authority by the acceptance of half of the world, and this consolidated U.S. leadership in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle and Far East.

Reagan’s patient determination on reversing the course of American policy abroad by strengthening Washington’s defenses and recapturing world supremacy from Moscow was rewarded with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, with the end of the Cold War, the U.S. entered uncharted territory, as it meant the end of the divided world legitimacy shared hitherto with the Soviet Union.

During the Cold War, the U.S. could cite the threat of Soviet retaliation as a reason to avoid intervening in the affairs of other countries. With that threat gone, American leaders, facing an unprecedented responsibility, would have to weigh each prospective intervention on its own merits.

If one country attacked another, should the U.S. defend the victim? If the government of a country oppressed its own people, should the U.S. move to stop the oppression? These questions—and the answers American presidents gave to them—would reshape U.S. international legitimacy and its further foreign policy, as well as the world order itself.

As the only superpower still standing, the U.S. power could not preserve American strategists from having to make difficult decisions about how to use such resources. Inheriting the chaos left by the breakup of the Soviet Union, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden outlined a “new world order” based in the general and accepted principle of deterring international aggression.

American unilateralism, strongly endorsed by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, made the world accept fully the “global policeman” role the U.S. had been playing since the 1991 invasion of Iraq. In playing the role of “world cop,” strategists and advisers of both Republican and Democratic presidents asserted the right to the preventive use of force.

In other words, the U.S., far stronger militarily and economically than any other nation, played its role as supporter or final arbiter of most international disputes. Iraq, Kosovo, Serbia, the Middle East, Somalia, and Ukraine have all faced direct or indirect interventions by the U.S. by reference to international law or, last but not least, to the world’s same wavelength.

President Donald Trump seems to despise the highly interventionist and hegemonic legacy that the U.S. accumulated in the last 30 years—in his view a heavy and useless burden that Washington should no longer support—as well as the eighty-year-old world order and the international law system itself.

4. Trump’s will: a new world order?

Conceiving the world as a dynamic, integrated system has always meant the difference between success and failure in the decisions and actions of great leaders throughout history.

Once reappointed for another term in the U.S. presidency, Donald Trump was granted the opportunity of choosing between success and failure. Surprisingly, it looks like he has chosen to face the world not in a global manner, as a wise statesman, but from an absolutely anarchic, fickle, and irregular point of view.

This is an equivocal perspective: the three-century successful premise based on the opposition between the internal order and the international anarchy can’t find support in the present world. Although the international order is anarchic, some institutional, behavioral, and subjective elements that shape regular empirical situations come from it.

Modern international law, unlike its formalist classical matrix, aims to shape social reality, not only on the global scale but also at the core of the states. The present organization of the international system has to do with both the power and interest of the wealthier nations and the peripheral ones’ sense of security and belonging to the international community.

In general, nations yearn for sovereignty, formal equality, human rights, economic development, stable commerce, and a healthy environment. In a nutshell, both peripheral and powerful states yearn for stability in world order, and the hegemonic ones are even more interested in promoting it. Besides being the main beneficiaries of the world order stability, they also have enormous influence on shaping the content of international rules and strengthening global organizations.

Thus, it’s quite impossible to conceive a project of a new world order under Trump’s actions. His strategic equivocation is evident: instead of maintaining the U.S. leadership, the measures of international disaggregation so far are undermining Washington’s legitimacy.

The international community expects the USA to be the USA. Despite the emergence of Russia, China, and the Global South as alternative centers of power, the world still expects genuine leadership from Washington, and this role requires the acceptance of predictable patterns in states’ relationships that only global governance shaped by international law and systemic persistence can provide.

Denying the international system is definitely not the way to improve a new world order, and it will result exactly in the opposite of Trump’s objective—“make America great again”—insofar as the U.S.’s global leadership depends on its strategic insertion into the global regime.

5. The U.S.’s international legitimacy towards deterioration

While Washington is stepping back, Beijing is reinforcing its global insertion and searching constantly for the international community’s consent and for a global leadership role. The Chinese strategists and advisers are fully aware that the observance of international law and the pursuit of the world’s consent are the keys to consistent international legitimacy.

In the daily routine of international system life, large numbers of agreements and customs are complied with. However, the need is felt in the hectic interplay of world affairs for some kind of regulatory framework or rules network within which the game can be played, and international law fulfills that requirement. States feel this necessity because it imports an element of stability and predictability into the situation.

As nations are usually involved in disagreements or disputes, it is handy to have recourse to the rules of international law since at least there is a common frame of reference—a mutually understandable vocabulary book that suggests possible solutions.

The element of reciprocity at work acts as a powerful weapon of gathering and forbearance among nations. States quite often do not pursue one particular course of action that might bring them short-term gains because it could disrupt the mesh of reciprocal tolerance, which could very well bring long-term disadvantages. This constitutes an inducement to states to act reasonably and moderate demands in the expectation that this will similarly encourage other states to act reasonably and so avoid confrontations.

Observing the international law and behaving according to the world system by mutual agreement is the path to improve international legitimacy and to influence and to alter law patterns or customs in the international community.

International legitimacy and international law—and not morality, ethics, or even political mottos—are the elements directly used by states for pursuing their strategic objectives and claims.

“Making America great again” is an empty political motto that definitely can’t subsidize American international legitimacy. Behaving objectively, but diplomatically, in terms of power and showing respect for formal world institutions was surely the way the U.S. forged its supremacy and conquered the consent of the international community.

What made America “great” was precisely its reason of state, based on the tradition of hegemonic leadership. American strategists have always known how to make Washington’s authority and legitimacy prevail over the intricate power and policy games and over the expectations of the coexisting world community.

American legitimacy could even resist the last 30 years of unilateralism and preventive use of force, when the world community fully questioned U.S. leadership, because the strategists and advisers of Washington have never forgotten the need for world socialization and the existence of a ruled world system.

Trump’s foreign policy, contrary to the Chinese or Russian ones, ignores that the consent of the world community is essential for a nation to keep its leadership role and that the world order won’t forgo stability and its institutional and behavioral elements.

The world is a dynamic integrated system that shapes social reality at the core of the states. Trump’s stubbornness in the brutal opposition between the internal and the international order, and in finding enemies everywhere, even among traditional friends, will surely lead the U.S. legitimacy towards deterioration, besides putting the country against the Earth.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang says protectionist measures, including hikes in tariffs, are a major cause of global economic stagnancy.

A wave of recognition from Western countries – led by France, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada – means that 157 countries now recognise a Palestinian state.

The latest countries to recognise Palestine include strong allies of Israel who have tried to frame the recognition as an attempt to keep alive the idea of a two-state solution, which envisions a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

“In the face of the growing horror in the Middle East, we are acting to keep alive the possibility of peace and a two-state solution,” Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister, said in a statement. “That means a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state. At the moment, we have neither.”

While diplomatically the recognition of Palestine is a major step forward, on a practical level, it does little to bring the possibility of statehood any closer.

Israel has only increased settlement construction in the occupied West Bank throughout its war on Gaza and responded to the recognition of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly this week by doubling down on its commitment to never allow a Palestinian state.

So does recognition bring Palestine any closer to statehood, and what does a territory need to be considered a state? Let’s take a closer look.

What does it take to be a state?

There is no single definition of a state, but international law widely cites the Montevideo Convention of 1933. The UN has previously referenced the Montevideo Convention when discussing Palestinian statehood.

The convention does not require a state to be recognised by others. Instead, it specifies that a territory must have defined borders, a government, the capacity to enter into relations with other states and a permanent population.

So could Palestine be a state?

While many of the states that recognise Palestine are vague about its exact borders, most envisage lines close to those before Israel’s 1967 war, including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel has occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 despite that being illegal under international law.

The Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians in the 1990s were supposed to start the process leading to the formation of a Palestinian state and created the Palestinian Authority (PA).

The PA engages in foreign relations, maintaining diplomatic ties with numerous countries and operating various diplomatic missions, including embassies, representative offices and delegations

And in terms of its permanent population, millions of Palestinians live in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and have done so for generations despite decades of Israeli policies.

However, the degree to which Israel allows the PA to operate as an independent state is disputed. While the PA exercises some governmental functions, international bodies have questioned its full capacity to govern.

For example, the UN Secretariat in 2011 and the International Criminal Court in 2020 noted that despite meeting all the other conditions for statehood set out in the Montevideo Convention, Israel’s control over the PA’s borders, movement within the territory – where Israel maintains a heavy security presence – resources and security operations undermine the PA’s ability to govern.

So, why isn’t Palestine a state?

Because international law can go only so far.

Since establishing Kfar Etzion, its first settlement in the West Bank after the 1967 war, Israel has created more than 160 settlements across the Palestinian territory and occupied East Jerusalem, housing about 700,000 Israelis. These settlements are illegal under international law.

During its war on Gaza, settlement construction has surged. Israel’s latest plan to build about 3,400 new homes would bisect the West Bank while linking thousands of existing settlements by roads for Israeli use only, making any future Palestinian state almost impossible.

In addition, Israel has constructed industrial developments, such as the Barkan Industrial Park, in occupied territory.

Israeli and international firms are encouraged to locate themselves in the industrial parks, receiving government subsidies, low rents, favourable tax rates and access to cheap Palestinian labour in return for supporting the settlements’ economies.

Among them, according to Amnesty International, are international companies such as Airbnb, Expedia and JCB.

How likely is Israel to give up its settlements?

Very unlikely.

Many settlers and their supporters in the Israeli government see their presence in Palestinian territory as ordained by Jewish scriptures.

According to them, in addition to settling Gaza, they hold a “divine mandate” to reclaim the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as they refer to it, and even to potentially expand Israel’s frontiers to form “Greater Israel”, a territory that includes parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

Settlers themselves are being increasingly aggressive in seizing Palestinian land, facing little pushback from the Israeli state, and their agenda is openly supported by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party.

Many settler leaders are in government, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

But what about international law?

Israel, with the absolute backing of the United States, has shown little regard for international law from the first ejection of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 to the present.

In fact, rather than recognise a Palestinian state as others have done, the Israeli Knesset voted in July in defiance of international law and approved a motion to annex the West Bank, which constitutes much of one.

On Sunday in response to the moves by the UK, France, Australia and other countries, Netanyahu was clear: “It will not happen. There will be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan [River],” he pledged.

The announced 100% tariff on pharmaceuticals, 25% on trucks, and 30% on furniture, due to come into effect on October 1, reopen the US president’s trade war.

United States President Donald Trump has announced steep new tariffs on pharmaceutical products, big-rig trucks, and home renovation fixtures and furniture.

The announcement late on Thursday signalled the harshest trade plans from Trump since last April’s shock unveiling of reciprocal tariffs on virtually every US trading partner across the globe, marking a revival of the Republican president’s trade war.

Starting on October 1, “we will be imposing a 100% Tariff on any branded or patented Pharmaceutical Product, unless a Company IS BUILDING their Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plant in America,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Shares of pharmaceutical companies across Asia with big exposure to the US market fell on Friday, including South Korea’s Samsung Biologics.

Trump’s move was criticised by Australia, which exported pharmaceutical products worth an estimated $1.3bn to the US in 2024, according to the United Nations Comtrade Database.

In a separate post, Trump wrote of a 25 percent tariff on “all ‘Heavy (Big) Trucks’ made in other parts of the world” to support US manufacturers such as “Peterbilt, Kenworth, Freightliner, Mack Trucks and others”.

Foreign companies that compete with these manufacturers in the US market include Sweden’s Volvo and Germany’s Daimler. Shares in both companies were sharply lower in after-hours trading in Europe.

Trump said the truck tariffs were “for many reasons, but above all else, for National Security purposes!”

Earlier this year, the Trump administration launched a so-called Section 232 probe into imports of trucks to “determine the effects of national security”, setting the stage for Thursday’s announcement.

Section 232 is a trade law provision that gives the president broad authority to impose tariffs or other restrictions on imports when they are deemed a threat to national security.

Trump also said a 50 percent tariff on home renovation materials and a 30 percent tariff on upholstered furniture would be imposed, as he claimed that such products were swamping the US market from abroad.

According to the US International Trade Commission, in 2022, imports, mainly from Asia, represented 60 percent of all furniture sold, including 86 percent of all wood furniture and 42 percent of all upholstered furniture.

Shares in home furniture retailers Wayfair and Williams Sonoma, which depend on these imported goods, tumbled in after-hours trading.

Trump’s administration has already imposed a baseline 10 percent tariff on all countries, with higher individualised rates on nations where exports to the US far exceed imports.

Trump has also used emergency powers to impose extra tariffs on trade deal partners Canada and Mexico, as well as on China, citing concerns over fentanyl trafficking and undocumented migration.

It was not yet clear how these new tariffs would factor into the existing measures.

Sept. 25 (UPI) — Breeze Airlines will begin offering international flights to the Caribbean, which makes it the first U.S. airline in over 10 years to get Federal Aviation Administration approval for overseas trips.

The startup has been in business for five years and will begin trips to sunny destinations beginning in January. The flights will be to Cancun, Mexico; Montego Bay, Jamaica; and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic.

The international flights will leave from Norfolk, Va.; Charleston, S.C.; New Orleans, La.; Providence, R.I.; Raleigh, N.C.; and Tampa, Fla., and they will only be on Saturdays.

Breeze was founded by David Neeleman, JetBlue founder, in 2021. The airline now serves 81 cities, with 291 non-stop routes.

“We picked places that have all-inclusive resorts because people like to go on Saturday and fly back (the following) Saturday. It’s a good complement to what we’re doing already,” Neeleman told USA Today. He said the airline has peak traffic on its other routes on Thursdays, Fridays, Sundays and Mondays. That leaves spare capacity to fly to resort destinations on Saturdays.

Neeleman said Breeze service will be the same for international fliers.

“We’re excited to be able to fly people out of the country,” he said. “You can expect the same great service and the same great airplanes on international, and I think it’s going to be a big hit with our guests.”

The airline also announced it has been certified by the FAA as a U.S. Flag Carrier. That means Breeze can take cargo and passengers whose travel is funded by the federal government.

“Becoming a U.S. flag carrier is a huge milestone for Breeze, and one that our team members have been working tirelessly on for the last three years,” Neeleman said.

Norway’s “Sentimental Value” looks poised to be this year’s international feature that breaks through across multiple categories (think “All Quiet on the Western Front,” “Anatomy of a Fall,” “Emilia Pérez” and others): the non-English language movie that earns academy recognition for its acting, script and direction.

Anne Thompson handicaps the race so far thus: Noting that several countries still haven’t chosen their submissions, “Cannes prizewinners have an increased profile with the international committee, including Norway’s ‘Sentimental Value’ and Brazil’s ‘Secret Agent.’ ”

But several other official submissions have our panel over the moon.

“I’ll call it right now,” declares Glenn Whipp: “The thrilling ‘Sirât,’ from Spanish filmmaker Oliver Laxe, is going to be named best picture by either the Los Angeles or New York film critics … then it’ll be off to the races for this film, a ‘Sorcerer’ for the 21st century.”

Robert Daniels’ description of “The Voice of Hind Rajab” is harrowing: “The real-life story of a 6-year-old Palestinian girl whose final hours trapped in a car under intense fire from an IDF tank were spent pleading to be saved … a candid dramatization of her emergency phone calls.”

1. “Sentimental Value” (Norway)
2. “It Was Just an Accident” (France)
3. “The Secret Agent” (Brazil)
4. “No Other Choice” (South Korea)
5. “Sirât” (Spain)
6. “The Voice of Hind Rajab” (Tunisia)
T7. “Calle Málaga” (Morocco)
T7. “The President’s Cake” (Iraq)
T7. “A Useful Ghost” (Thailand)

RogerEbert.com

Robert Daniels

1. “The Voice of Hind Rajab” (Tunisia)
2. “It Was Just an Accident” (France)
3. “Calle Málaga” (Morocco)
4. “Sentimental Value” (Norway)
5. “No Other Choice” (South Korea)

“Venice’s harrowing grand jury prize winner, Tunisia’s ‘The Voice of Hind Rajab,’ has already built early momentum. The film tells the real-life story of Rajab, a 6-year-old Palestinian girl whose final hours trapped in a car under intense fire from an IDF tank were spent pleading to be saved. A distressing docufiction, the film is a candid dramatization of her emergency phone calls.”

Turner Classic Movies

Dave Karger

1. “Sentimental Value” (Norway)
2. “It Was Just an Accident” (France)
3. “The Secret Agent” (Brazil)
4. “No Other Choice” (South Korea)
5. “Left-Handed Girl” (Taiwan)

“Three films that are also overall contenders this year stand to dominate this race: Norway’s ‘Sentimental Value,’ Brazil’s ‘The Secret Agent’ and France’s ‘It Was Just an Accident.’ The bigger question will be which films are able to snag the final two slots.”

Los Angeles Times

Amy Nicholson

1. “The Secret Agent” (Brazil)
2. “Sentimental Value” (Norway)
3. “A Useful Ghost” (Thailand)
4. “2000 Meters to Andriivka” (Ukraine)
5. “It Was Just an Accident” (France)

“Can Brazil get back-to-back wins for international feature? Possivelmente! ‘The Secret Agent,’ another political thriller set during the dictatorship, was one of the buzziest movies at Cannes, where it scooped up best actor for star Wagner Moura and best director for Kleber Mendonça Filho (of the weirdo western ‘Bacarau’).”

IndieWire

Anne Thompson

1. “Sentimental Value” (Norway)
2. “The Secret Agent” (Brazil)
3. “The President’s Cake” (Iraq)
4. “No Other Choice” (South Korea)
5. “Left-Handed Girl” (Taiwan)

“It’s too early, as [several countries] haven’t submitted yet. But Cannes prizewinners have an increased profile with the international committee, including Norway’s ‘Sentimental Value’ and Brazil’s ‘Secret Agent.’ ”

Tribune News Service

Katie Walsh

1. “It Was Just an Accident” (France)
2. “Sentimental Value” (Norway)
3. “The Secret Agent”
4. “Sirât” (Spain)
5. “No Other Choice” (South Korea)

“Based on Cannes, I think ‘It Was Just an Accident’ (France), ‘The Secret Agent’ (Brazil), ‘Sirât’ (Spain) and ‘Sentimental Value’ (Norway) could be considered as good as nominated. But who will emerge triumphant in the fifth spot?”

Los Angeles Times

Glenn Whipp

1. “Sirât” (Spain)
2. “Sentimental Value” (Norway)
3. “It Was Just an Accident” (France)
4. “No Other Choice” (South Korea)
5. “The Secret Agent” (Brazil)

“I’ll call it right now. The thrilling ‘Sirât,’ from Spanish filmmaker Oliver Laxe, is going to be named best picture by either the Los Angeles or New York film critics. Who knows? Maybe both. And then it’ll be off to the races for this film, a ‘Sorcerer’ for the 21st century.”

Sept. 18 (UPI) — The fall semester has arrived with fewer international students on campuses in the United States.

NAFSA: National Association of International Educators estimates that the United States will lose $7 billion in revenue and produce about 60,000 fewer jobs due to a 15% drop in overall enrollment this academic year. Contributing to the enrollment decrease is a projected 30-40% decline in new international students.

The estimates are based on State Department and Student and Exchange Visitor Information System information, which is published monthly. There are a few factors contributing to the decline in international students and the primary drivers are related to U.S. visa and immigration policies.

Since its initial revocation of student visas, the Trump administration has begun restricting visas from 19 countries. In late May, the State Department paused student visa processing for three weeks, causing delays for students trying to come to the United States.

International Student and Scholar Services personnel told UPI that some international students were arriving late to campus due to issues with the visa application process over the summer.

Universities also advised international students to remain in the United States, rather than returning to their home countries during the summer.

Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff of the American Council on Education, told UPI visa processing was paused during the peak time when the State Department would normally be processing applications.

More policy changes are being discussed that have Spreitzer concerned about U.S. higher education’s place in the world.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has proposed a new rule that would limit the duration of time visa holders, including international students, can remain in the United States. The proposal would require students to complete their academic program in no longer than four years.

“I’m worried that these are continuing to send messages to prospective international students that it’s going to be difficult to get here, when you’re in the United States there may not be certainty how long you’re going to have your visa and as a result I think we’re going to see drops in our international enrollment for this academic year,” Spreitzer said.

More clarity on how many international students and scholars are on campuses this fall will come in the Institute of International Education’s “Open Doors Report” in November. The report provides data on international students and American students studying abroad.

The Institute of International Education’s spring survey of high education institutions found that 87% of respondents from U.S. institutions expected visa barriers to lead to students not coming to the United States for academic credits. About 71% expected potential problems at ports of entry and 69% shared concerns about students’ visa statuses while they are in the United States.

About 35% of U.S. institutions experienced decreases in international student applications and 32% said the number of applications remained relatively the same.

Colleges and universities in the United States continue to seek international enrollees, despite challenges presented by federal policies.

Spreitzer said the response from American institutions echoes how they responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, international students faced questions about whether they should or could stay on U.S. campuses and if they left, whether they would be able to return to continue their studies.

“Our institutions responded by saying, ‘We want to help our international students,'” Spreitzer said. “Our institutions are doing a lot of the same things. So if a student has been admitted but for some reason their visa processing has been delayed or it’s just taking longer for their student visa to be processed, they’re telling them, ‘You can defer for a year or you could start your studies on a campus we have outside of the United States and then transfer into the U.S. institution.'”

Institutions are also working to keep research laboratories open after the federal government canceled more than $2 billion in grant funds and health research funding.

The efforts of academic institutions and education advocates continue in the face of regulatory barriers. Rather than risking beginning on a degree track in the United States that they may not be able to complete, some international students are looking elsewhere for opportunity.

Global competitors are stepping in to grant students those opportunities.

The United States’ position as a destination for higher education has become more fiercely challenged by the likes of Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom to name a few.

As of June, international higher education enrollees in Australia have increased by 12% since 2019, according to the Australian Government Department of Education.

In the first quarter of the year, student visa applications in the United Kingdom increased by 32% over quarter one in 2024, according to the Higher Education Policy Institute. In the 2023-2024 academic year, India surpassed China in sending the most students to the United Kingdom for the first time in more than a decade.

The Migration Policy Institute’s July report on international students says the costs of education in the United States, travel restrictions and increasing opportunities in other countries have caused fewer international students to choose to study in the United States in the past decade.

About 16% of the 6.9 million international students in the world attended U.S. institutions in the 2023-2024 academic year, down from 20% of 4.5 million students in 2013-2014.

“We’ve seen countries actually putting together programs and pots of funding to attract those researchers that either are in the U.S. right now and are nervous about staying or those researchers that are choosing not to come to the United States,” Spreitzer said.

“I know France, the [European Union], Denmark, they’ve all put together these programs encouraging people to apply. The messaging around it is ‘if you come here, we will make sure that your lab is going to be funded, that your research is going to be funded.'”

With the Taliban barring women from college in her native Afghanistan, Bahara Saghari set her sights on pursuing higher education in the United States.

Saghari, 21, practiced English up to eight hours per day for several years, eventually winning an offer to study business administration at a private liberal arts college in Illinois. She was hoping to arrive this fall, but her plans were derailed again, this time by President Trump’s travel ban.

“You think that finally you are going to your dream, and then something came up and like, everything’s just gone,” Saghari said.

Thousands of students are among the people affected by the Trump administration’s travel ban and restrictions on citizens from 19 countries, including many who now feel stranded after investing considerable time and money to come to the U.S.

Some would-be international students are not showing up on American campuses this fall despite offers of admission because of logjams with visa applications, which the Trump administration slowed this summer while it rolled out additional vetting. Others have had second thoughts because of the administration’s wider immigration crackdown and the abrupt termination of some students’ legal status.

But none face bigger obstacles than the students hit with travel bans. Last year, the State Department issued more than 5,700 F-1 and J-1 visas — which are used by foreign students and researchers — to people in the 19 ban-affected countries between May and September. Citizens of Iran and Myanmar were issued more than half of the approved visas.

U.S. still the first choice for many

Pouya Karami, a 17-year-old student from Shiraz, Iran, focused his college search entirely on the U.S. No other country offers the same research opportunities in science, he said. He was planning to study polymer chemistry this fall at Pittsburg State University in Kansas, but he had to shelve those plans because of the travel ban.

Karami deferred admission until next year and is holding out hope. He is still preparing for his embassy interview and reaching out to U.S. politicians to reconsider the travel ban’s restrictions on students.

“I’m doing everything I can about it,” he said.

The full travel ban affects citizens from 12 countries spanning Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Caribbean. It blocks most people from obtaining new visas, although some citizens from the banned countries are exempt, such as green card holders, dual citizens and some athletes. Seven other countries have tighter restrictions that also apply to student visas.

When Trump announced the travel ban in June, he cited high visa overstay rates and national security threats from unstable or adversarial foreign governments as reasons for putting countries on the list. He has called some of the countries’ screening processes “deficient” and said he plans to keep the ban in place until “identified inadequacies” are addressed.

‘This kind of breaks my heart’

In Myanmar, the family of one 18-year-old student made his education their top priority, saving paychecks for him to go abroad for college. They risked their stability so he could have the chance to live a better life, said the student, who asked to be identified by only his nickname, Gu Gu, because he is worried about being targeted by the Myanmar or U.S. government for expressing criticism.

When he shared a screenshot of his acceptance letter to the University of South Florida in a family group chat, it exploded with celebratory emojis, Gu Gu said. He had been waiting for visa appointments to be announced when, one night, his mother woke him to ask about news of a U.S. travel ban. In an instant, his plans to study at USF this fall were ruined.

Many students his age in Myanmar have been drafted into the military or joined resistance groups since the military ousted the elected civilian government in 2021. While a civil war rages, he had been looking forward to simple freedoms in the U.S. like walking to school by himself or playing sports again.

“I was all in for U.S., so this kind of breaks my heart,” said Gu Gu, who was unable to defer his acceptance.

Students forced to look elsewhere

Saghari, the Afghan student, postponed her July visa interview appointment in Pakistan to August after learning of the travel ban, but ultimately canceled it. Knox College denied her request to defer her admission.

She later applied to schools in Europe but encountered issues with the admissions process. A German university told Saghari she would need to take another English proficiency test because an earlier score had expired, but taking the test the first time was already a challenge in Afghanistan’s political climate.

She has been accepted to a Polish university on condition she pay her tuition up front. She said her application is under review as the school validates her high school degree.

Amir, a 28-year-old Iranian graduate who declined to provide his last name for fear of being targeted, wasn’t able to travel to the U.S. to take a position as a visiting scholar. Instead, he has continued to work as a researcher in Tehran, saying it was difficult to focus after missing out on a fully funded opportunity to conduct research at the University of Pennsylvania.

His professor at Penn postponed his research appointment until next year, but Amir said it feels like “a shot in the dark.”

He’s been looking at research opportunities in Europe, which would require more time spent on applications and potentially learning a new language. He still would prefer to be in U.S., he said, but he isn’t optimistic that the country’s foreign policy is going to change.

“You lose this idealistic view of the world. Like you think, if I work hard, if I’m talented, if I contribute, I have a place somewhere else, basically somewhere you want to be,” he said. “And then you learn that, no, maybe people don’t want you there. That’s kind of hard to deal with it.”

Seminera writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Todd Feathers contributed to this report.

A FORMER Hollyoaks star is unrecognisable after quitting fame and launching an international property career.

The star will be back in people’s minds as his on-screen sister has announced she is making a return to the Channel 4 soap.

4

4

4

Zoe Lister is making a shock return to the Channel 4 soap – eight years after her last appearance.

The actress – who played Zoe Carpenter in the long-running soap – spent four years between 2006 and 2010 on the show.

She went on to make a brief return in 2017 before bowing out for good.

And more recently she’s found worldwide viral fame as the voice of the Jet2 Holidays advert that’s become an internet sensation.

But now The Sun has revealed that Zoe will be going back to the job that made her famous.

A source said: “Zoe will be returning to Hollyoaks for a brief stint soon.

“She’s really excited and it’ll be a huge treat for fans as the show celebrates its 30th anniversary.”

However it will spark theories on where her former on-screen brother Stephen Beard is these days.

His character Archie was involved in some huge storylines, including drug addiction and being kidnapped by gangsters,  throughout his two years on the soap.

Viewers last saw Archie on screen in 2010 when the character exited after falling out with his friends due to his continuing drug habit.

And now the former actor has given up a life of fame and reinvented himself as a property expert in Dubai.

It’s world’s away from Hollyoaks!

4

Manchester City are set to assess forward Omar Marmoush before Sunday’s Manchester derby after he suffered a knee injury while on international duty with Egypt.

The 26-year-old was substituted in the ninth minute of his country’s World Cup qualifier with Burkina Faso – which finished in a goalless draw – in Ouagadougou on Tuesday.

Marmoush, who joined City from Eintracht Frankfurt for £59m in January, was hurt following a robust fourth-minute challenge.

He initially played on after receiving treatment on the field before being replaced by Osama Faisal shortly afterwards.

A picture of the player leaving the pitch with medics was posted on the Egyptian Football Association’s X account with the message: “Omar Marmoush suffers a bruised knee ligament.

India’s finance minister calls for greater collaboration in ‘cybersecurity’ and ‘defence’ between the two countries.

Israel and India have signed a bilateral investment agreement to expand mutual trade during far-right Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich’s trip to the South Asian country, which deepened its ties with Israel under Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The agreement, signed in New Delhi by Smotrich and Indian Minister of Corporate Affairs Nirmala Sitharaman, aims to boost trade and investment flows between the two countries. Sitharaman stressed the need for greater collaboration in “cybersecurity, defence, innovation and high-technology”.

The deal marked “an important strategic step for our joint vision”, said Smotrich, who has been sanctioned by several Western countries for his links to illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

“The agreement reached today between Israel and India reflects our economic growth, innovation and mutual prosperity,” he wrote on X.

“This agreement will open new opportunities for investors in both countries, strengthen Israeli exports, and provide businesses with the certainty and tools to grow in one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing markets.”

India’s Ministry of Finance described the deal as a “historic milestone”, adding that it will foster cooperation in “fintech innovation, infrastructure development, financial regulation, and digital payment connectivity”.

Bilateral trade stood at $3.9bn in 2024, while current mutual investments are worth about $800m, according to official figures. But the bulk of the trade between the two countries is in the domain of defence and security, with New Delhi being Israel’s largest weapons buyer.

Last year, Indian firms also sold Israel rockets and explosives during Israel’s war on Gaza, an Al Jazeera investigation revealed.

The agreement comes as New Delhi moves closer to Israel, even as Israel faces growing political isolation over its genocidal war on Gaza. India was one of the first countries to reach out to Israel after the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel led by Hamas, condemning it as “an act of terror”.

Indian authorities have cracked down on pro-Palestine protests, even criminalising them in some cases, while allowing pro-Israel rallies.

India still supports the so-called two-state solution for the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it has abstained from several United Nations resolutions that have been critical of Israeli rights violations against Palestinians.

In 2024, India also abstained from a UN General Assembly vote calling for an “immediate, unconditional and permanent” ceasefire in Gaza.

Indians make up the largest group of foreign students in Israel, while Israeli construction companies have sought permission to hire up to 100,000 Indian workers to replace Palestinians whose permits were revoked after Israel launched its brutal war on Gaza in October 2023.

India has also refused to condemn Israel’s war on Iran, and declined to support the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s (SCO) condemnation of Israeli attacks. But after United States President Donald Trump’s 50 percent tariffs on India, which took effect late last month, New Delhi this month signed an SCO declaration that condemned the US-Israeli bombing of Iran.

India has also moved to mend its ties with rival China, in a setback for years of US policy using New Delhi as a counterweight to Beijing.

China and India should be partners, not rivals, Chinese President Xi Jinping told Modi on the sidelines of the SCO summit in Tianjin.

More than 20 leaders from non-Western nations gathered in Tianjin, China over the weekend for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, which concluded on Monday, and at which President Xi Jinping set out his vision for a global economic order with the Global South at its centre.

Against the backdrop of new global tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump, Xi told delegates: “We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics, and practise true multilateralism.”

The summit brought together some of the strongest emerging economies, including India and Russia, which, along with China, account for more than one-fifth of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Trilateral trade between China, India and Russia accounted for $452bn in 2023, up from $351bn in 2022, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).

Seen as an alternative power structure to most US-led international institutions, the 10-member SCO includes much of Central Asia, Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and Belarus, and represents about 43 percent of the world’s population and 23 percent of global GDP.

Beijing’s push for multilateralism is coming at a time of rising grievances with Washington, whose trade tariff policies have provided SCO members with common ground to work on.

Which countries buy the most from China?

China has a diverse range of trading partners.

Its largest buyer is the US, which imported $442bn or 12.9 percent of China’s total exports in 2023 – mainly consisting of electronics, machinery, consumer goods and telecommunications equipment.

Regionally, Asia is the main destination for China’s exports, accounting for $1.6 trillion of goods, with India alone receiving $120bn, or 3.1 percent of China’s total exports.

In Europe, China exported $819bn worth of goods, with the main destinations being Germany ($151bn), Russia ($110bn) and the UK ($95.3bn).

Which countries buy the most from India?

The US is also the largest buyer of Indian goods.

In 2023, the US bought goods worth $81.4bn, or 17.9 percent of India’s total exports, mostly medications and pharmaceutical products, followed by precious stones, machinery and textiles.

Regionally, Asia is also the main destination for India’s exports, accounting for $178bn of goods, with the UAE being India’s second largest destination for exports, at $31.4bn, or 6.9 percent of India’s total exports, mainly jewellery and refined petroleum.

The Netherlands is India’s third-biggest export market at $22.5bn, with refined petroleum being the largest export item, worth $15bn. China is India’s fourth-largest export market and second-largest in the Asia region.

On August 6, US President Donald Trump announced a 50 percent tariff on Indian imports, citing India’s continued purchase of discounted Russian crude oil as the primary reason.

In response, India expressed strong disapproval, calling the tariffs “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable”, and reaffirmed its sovereign right to determine its energy policies independently. Despite the US pressure, India continued to import Russian oil, attracted by substantial discounts offered by Moscow.

Which countries buy the most from Russia?

Before the Ukraine war, Russia’s trading partners were much more diversified.

While China was its largest trading partner, accounting for 14.6 percent ($72.1bn) of Russian exports in 2021, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC), Russia also had a broad range of European partners. The Netherlands was Russia’s second-largest partner, with 8 percent ($39.5bn) of total exports, followed by the US at 5.5 percent ($27.3bn).

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, heavy sanctions sharply reduced trade with many Western nations.

By 2023, China accounted for about one-third ($129bn) of Russia’s exports, followed by India at 16.8 percent ($66.1bn) and Turkiye at 7.9 percent ($31bn), according to the OEC, making the Asia region the bulk recipient of Russian goods, with more than three-quarters of Russia’s exports heading there.

What do China and Russia trade most?

In 2023, China exported $110bn worth of goods to Russia, led by machinery and transport equipment. According to the OEC, the top export items from China to Russia were cars.

That same year, Russia sold $129bn worth of goods to China – mostly mineral products, including oil and natural gas.

In recent years, Russia has run a trade surplus with China, mostly due to energy products, which make up nearly three-quarters of its exports.

What do India and Russia trade most?

India runs a major trade deficit with Russia, importing far more than it exports.

In 2023, Russia sold $66.1bn worth of goods to India, with energy products – primarily crude oil and natural gas – making up about 88 percent of these imports, much of which India buys at a discounted rate.

India’s exports to Russia are more diversified, totalling $4.1bn in 2023, with significant contributions from chemical products, machinery and metals.

What do China and India trade most?

India runs a major trade deficit with China, importing about seven times more goods by dollar value than it exports.

In 2023, China exported $125bn worth of goods to India, mainly machinery and chemical products, while India exported $18.1bn worth of goods to China, with oil and fuel-related products comprising the largest share of its exports.

NASA astronaut Don Pettit recorded video of a stunning red aurora from aboard the International Space Station. The colour is rare because of the high altitude needed for it occur, about 240 kilometres above Earth.

TOKYO, Sept. 1 (UPI) — Toy fans of all ages and industry professionals braved the searing heat of August’s final weekend to attend the 2025 International Tokyo Toy Show and see the latest trends in the marketplace.

The Japan Toy Association sponsored the event held at Tokyo’s gargantuan Big Sight exhibition center, with 200-plus vendor companies displaying more than 30,000 toys, some of them yet to be released. While this year’s attendance is still being tabulated, the 2024 event drew more than 80,000 attendees.

The four-day show, which ran Thursday through Sunday, was divided into two days for industry professionals and two days for the public.

Toys are still big business in Japan. Despite a declining national birthrate, the nation’s toymakers racked up a revenue increase in fiscal 2004 of roughly 8% over fiscal 2023, achieving record high earnings, according to JTA data.

Akihiro Sato of the Tokyo Japan Toy Association chapter said that fully grown spenders with bigger wallets are, in part, driving those earnings.

“For the past few years, we’ve been using the term ‘kidult,’ which is a combination of ‘kid’ and ‘adult.’ Simply put, this means that adults with a child’s heart collect toys that they can touch and play with,” Sato said.

High-tech interactive toys, robots and PC-related playthings accounted for an over-40% annual jump in revenue for this sector of Japan’s toy industry, leading all others by percentage, according to JTA statistics.

Among the toys aimed at “kidult” customers are so-called AI companion robot-pets, one of which is Sharp Corp’s “Poketomo, or pocket friend. The tiny robot can fit in a large jacket pocket or purse, and Sharp touts that it can talk with its owner and remember personal details.

To power its AI for customized conversations, it maintains chat records, location data and on-board camera images. The product won an innovation award at this year’s show, and is scheduled for release in Japan in November at 39,600 yen, or about $269.

“Kidult” customers also help drive revenues through demand for reissues of yesteryear’s hits. Global visitors to the 2025 International Tokyo Toy Show were able to encounter the latest versions of childhood favorites, and to recall what made them love Japan’s playtime products.

“It’s always focused on high quality. I got a toy from Takara Tomy when I was 5 years old, a little toy car, and it still works and can still be used just fine, even though the battery was corroded because it has been in my cellar for almost 20 years,” attendee Nadia Garson Wangberg of Oslo, Norway, recalled.

While plastic toys dominated the market at this year’s show, some vendors continued to offer traditional wooden wares.

One of them, Vladislav Krit, of EWA Eco-Wood-Art in Pinsk, Belarus, emphasized the essential nature of human touch to play.

“EWA Eco-Wood-Art produces wooden mechanical construction kits. Construction kits because you need to assemble them before you play. It’s about tactile feelings, it’s about how to touch it and how to assemble it. With wood or anything else, you need to touch it before you make a decision to start this thing.”

If trepidation over Trump administration import tariffs on Japanese products was present at the show, it was not obvious. After weeks of U.S.-Japan negotiations, the Trump administration settled on a 15% tariff rate, the nature of the supply chain could result in additional tariffs, potentially affecting Christmas sales.

Sato, of the Tokyo Japan Toy Association, explained how that could happen because of the global nature of production.

“For manufacturers that sell their products to the U.S. market, about 80% of Japanese toy manufacturers’ products are actually produced in China. When selling from China to the United States, Chinese tariffs are added on — something that wasn’t there before. This means that some manufacturers are likely to see their prices rise.”

It’s been more than 2,000 days since Covid-19 appeared in late 2019 growing to more than 700 million cases and at least 7 million deaths globally. Like many other people who were infected by Covid-19, I have long thought about its origins and where we go next.

As someone who had been a lawyer admitted to practice before the Supreme Courts of the US, New York and Massachusetts, and as chief legal counsel of President Jimmy Carter’s White House Conference on Families, looking at Covid-19 from an international law perspective by the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, it’s clear to me that no country has proven where the disease originated.

Under international law the principle of onus probandi,serious matters like lethal modalities such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or allegations of lethal pathogenic origins require the highest standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is also why the complaining party, not the accused, that bears the burden of proof.

That’s also why the WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens explicitly requires the proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” gold standard, not the lower “preponderance of the evidence” test that something is merely more likely true than not. And it’s why the WHO panel operates under the legal principle of in dubio pro reo, a presumption of innocence until the accusing party proves otherwise.

Applying these standards, the required burden of proof level has not been met in even one case as the US and some allies have falsely accused Wuhan as being the origin of Covid-19.

China, in fact met its primary obligations under the WHO International Health Regulations, including timely notification to WHO of unusual pneumonia cases in December, 2019; sharing viral genome sequencing with WHO in December, 2019; and facilitating the WHO-China joint investigation during 2021.

I also find it unpersuasive that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test was met since there were multiple independent reports, including wastewater and antibody blood testing of varying levels of credibility, of Covid-19  being present in Europe and the Americas prior to December 1, 2019. Since there is substantial evidence that Covid-19 appeared earlier on in numerous venues far beyond China, it has to be a case of “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. For example, consider:

In Italy, multiple studies based on the presence of antibodies in blood samples found Covid-19 as early as October, 2019.

In France, the analysis of thousands of blood samples detected Covid-19 antibodies in 13 cases from November, 2019 to January, 2020.

In the Americas, signs of Covid-19 based on the presence of antibodies in blood samples were found in Brazil in November, 2019 and in the US in early December, 2019.

To me, however, the most convincing evidence is that after so much time has passed and so much money has been expended, no Western intelligence agency has been able to find Covid-19s origin with a high level of confidence; therefore not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Beginning with 2020, without the legal proof threshold being met, a handful of lawsuits outside the US, were filed against China over Covid-19 . All have been unsuccessful. In the US, a greater number of cases yielded only two Pyrric victories among numerous defeats whose massive judgments in cases that are mere political theater, clogged an understaffed, overburdened  judicial system, but not one cent will ever be collected because under international law, these judgments will be uncollectable. There are several reasons for these disparities.

Legally, other nations have more respect for the longstanding doctrine of sovereign immunity governing one nation or its political subdivisions suing another. Consequently, such cases are also more difficult to file there.  The doctrine, which must be music to Donald Trump’s ears, can be traced back to the English common law doctrine: rex non potest peccare or “the king can do no wrong”.

The US is the most litigious country globally, having the highest number of cases filed annually. One of the reasons is an unusual feature of the American legal system that allows litigants to bring cases without paying their lawyer, unless their lawyers are successful, in which case the lawyers take a negotiated percentage of the judgment, usually upwards of 40%.

From the 1990s, The US had been more politically divided. As part of this trend, American views on China were negatively affected and have severely deteriorated, accelerated by Covid-19. For example, Gallup found that about 41% of American had a favorable view of China in February, 2019, but by 2023 this number fell to 15%. Putting these facts together, it’s no surprise that the US has been the ground zero for quixotic  lawsuits seeking damages for Covid19.

US courts are governed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which accords foreign states broad immunity from lawsuits in US courts with several seemingly narrow exceptions. China, however, adheres to the principle of absolute sovereign immunity, and does not recognize the exceptions and abstains from appearing in US courts.

The exceptions, however, encouraged the conservative attorneys-general of red states Missouri and Mississippi to sue China. They were fully aware of China’s position and the futility of obtaining damages, beyond performing a political theater of the absurd that would further gum up an already understaffed judicial system.

Both officials belong to the National Association of Attorney Generals, which we jokingly call “National Association of Aspiring Governors” and both used the suits to waste taxpayers money to further their political careers, and in the case of the Missouri A-G, to help him become US senator.

The “justice is blind” mantra, at least in the case of Missouri, also fall on deaf ears. The 2-1 decision that turned on the narrow exceptions, smacks of political bias. At least one of the two judges allowing the exceptions to hold against China, perhaps both, should have recused themselves to avoid an appearance of impropriety; each was a Trump-appointee.

Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., who wrote the majority opinion is first cousin of the notorious extreme right media commentator Rush Limbaugh. The latter, with an audience of more than 15 million, had said that “the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another weapon to bring down Donald Trump and it probably is a ChiCom (Chinese Communist) laboratory experiment that is in the process of being weaponized”. Judge Limbaugh had an unambiguous moral duty to recuse himself. but didn’t.

The cases have many flaws but I agree with the dissent in the Missouri case, written by the Chief Judge, not a Trump-appointee, that the exceptions did not apply to China.

The Covid-19 nightmare may be over but other pathogens with pandemic potential are literally waiting in the wings. Last year there were 17 global disease outbreaks, including Marburg virus. Mpox and H5N1 bird flu.

Experts warn that there is a 40 to 53% likelihood of another serious pandemic within 25 years.

Trump has already slashed the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) budget from $9.3 to 4.2 billion in 2026. At the same time WHO will (again) lose its largest contributor next year per orders of President Trump to the tune of $500 million to $1.3 billion. Combined, this will cripple the UN body and severely weaken global health surveillance, especially neutering WHOs Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network that relies heavily on American data-sharing and technical support. Trump has even forbidden the remaining experts who weren’t fired from the CDC, from co-authoring scientific papers with WHO staff.

Sadly, like the CDC. the WHO itself is destined to be in poor health, and may suffer terminal decline, causing needless deaths at home and abroad if the US continues down its selfish path. This churlish US action will undoubtedly severely increase the more than 14 million deaths forecast globally by 2030 as a consequence of savage 83% budget cuts to the US Agency for International Development and related US foreign aid programs.

China will assuredly pick up some of the slack, especially via its Belt and Road Initiative and its Health Silk Road but cannot unilaterally restore funding to previous levels. Other nations hopefully can pick up some of the shortfall.

Under international law, we may never know where Covid-19 came from. However, If we don’t want the past to be prologue and if we don’t follow philosopher George Santayana’s wise advice that those who don’t learn from the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them, we must prepare our new multipolar world for the health and other shocks that await us.

In a social media post on August 22 2025 the German Ambassador to India Dr Philip Ackermann said:‘New numbers are out! Almost 60,000 students from India are currently studying in Germany – a leap of 20 % over a year.’ He also said that public universities in Germany were a “great choice” due to their reputation and affordability.

The number of Indian students, surpass Chinese students for two successive years

In recent years, the number of Indian students studying in Germany has risen significantly. In 2018-2019, this number was estimated at a little over 20,000 but it has been growing steadily and in 2023-2024 it reached 49,000. Another important point is that Indian students emerged as the largest international student group — surpassing Chinese students —  in Germany for the second year in a row. For long, India and China have been the largest contributors to the International Student Pool in the Anglosphere – US, UK, Canada and Australia. Apart from Canada – especially in the recent past — the number of students from China exceeded students from India in other nations in the Anglosphere. As ties between Washington and Beijing deteriorated, this began to change and the number of Indian students in US higher education institutions surpassed that of Chinese students in 2024.

Indian students and higher education in the US

With the US making several revisions to its student visa policies, the enrolment of Indian students has witnessed a significant decline. In July 2025, the number of Indian student arrivals was estimated at 79,000. This is a dip of 46%. Apart from the policy changes of the Trump administration, it is the delays in visa processing which are discouraging Indian students from pursuing higher studies in the US. One more step which could further discourage Indian students is the proposal of removing the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. The OPT gives students, on an F-1 Visa, an opportunity to gain experience post their degrees often leading to full time employment and getting a work visa and residency eventually. This is especially handy for STEM students (it was the George W Bush Administration which had raised the duration of the OTP from 12 months to 29 months). In 2024, 200,000 students gained experience via the OPT. Apart from using the OPT for gaining work experience, it is also important since several of the individuals on F1 visas use the visa as a means for re-paying student loans. The US Department of Homeland Security is also planning some drastic changes to the existing F-1 visa rules.

The recent criticisms of the H1-B Visas by senior officials in the Trump Administration, and possible overhaul of the H1-B visa regime could also discourage several Indian students from going for higher studies to the US.

Indian students showing more interest in Germany

If one were to look at Indian students opting for European countries like Germany, it is important to bear in mind, that while some of the policies of the Trump administration may have encouraged students to look at alternative destinations. Germany by itself has been attractive for several reasons even earlier. The first is affordability. Public universities in Germany charge a nominal-fees (and no tuition fees). Second, the high academic standards of programs in the Sciences and Engineering, along with the fact that the programs are run in English. At a time when the US is thinking of removing the OPT, Germany provides an 18-month job seeker permit after completion of the degree. After this, students can apply for a Blue Card. Germany’s relaxation of citizenship rules and work visas could also add to the country’s attractiveness as

While several German Universities are reputed for having excellent departments of engineering, the country is also home to some top higher education institutions in humanities.

Both the employment opportunities as well as Germany’s growing emphasis on strengthening the country’s Research and Development – R &D eco-system – also could make it an attractive destination for international students.

Germany looking to draw Indian talent

In June 2025, the German Ambassador made a strong pitch for Germany pointing to the strengths it possesses as well as the predictability and stability in immigration policies:

“We are interested in Indian talent, we are interested in Indian brains. We are interested in those Indians who really want to achieve something, and Germany will always be a partner for such people. So, we are not erratic, we are not volatile, we are very, very steady,”

Apart from all the advantages discussed during the article, predictable and stable student visa policies are likely to be an important factor in drawing international students.

Conclusion

Given the strengths which Germany possesses – both in terms of academic standards and logistics – discussed in the article it is likely, that Germany has the potential of emerging as an important destination for higher education for international students – especially from India.

One international student after another told the University of Central Missouri this summer that they couldn’t get a visa, and many struggled to even land an interview for one.

Even though demand was just as high as ever, half as many new international graduate students showed up for fall classes compared with last year.

The decline represents a hit to the bottom line for Central Missouri, a small public university that operates close to its margins with an endowment of only $65 million. International students typically account for nearly a quarter of its tuition revenue.

“We aren’t able to subsidize domestic students as much when we have fewer international students who are bringing revenue to us,” said Roger Best, the university’s president.

Signs of a decline in international students have unsettled colleges around the U.S. Colleges with large numbers of foreign students and small endowments have little financial cushion to protect them from steep losses in tuition money.

International students represent at least 20% of enrollment at more than 100 colleges with endowments of less than $250,000 per student, according to an Associated Press analysis. Many are small Christian colleges, but the group also includes large universities such as Northeastern and Carnegie Mellon.

The extent of the change in enrollment will not be clear until the fall. Some groups have forecast a decline of as much as 40%, with a huge impact on college budgets and the wider U.S. economy.

International students face new scrutiny on several fronts

As part of a broader effort to reshape higher education, President Trump has pressed colleges to limit their numbers of international students and heightened scrutiny of student visas. His administration has moved to deport foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian activism, and new student visa appointments were put on hold for weeks as it ramped up vetting of applicants’ social media.

On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security said it will propose a rule that would put new limits on the time foreign students can stay in the U.S.

The policies have introduced severe financial instability for colleges, said Justin Gest, a professor at George Mason University who studies the politics of immigration.

Foreign students are not eligible for federal financial aid and often pay full price for tuition — double or even triple the in-state rate paid by domestic students at public universities.

“If an international student comes in and pays $80,000 a year in tuition, that gives universities the flexibility to offer lower fees and more scholarship money to American students,” Gest said.

A Sudanese student barely made it to the U.S. for the start of classes

Ahmed Ahmed, a Sudanese student, nearly didn’t make it to the U.S. for his freshman year at the University of Rochester.

The Trump administration in June announced a travel ban on 12 countries, including Sudan. Diplomatic officials assured Ahmed he could still enter the U.S. because his visa was issued before the ban. But when he tried to board a flight to leave for the United States from Uganda, where he stayed with family during the summer, he was turned away and advised to contact an embassy about his visa.

With the help of the University of Rochester’s international office, Ahmed was able to book another flight.

At Rochester, where he received a scholarship to study electrical engineering, Ahmed, 19, said he feels supported by the staff. But he also finds himself on edge and understands why other students might not want to subject themselves to the scrutiny in the U.S., particularly those who are entirely paying their own way.

“I feel like I made it through, but I’m one of the last people to make it through,” he said.

Colleges are taking steps to blunt the impact

In recent years, international students have made up about 30% of enrollment at Central Missouri, which has a total of around 12,800 students. In anticipation of the hit to international enrollment, Central Missouri cut a cost-of-living raise for employees. It has pushed off infrastructure improvements planned for its campus and has been looking for other ways to cut costs.

Small schools — typically classified as those with no more than 5,000 students — tend to have less financial flexibility and will be especially vulnerable, said Dick Startz, an economics professor at UC Santa Barbara.

Lee University, a Christian institution with 3,500 students in Tennessee, is expecting 50 to 60 international students enrolled this fall, down from 82 the previous school year, representing a significant drop in revenue for the school, said Roy Y. Chan, the university’s director of graduate studies.

The school already has increased tuition by 20% over the last five years to account for a decrease in overall enrollment, he said.

“Since we’re a smaller liberal arts campus, tuition cost is our main, primary revenue,” Chan said, as opposed to government funding or donations.

The strains on international enrollment only add to distress for schools already on the financial brink.

Colleges around the country have been closing as they cope with declines in domestic enrollment, a consequence of changing demographics and the effects of the pandemic. Nationwide, private colleges have been closing at a rate of about two per month, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Assn.

The number of high school graduates in the U.S. is expected to decline through 2041, when there will be 13% fewer compared with 2024, according to projections from the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

“That means that if you lost participation from international students, it’s even worse,” Startz said.

Vileira, Seminera and Binkley write for the Associated Press.

China’s top diplomat tells Brazil’s FM Mauro Vieira that Beijing-Brazil ties are at their ‘best in history’.

China is willing to strengthen coordination with Brazil to “resist unilateralism and bullying”, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has told his Brazilian counterpart Mauro Vieira.

Wang made the pledge to Vieira in a phone call, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Friday, as the government of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva considers retaliatory trade measures against the United States over President Donald Trump’s imposition of 50 percent tariffs on a range of Brazilian goods.

During the phone call, Wang told Vieira that the China-Brazil relationship “is at its best in history”, China’s state-run Global Times reported, quoting Wang.

Noting that the current international situation “is undergoing complex changes”, Wang also pledged China’s willingness to join hands with the BRICS trading block, to protect “the legitimate rights and interests” of developing countries.

BRICS, which includes emerging economies such as Brazil, is a China-led political and economic grouping that is seen as a counter to the Western-led APEC and G7 groups.

Beijing’s offer comes amid indications that Brazil is considering a coordinated response with China and India against punitive US trade measures.

According to Global Times, Wang also recalled Chinese President Xi Jinping and Brazilian President Lula’s phone call two weeks ago in which the two leaders “forged solid mutual trust and friendship” in the building of a China-Brazil community “with a shared future”.

In May, Lula also travelled to China for a five-day state visit.

Beijing has worked in recent years to court Latin America as a way of countering Washington, which is historically the most influential major power in the South American region.

But China has surpassed the US as Brazil’s largest trading partner, and two-thirds of Latin American countries have also signed up to Xi’s Belt and Road infrastructure drive.

Brazil exports large quantities of soya beans to China, which, as the world’s largest consumer of the ingredient, relies heavily on imports for its supply.

Relations between the US and Brazil have been icy since Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian coffee and other goods, which took effect on August 6.

While Trump’s trade war has chiefly targeted countries that run a large trade surplus with the US, Brazil imports from the US far outweigh its exports, and Washington had a trade surplus of $28.6bn in goods and services with Brazil in 2024.

Trump has explained his economic hostility towards Brazil in terms of retribution for a so-called domestic legal “witch-hunt” against Brazil’s former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, who is on trial for coup plotting.

Trump has called for charges against Bolsonaro – who he considers an ally – to be dropped and has imposed sanctions on Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes for overseeing the case against the former leader.

In recent days, Brazil has also complained after the US revoked the visa of Justice Minister Ricardo Lewandowski.

The ‘de minimis’ import tax exemption helped fuel home delivery and the rise of e-commerce in the US.

The US has suspended tariff exemptions for small delivery packages valued at $800 or less, ending a loophole that allowed more than one billion packages to enter the US last year without customs duties.

The loophole is due to end on Friday in the US, followed by a six-month transition period to a new tariff regime.

More than 30 countries, including Australia, Germany, Japan and Mexico, have suspended or partially suspended package shipments to the US in advance of the cost change.

Postal unions around the world say more clarity is needed about how the tariff will be calculated before they resume shipments to the US.

Global logistics giant DHL said it would not ship standard business parcels to the US until “unresolved” questions are answered regarding “how and by whom customs duties will be collected in the future”, and “how the data transmission to the US Customs and Border Protection will be carried out”.

A White House fact sheet released on July 30 stated that tariff rates on small packages will be calculated in one of two ways starting August 29.

The first option sets a flat rate of $80 to $200 per item, depending on the country of origin. The second option is based on the value of the package and the “reciprocal” tariff rate set by the White House for individual countries.

The flat rate will only be available for the next six months, after which all small packages will be subject to a tariff of 10 to 40 percent for most countries.

The White House set its “reciprocal” tariff rates in July for most trade partners, although negotiations are ongoing with key trade partners Mexico and China.

The administration of President Donald Trump says that tariffs are necessary to lower the US trade deficit, while ending the “de minimis exemption” – which lets people off on paying import tax on small items – will help slow the movement of narcotics posted across borders.

The de minimis exemption has been in place since the 1930s, but it played a critical role in the US economy after it was raised from $200 to $800 in 2015. The exemption on import tax on items valued less than $800 helped pave the way for international e-commerce by letting retailers ship directly to the customer.

Over the past decade, the number of packages crossing the US border each year rose tenfold from 129 million to 1.36 billion, according to US customs data.

The exemption also previously allowed Chinese e-commerce giants like Shein and Temu to avoid paying tariffs set on Chinese goods during Trump’s first term in office.

From NATO’s eastern frontier to the energy corridors of the Baltic, the partnership between Poland and the United States has become one of the most strategically consequential alliances of the 21st century. Forged through shared values and hardened by crisis, it’s a relationship that transcends party politics in both nations and speaks to a larger truth—namely, that while alliances can lead to instability and war, as shown by the interlocking obligations before World War I, alliances, whether bilateral or multilateral, can also promote international stability by deterring conflicts, enabling collective defense, and fostering cooperation and trade among member states.

Poland proves the point. Its journey from Soviet satellite to NATO membership in 1999 and European Union accession in 2004, following a decade-long process of integration and negotiation involving extensive political, economic, and legal preparations, is a story of determination and alignment with Western democratic principles. The drive toward NATO membership was reinforced by citizen advocacy and steady diplomacy, with the Polish-American community playing a quiet but influential role in building bridges between Warsaw and Washington. The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey estimates there are nearly nine million Americans of Polish ancestry, making it one of the largest ethnic groups in the country.

From the outset, Poland understood that sovereignty in the modern era requires not only democratic governance but also a credible place within a collective security framework. Joining NATO was a strategic declaration that Poland’s future was bound to the transatlantic community. And it is precisely through NATO that the U.S.–Polish relationship contributes most visibly to international stability.

Response to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

When Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Poland responded with clarity and speed, welcoming millions of Ukrainian refugees, supplying critical military aid, and urging allies to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank. Due to its geographic location bordering Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian exclave Kaliningrad, Poland took a proactive stance to bolster its defenses and NATO’s regional presence. Poland launched a $2.5 billion national defense initiative called the “East Shield” that was specifically aimed at strengthening the country’s roughly 418-kilometer border with Belarus and 232-kilometer border with Kaliningrad—representing some of the EU’s easternmost external boundaries—which serve as key frontlines for the bloc’s security and border control.

 By shoring up NATO’s credibility and demonstrating readiness to act, Poland helped reduce the risk of wider escalation across Europe.

The U.S.–Poland defense relationship deepened accordingly. American troops are now a permanent presence on Polish soil. The U.S. Army’s V Corps forward command in Poznań, which operates from Camp Kościuszko—named for Tadeuscz Kościuszko, a national hero in both Poland and the U.S.—is responsible for coordinating and overseeing U.S. ground forces deployed in Europe. Missile defense systems such as Aegis Ashore strengthen NATO’s deterrent posture, and joint training exercises have become routine. These measures bind U.S. power to Poland’s geography, creating predictability in Europe’s most volatile region.

Poland’s overall defense spending speaks volumes. It’s approaching five percent of national GDP—more than double NATO’s longstanding benchmark of two percent of GDP for defense expenditures—and Poland’s procurement of Abrams tanks, “shoot-and-scoot” HIMARS rocket systems that are designed for rapid deployment relocation, and F-35 fighter jets ensures interoperability with U.S. forces. As U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth put it during a February 2025 press conference in Warsaw, Poland is a “model ally on the continent, willing to invest not just in their defense, but in our shared defense and defense of the continent.”

Transcending Party Politics

The relationship transcends party politics in both capitals, having remained robust under Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington—Trump, Biden, and now Trump’s second term—as well as across successive Polish governments of differing political orientations. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has reaffirmed that “Poland’s commitment to transatlantic relations and NATO must remain unquestionable,” regardless of political shifts in the U.S.

National security isn’t confined to the battlefield. Poland recognized early on that energy independence is a cornerstone of sovereignty, and it has acted decisively to cut reliance on Russian natural gas. The liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at Świnoujście, which is named after Polish President Lech Kaczyński, who prioritized energy security, now receives regular LNG shipments from the U.S., while the Baltic Pipe project brings natural gas from Norway and strengthens regional supply diversity. Looking ahead, nuclear energy partnerships with American firms promise long-term stability and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

This alignment in energy policy enhances Poland’s resilience while advancing broader U.S. goals of promoting secure, market-based energy in Europe. In strategic terms, an LNG tanker docking in Świnoujście is more than commerce. It’s a visible symbol of transatlantic solidarity.

Contrasting Russian Reactions

Russia’s reaction to Poland’s NATO membership stands in striking contrast to its view of Ukraine’s Western aspirations. When Poland joined NATO in 1999, Moscow voiced strong opposition, arguing that NATO’s eastward expansion threatened Russian security. Apart from diplomatic protests and some hostile rhetoric, however, Russia ultimately conceded Poland’s accession as a fait accompli. Moscow maintained cooperative channels with NATO and Poland, even as relations were strained. Poland, with its long history of independence struggles and clear Western orientation, was not seen as part of Russia’s cultural or political sphere. Moreover, by the time Central Europe was firmly integrated into NATO, Russia had little leverage to reverse the process.

Ukraine, however, occupies a different place in Moscow’s worldview. Russia regards Ukraine not only as a strategic buffer on its border but also as central to its own identity and history. Unlike Poland, Ukraine is portrayed in Russian narratives as a “brother nation” whose alignment with the West represents a profound geopolitical and cultural loss. For this reason, Russia tolerated NATO’s enlargement to Poland and the Baltics but drew the line at Ukraine, seeing its aspirations for NATO and EU membership as a direct existential threat, responding with annexation, proxy wars, and, ultimately, full-scale invasion. The contrast underscores the strategic weight of Poland’s alliance with the United States.

For Poland, it’s a relationship rooted in hard history: the loss of independence from 1795 to 1918, when the country was partitioned among Prussia, the Hapsburg monarchy, and Russia; the devastation of Nazi occupation; the long shadow of Soviet domination; and decades of Communist rule. That experience forged a national resolve that sovereignty can never be taken for granted and must be anchored in strong alliances. Today those alliances—most of all with the United States—are essential pillars of stability in Europe.