raises

China’s test of a nuclear-capable missile into the Pacific has exposed the growing divisions among Pacific island nations over the increasing militarisation of a region they have sought to preserve as an “Ocean of Peace”.

The July launch, China’s first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, took place just hours after Fiji and Australia signed a major defence treaty, marking Fiji’s first formal alliance. The timing highlighted the increasingly complex security environment in a region where China, the United States and their allies are competing for influence.

More than a month after the test, Pacific Islands foreign ministers were unable to agree on a collective statement condemning Beijing’s missile launch, despite individual leaders expressing concern about the growing military presence in the region.

Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko described the test as “totally inappropriate”, while stressing that China remained a close friend and ally of Papua New Guinea. He said Beijing had provided advance notice of the launch but had not given details about where the missile would land.

China defended the test, saying it had been conducted safely and urging countries not to over-interpret the launch.

Growing Military Activity in the Pacific

The missile test came after a year of increasingly visible military activity across the Pacific, a region that has become a major arena of strategic competition between the United States and China.

Chinese naval deployments and live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea have coincided with U.S.-allied military exercises around Guam and Hawaii. Warship visits and expanding security partnerships have also increased across the region.

The United States retains a substantial military presence in the Pacific, including in Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands.

For Pacific island governments, the growing military presence creates an increasingly difficult choice. Security partnerships can provide valuable capabilities for surveillance, disaster response, policing and training, but they can also increase the possibility that Pacific territory and waters become incorporated into wider strategic competition.

Tuvalu permanent foreign secretary Pasuna Tuaga expressed concern about the broader militarisation of the region, including security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, Britain and the United States.

Pacific Nations United in Principle but Divided in Practice

Pacific leaders endorsed the Ocean of Peace Declaration in September 2025, committing themselves to protecting the region and strengthening international peace and security.

The initiative reflected a long-standing desire among Pacific states to ensure that their security agenda is not dictated by larger external powers.

The defence agreement between Australia and Fiji, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance, emerged from this broader regional framework.

But the growing number of security partnerships has created an inherent contradiction. Pacific governments want greater security capabilities while simultaneously opposing the militarisation of their region.

Australia and other partners argue that defence cooperation can strengthen regional resilience. Critics, however, fear that expanding bilateral arrangements could eventually leave Pacific nations with less influence over how their territory, waters and infrastructure are used.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela said the regional agenda must remain “conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific.”

Yet the failure to produce a unified response to China’s missile test demonstrated just how difficult that principle is to implement.

China Divides Regional Consensus

The disagreement over the missile test reflects the different political and economic interests of Pacific island nations.

Kiribati and Nauru, which have deepened their relations with Beijing after switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan, did not support the wording of the proposed statement, according to an official familiar with the discussions.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters blamed foreign influence for the failure to reach consensus, although he did not identify a particular country.

The disagreement demonstrates that Pacific nations do not share a uniform approach toward China.

Some governments see Beijing as an important economic and diplomatic partner, while others are increasingly concerned about its military activities and the strategic implications of its expanding regional presence.

At the same time, many Pacific governments remain wary of becoming closely aligned with either China or the Western powers.

The Security Dilemma Facing the Pacific

The central problem for Pacific nations is the tension between security and strategic autonomy.

Countries require surveillance capabilities, military training, disaster-response mechanisms and other security resources. Defence partnerships can provide those capabilities.

But greater reliance on external powers can also make it more difficult for Pacific governments to maintain an independent regional agenda.

Fiji Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka acknowledged this tension, saying countries wanted to be free from “war-making paraphernalia” while also recognising that some security capabilities helped keep them safe.

Fiji’s participation for the first time in U.S.-led RIMPAC military exercises further illustrates this balancing act.

The country is simultaneously promoting the idea of an Ocean of Peace while becoming more involved in established regional security structures.

Analysis: The Pacific Is Becoming a Strategic Battleground

The significance of China’s missile test goes beyond the launch itself. It has exposed the growing gap between the Pacific’s aspiration to remain an “Ocean of Peace” and the strategic realities surrounding it.

The region is increasingly being shaped by competing security partnerships, military exercises and the expanding strategic presence of major powers. China is becoming more active militarily, while the United States, Australia and their partners are strengthening their own defence relationships.

For Pacific island states, the challenge is therefore not simply whether to oppose China’s military activities. It is how to respond to them without allowing the Pacific’s security agenda to become dominated by great-power rivalry.

The failure to agree on a common statement is particularly significant because regional unity is one of the Pacific’s strongest tools for maintaining its diplomatic autonomy. When governments cannot agree on how to respond to a major security development, external powers gain greater room to shape the regional agenda.

At the same time, completely rejecting security partnerships would leave many Pacific states without capabilities they consider increasingly necessary. The result is a difficult balancing act: accepting enough external security assistance to address genuine threats while preventing those partnerships from transforming the region into a military theatre.

China’s missile test therefore exposes a deeper strategic dilemma. The more Pacific states seek security through external alliances, the greater the risk that the region becomes militarised; yet the more they reject those partnerships, the harder it may become to respond to an increasingly competitive security environment.

The upcoming Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Palau is likely to bring these questions back to the centre of regional diplomacy. The key issue will be whether Pacific nations can establish a collective security approach that protects their interests without allowing the strategic competition between China and Western powers to define the future of the region.

With information from Reuters.

Estimates of up to 2,000 migrants have entered Spain’s territory of Ceuta in recent days in attempts to reach Europe.

Authorities in Ceuta have raised the alarm after thousands of migrants breached the border to the North African Spanish enclave from neighbouring Morocco in recent days.

The government of Ceuta said on Thursday that between 1,500 and 2,000 people had entered in the last 10 days. Hundreds more were estimated to have arrived on Thursday, prompting regional President Jesus Vivas to declare an “absolute humanitarian and social emergency” and call on Madrid to send troops to reassert control of the border.

Spain’s Interior Ministry rejected calls to declare a national emergency, saying such a measure does not cover migration crises, but promised additional resources.

Footage showed some of the migrants shouting “Viva Espana!” as they entered the territory, many of them having travelled by water from the Moroccan side on inflatable devices.

Crowds were shown walking around the breakwaters onto local roads, reported The Associated Press news agency. State news agency EFE said others had crossed by the border by land, scaling fences.

Migrant rights activist Zakaria Zarroqui told the Reuters news agency that the surge in migrant numbers was similar to one that occurred in May 2021, when some 10,000 Moroccan and sub-Saharan youths entered ⁠the enclave within days.

“The situation remains out of control as we speak,” ⁠Zarroqui said, adding that people were still flocking to the Moroccan city of Fnideq in an attempt to cross the border.

Ceuta, together with Melilla — another autonomous ‌Spanish city in North Africa — represents the European Union’s only land border with Africa. Both cities often experience surges in attempted crossings by people seeking to migrate to Europe.

Earlier this month, Spain’s Supreme Court ruled that migrants intercepted at sea while attempting to reach Ceuta or Melilla cannot ⁠be returned to Morocco.

“It has been a slow trickle since the Supreme Court’s ruling, but today has been an explosion,” ⁠a Guardia Civil spokesperson told Reuters.

Spain’s Interior Ministry said it was working closely ‌with Morocco to address the surge in irregular arrivals, blaming people-smuggling networks for exploiting the Supreme Court’s ruling and encouraging undocumented migration.

Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska is expected to visit Ceuta on Friday to evaluate the situation.

The jailing of one of Indonesia’s most influential entrepreneurs in a controversial corruption case has raised fears of damage to investor confidence in Southeast Asia’s largest economy.

Nadiem Makarim, the cofounder of the popular super-app Gojek, was last month sentenced to 10 years in prison for allegedly abusing his authority while serving as the country’s education minister.

Makarim was found guilty of giving favourable treatment to Google, an early investor in Gojek, when procuring Chromebook laptops for schoolchildren during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prosecutors argued that Makarim, who served as former Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s education minister from 2019 to 2024, inflicted state losses of $120m, alleging that he should have been aware the laptops would not work in remote areas with poor internet access.

Critics of the prosecution have argued that the case against Makarim lacks evidence and that the startup founder-turned-politician is the latest victim of a campaign of political retribution being waged by the administration of Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto.

Nicky Fahrizal, a researcher of politics and social change at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta, said foreign investors will inevitably think twice before committing capital to Indonesia following the verdict.

“The Nadiem case, along with a string of similar incidents, has served as a warning signal to investors,” Fahrizal told Al Jazeera.

“For them, non-economic factors, such as legal certainty and the quality of the judicial system, are absolute prerequisites.”

Makarim was found guilty by a panel of five judges on June 30, following charges related to the procurement of more than 1 million laptops intended for use in schools in remote and impoverished areas.

At the trial held at the Indonesian Court for Corruption Crimes in Jakarta, prosecutors alleged that Makarim deliberately tailored the tender specifications to favour Google, which invested in Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa (AKAB), Gojek’s then-parent company.

Scrutiny of the tender process first arose among the public after it emerged that the Chromebooks often did not work in remote areas, raising questions about how Google was chosen in the first place.

“Choosing a device that relies on an internet connection amid uneven infrastructure… demonstrates a mismatch with needs…” Judge Sunoto said during the sentencing.

Following the verdict, prosecutor Corneles Geeb Paulus hailed the outcome as a victory for “the schoolchildren whose rights were taken away and who were deprived of equitable access to digital education across Indonesia”.

Google has denied providing or offering authorities any inducements to win the tender.

The California-based tech giant, which has a market value of more than $4 trillion, was not indicted in the case.

“From a legal standpoint, authorities seem to have hit a wall in their efforts to secure sufficient evidence and establish the necessary criminal nexus to prosecute the corporation,” the CSIS’s Fahrizal said.

“From a political perspective, Google is a tech giant with immense business influence.”

Taking action against Google could have jeopardised the government’s ongoing digitalisation efforts, Fahrizal added, describing the company as “too big to fail” within the digital sector.

Trissia Wijaya, an Indonesian-born research fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Asia Institute, said Nadiem’s prosecution, coupled with the uncertainty of the business environment under Prabowo, would inevitably erode market confidence.

“Regardless of whether Nadiem is actually guilty or not, he is a symbol of startups and market optimism in Indonesia, especially in the mid-2010s,” Wijaya told Al Jazeera.

“When Gojek started booming and gaining traction, Indonesia was one of the main target countries for global investors, both from the US and China, to invest in the fintech industry,” Wijaya added, describing Indonesia’s business environment as being at a “critical juncture.”

Since taking office in 2024, Prabowo has faced criticism over his handling of the economy, including high levels of spending on public initiatives, such as his signature free lunch programme, which is expected to cost about $15bn this year.

In June, the Indonesian rupiah hit an all-time low against the US dollar, a nadir economic analysts partly attributed to investors’ scepticism about Prabowo’s populist economic policies.

For his part, Prabowo has denied that he is anti-business, while emphasising that Indonesia must uphold the rule of law.

“Some have claimed that I dislike foreign investors and will drive them away, but that is not the case. I have met many investors who are planning to enter the market,” Prabowo told a conference for young entrepreneurs in the city of Lampung last month.

“The government must create a favorable environment for entrepreneurs, including the enforcement of the law. If the law is not enforced, what ensues is the law of the jungle… law based on power, and in the end, that is not good for any of us.”

‘Credibility’ of government policies

Siwage Dharma Negara, a co-coordinator of the Indonesia studies programme at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, said Indonesia’s reputation as an investment destination had already been in decline before the Makarim verdict.

“Investors are unsure about the credibility of government policies, and they are unsure about the credibility of institutions, whether executive, legislative, or judicial in Indonesia,” Negara told Al Jazeera.

“Nadiem’s case is only one factor that has damaged foreign investor confidence. But there are many other factors that contribute, including government policies that are increasingly less pro-market.”

Teguh Yudo Wicaksono, an economics lecturer at Universitas Islam Indonesia in Yogyakarta, said that although he does not expect the case to have much of an impact on foreign investment, it could deter Indonesian talent based overseas from returning home.

“This could result in a brain drain and Indonesia losing talent,” Wicaksono told Al Jazeera.

Makarim attended Harvard Business School and Brown University in the United States before returning to Indonesia in 2006 and cofounding Gojek four years later.

In 2019, Gojek, which began as a ride-hailing business before evolving into a super-app that also offers food delivery and digital payment services, became the first Indonesian tech company to achieve a valuation of more than $10bn.

Not all observers see the Makarim case as a negative for investor sentiment.

I Gusti Ngurah Bayu Pradana, an expert in business law at the Bali-based Malekat Hukum International Law Firm, said the enforcement of corruption law should be seen as a “positive signal for legal certainty and governance quality in a country, rather than a negative one”.

“Experienced foreign investors generally understand that the greatest risk in investing is not the existence of law enforcement, but rather, legal uncertainty, or a situation in which the rules of the game are unclear, legal processes lack transparency, or enforcement is selective and unpredictable,” Pradana told Al Jazeera.

While Makarim was found guilty of abusing authority and causing state losses, he was acquitted of an additional charge of directly seeking to enrich himself, and he was handed a lower sentence than the 18 years sought by the prosecution.

While reading the verdict, Judge Andi Saputra also presented a dissenting opinion, saying that he found “no evidence of malicious intent or malicious acts” and scant “causal connection or indication between the conflict of interest and the corporate crime”.

The Malekat Hukum law firm’s Pradana pointed to the judge’s dissenting view as evidence of the Indonesian judiciary’s independence and rigorous fact-finding.

“For foreign investors considering Indonesia as an investment destination, the takeaway from this case should not be alarm, but rather confidence that Indonesia’s legal system functions and can hold anyone accountable equally before the law,” Pradana said.

“So long as investment contracts are clearly drafted, business processes are conducted transparently, and implementation complies fully with applicable laws and regulations, investment in Indonesia remains a safe and promising choice.”

South Korean computer chip maker SK Hynix has raised $26.5bn (£19.8bn) in its New York share offering, marking the largest ever listing by a foreign firm in the US.

The company, a key supplier to artificial intelligence (AI) chip giant Nvidia, said on Thursday that it had sold 177.9 million American depositary shares for $149 each. The shares are set to begin trading on Friday on the Nasdaq.

In May, SK Hynix saw its market value top $1tn in its home country, lifted by the boom in demand for AI chips.

Its share price has more than tripled in South Korea this year, which along with Samsung Electronics has helped boost the benchmark Kospi index by more than 70% over the same period.

SK Hynix is one of the world’s leading memory chip makers. The industry has been given a major boost by the hundreds of billions being spent on AI.

Shares in rivals Samsung Electronics and Micron have more than doubled in recent months.

The US listing gives SK Hynix easier access to huge amounts of potential investment from the world’s biggest economy, which has fewer barriers than South Korea, said Seoul National University finance professor Jaewon Choi.

Traders are closely watching the listing as a “yardstick to test the water” for whether investor enthusiasm for memory chip makers will continue, Choi said.

The AI boom has triggered a rush of companies raising money on the the stock market.

In June, GrokAI owner SpaceX became the world’s biggest ever listing as it raised $85.7bn.

Meanwhile, AI developers Anthropic and OpenAI are preparing to go public, with valuations of more $1tn.

Demand for SK Hynix’s offering was reportedly over seven times more than the number of shares available, highlighting the strong investor appetite for a key company in the AI supply chain.

Each American depositary share is equivalent to a tenth of a Seoul-traded common share, SK Hynix said.

The offering gives US investors a way to buy SK Hynix shares without having to trade via an overseas stock exchange.

The company has pledged major investments to develop South Korea’s chip making and AI capabilities in the coming years.

The country’s government is likely to be counting on SK Hynix’s US listing to raise funds that can support the firm’s domestic investments, said Hanyang University business professor Yun Youngjin.

But the Nasdaq listing carries some risks, especially if investors move money towards the US and away from South Korea’s stock market, Yun added.

In June, the country’s government unveiled plans for more than $880bn of investments in partnership with SK Hynix and Samsung.

Both SK Hynix and Samsung have stock market valuations of more that $1tn, joining growing group of firms which includes tech giants Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft and Google-owner Alphabet.

WASHINGTON — The White House pushed back Thursday against growing bipartisan criticism of a negotiated settlement to the war with Iran, arguing its concessions to the Islamic Republic were contingent on its conduct and essential to securing peace.

The administration’s defensive posture came as details of the framework agreement, known as a memorandum of understanding, were finally shared with the public, revealing a raft of compromises with Tehran long opposed by Republicans.

Vice President JD Vance, who helped negotiate the deal, told reporters Thursday that the deal was structured to reward Iran for good behavior. But the text of the agreement suggests otherwise.

The Trump administration agreed to release billions of dollars in Iranian assets that were frozen and restricted by the United States “upon the implementation” of the memorandum — before any further actions are taken or additional negotiations begin. The president will issue sanctions waivers on Iranian oil, allowing Tehran to resume trading its most valuable export and breaking with decades of policy. And to facilitate that trade, boosting Tehran’s revenues, Trump agreed to immediately end a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Still more concessions were offered to the Iranians, including a commitment by the U.S. administration to establish a fund of “at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic” — in effect providing reparations for the war Trump started.

“All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America,” the memorandum reads.

Taken together, the document reads as a stunning reversal of U.S. policy toward Iran after decades of concern across administrations in Washington — including throughout Trump’s two terms — that the Islamic Republic represents the nation’s greatest security threats as the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Criticism from Republican senators, in particular, has been sharp and swift.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the $300-billion fund “would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison.” And Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused the Trump administration of giving Iran money it would use to kill Americans.

“History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea, and I think, unfortunately, the president is receiving some really bad advice on this deal,” Cruz said. “I don’t want to see us send a penny to the ayatollah. And I hope that we don’t.”

The Obama-era deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, included structured sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for concrete and verifiable steps by Tehran to dismantle much of its nuclear program — a framework that Republicans broadly criticized at the time.

By contrast, Trump’s agreement commits the United States to pursuing economic relief for Iran while providing no clarity about the future of Iran’s nuclear program — the very issue Trump cited as the rationale for launching the war.

The memorandum includes a pledge by Iran to never purchase or construct nuclear weapons — a vow the Islamic Republic has made multiple times before, including by signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in a religious edict issued by the late supreme leader and in the Obama-era nuclear accord.

Vice President JD Vance speaks to reporters at the White House on June 18, 2026.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

Detailed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program — including whether Tehran could continue domestic uranium enrichment, at what level, and under what monitoring regime — were left for another day.

For more than a decade, the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that Iran sought a threshold nuclear capability, securing the strategic advantages of a nuclear power without incurring the costs of openly pursuing a bomb.

The agreement does include a commitment by Iran to do its “best” to bring commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital international waterway, back to prewar levels. But critics of the president said he had to make deep, historic concessions just to secure a status quo ante upended by the war he started. And in the document, Tehran agreed to refrain from imposing a toll on ships transiting the strait for only a 60-day period.

“Unless you were homeschooled by a day drinker, no one’s confident that Iran is going to do anything,” Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, told reporters this week.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, Kennedy’s Republican counterpart from Louisiana, called the deal “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades” that would have President Reagan “rolling over in his grave.”

“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” Cassidy said.

“Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive,” he added. “Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped.”

Despite mounting criticism, Trump put his signature to the memorandum on Wednesday night while attending a dinner with the French president in Versailles, a palace infamous for hosting a treaty signing that disgraced Germany at the end of the First World War.

He defended the agreement while in Europe and suggested further concessions might be forthcoming, including recognition of Iran’s claimed right to enrich uranium and a new willingness to tolerate its continued ballistic missile development — another program that Trump had vowed to eliminate as a central war aim.

“He took America to war — killing 13 soldiers, thousands of Iranian civilians and costing taxpayers $60 billion — to get rid of Iran’s missile program. And now that he’s lost the war, he pretends like it’s no big deal,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut.

“Just unforgivable,” he added. “What a charlatan.”

Published on
16/06/2026 – 11:49 GMT+2

The world’s most valuable company, the chipmaker Nvidia, priced a $25 billion (€21.5bn) bond offering on Monday, marking its first issuance since 2021 and one of the largest by a technology company this year.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The deal was originally pencilled in at around $20 billion (€17.2bn) but was enlarged after demand ran more than three times the size of the bond, according to a person familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg.

Investor appetite was the headline of the sale.

Orders reached as high as $85 billion (€73.2bn), allowing Nvidia to upsize the transaction and tighten its borrowing costs in the process.

The timing was also favourable.

The announcement of a US-Iran framework deal to end the conflict in the Middle East steadied credit markets, pushing investment-grade spreads to their narrowest levels since early February, before the Iran war began.

That backdrop helped Nvidia lock in relatively cheap long-term financing.

According to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Robert Schiffman, inexpensive long-dated debt lowers Nvidia’s weighted average cost of capital and helps bankroll its AI investments without threatening its AA credit rating.

A company spokesperson stated that the proceeds would be used for general corporate purposes, including repaying and refinancing existing notes.

Nvidia last tapped the investment-grade market in June 2021, when it sold $5 billion (€4.3bn) of notes across four maturities, according to a regulatory filing.

The contrast in scale underscores how quickly its financing needs have grown alongside the data centre build-out and increased demand from hyperscalers.

A wider borrowing frenzy

Nvidia joins a queue of technology giants raising vast sums to fund AI infrastructure.

Meta and Oracle have each issued $25 billion (€21.5bn) in bonds this year, while Amazon completed a single $37 billion (€31.8bn) deal, the largest US investment-grade offering of this year before Nvidia’s issuance on Monday.

For Nvidia, the raise also keeps share dilution off the table, giving it greater flexibility as capital commitments mount. The firm has invested $5 billion (€4.3bn) in Intel, pledged up to $10 billion (€8.6bn) to Anthropic and contributed $30 billion (€25.8bn) to OpenAI’s latest funding round.

Nvidia shares closed up 3.5% at $212.45 after the deal, valuing the company at about $5.14 trillion (€4.42tn).

On the other hand, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, opted for equity instead, pricing an upsized $84.75 billion (€73bn) capital raise earlier this month, after originally seeking around $80 billion (€68.9bn), according to a company filing.

The transaction, which includes a $10 billion (€8.6bn) private placement from Berkshire Hathaway, ranks as the largest equity capital raise on record and is intended to fund the group’s AI compute expansion.

Management has guided 2026 capital expenditure to between $180 billion (€155.1bn) and $190 billion (€163.7bn).

However, the equity move came on top of an already heavy borrowing run. According to its own filing, Alphabet raised more than $85 billion (€73.2bn) of debt across six major currencies and markets in the first quarter of 2026, taking its total debt balance above $100 billion (€86.1bn).

That included a US dollar bond round early in the year, leaving Google relying on both debt and equity financing to bankroll its AI ambitions.

Published on
16/06/2026 – 8:30 GMT+2

The central bank’s increase in the uncollateralised overnight rate, by a quarter of a percentage point from 0.75%, puts it at a three-decade high.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The Bank of Japan has been trying to normalise monetary policy lately after decades of keeping interest rates near or below zero. It adopted ultralow rates to try to encourage more borrowing and spending to counter deflation and pull the economy out of the doldrums.

Inflationary pressures because of the war in Iran, which has sent oil prices soaring in recent months, have hit Japan hard since it imports almost all its oil and gas.

Low interest rates had added to pressures on the Japanese yen, which has fallen lately to about 160 yen to the US dollar.

BOJ Gov. Kazuo Ueda, who has been hospitalised recently, did not attend Tuesday’s policy board meeting. Deputy Gov. Shinichi Uchida was expected to take his place at the news conference set for later in the day.

Before the BOJ decision, Tokyo’s benchmark Nikkei 225 index briefly topped 70,000 early Tuesday before giving up some of those early gains.

Additional sources • AP

EXPLAINER

Israel strikes Lebanon despite ceasefire, while Hezbollah rejects deal as death toll tops 3,500.

Israel has continued to carry out deadly strikes across Lebanon despite the announcement of a new US-brokered ceasefire agreement reached by Lebanese and Israeli officials in Washington, DC.

The violence has pushed the number of casualties higher, with Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health reporting that at least 3,526 people have been killed and 10,733 wounded in Israeli attacks since March 2.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has dismissed the ceasefire as a “farce”, warning that northern Israel will remain a target as long as Israeli forces continue bombing Lebanon, raising more doubts about the prospects for a lasting truce.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• Iran adviser flags concerns over draft deal: Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, said the draft memorandum of understanding being negotiated to end the war still contains “ambiguities” that need to be clarified. Speaking to Iranian state television, Rezaei also accused US President Donald Trump of trying to pressure Tehran into accepting Washington’s terms while keeping Iran’s own conditions “in a vague state”.

War diplomacy

• Questions over US strategy: Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said the White House is facing growing questions over why a negotiated agreement with Iran is still needed after President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed US military action had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme. Halkett said critics are asking: “If these military objectives have been achieved, then is there still a need for talks?” She added that “with each passing week that this war drags on” and negotiations remaining stalled, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the administration to reconcile its claims of success with the continued push for diplomacy.
• Hezbollah rejects conditional ceasefire: Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the limited truce agreed to by Lebanese and Israeli representatives in the US, demanding a complete ceasefire and a full Israeli pullout from the country. Qassem also warned of more attacks on northern Israel, highlighting the difficulties in reaching a lasting peace. Both sides have blamed each other for breaking a previous ceasefire announced in April.

The Gulf

• Oman oil terminal disruption: Reuters reported that Oman has suspended crude oil loading operations at its key Mina al-Fahal terminal after an explosion near its single-buoy mooring (SBM) berths. Citing unnamed sources, the agency said the blast occurred between SBM 1 and SBM 2 and was allegedly caused by a drone attack.

In the US

• Trump says US does not need a deal to access Iran’s uranium: The US president said Washington could access Iran’s enriched uranium without reaching an agreement with Tehran, arguing the material is effectively “entombed”. Trump also said he does not plan to meet Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, but he suggested a meeting could be possible if a deal is eventually reached, adding that “if it happened … I’d be respectful”.

In Israel

• Ultra-Orthodox protest blocks major highway: Hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Israelis blocked Highway 1 in protest against the government’s enforcement of military conscription for religious students, according to Israel’s Channel 10. The demonstrations began after police stopped two ultra-Orthodox students and transferred one to military authorities. Large numbers of police and border guards were deployed to clear the highway and disperse protesters.

In Lebanon

• Hezbollah rejection raises fears of escalation: Reporting from Beirut, Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said Hezbollah remains the key actor on the Lebanese side when it comes to decisions about fighting and any potential halt to hostilities with Israel, “regardless of what the Lebanese government says”. Given Hezbollah’s rejection of the US-brokered ceasefire, Hashem warned that further escalation is likely from both Hezbollah and Israel. He noted that southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa Valley experienced significant Israeli air and ground attacks on Thursday, adding that Hezbollah’s position suggests “it is going to be a very difficult situation” in the days ahead.

Soccer Aid has raised an eye-watering and record-breaking amount of money for Unicef with their annual charity match that saw the likes of Joe Marler and Angry Ginge compete

Soccer Aid have raised a huge sum of money for Unicef. The annual charity football match raised a staggering £16.5million for the children’s aid organisation.

The match, which was created by Robbie Williams and Jonathan Wilkes in 2026, aims to raise millions for Unicef every year but has never raised as much as it did this year. By raising over £16m, the celebs taking part have increased the total ever raised from the event to £137million.

The grand total was revealed in the last few moments before Soccer Aid went off air, in an announcement made by Robbie, who also performed his song Feel for the halftime performance.

Over £1million of the total amount was raised by Olly Murs. The singer had taken on a mammoth challenge that involved cycling, rowing and running the 400km distance from Old Trafford to the London Stadium. Prior to the match beginning, Tom Hiddlestone revealed on air that Olly had raised £1,342,214 for the total pot.

The rest of the funds were raised throughout the event, including the build up to kick off. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen came out to the pitch to deliver the football and revealed that before play had even begun, the event had raised over £4.6million. Tim delighted fans as he said his Toy Story character Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase: “To infinity and beyond!”

Roughly 15 minutes before the teams headed out, GK Barry caught up with Tom Hanks and Tim Allen with the latter catching many off guard courtesy of his comments.

While stood in the tunnel, upon GK Barry asking for their attention, the latter stated: “I’m just just b****ing about penalty shots.” The comment went unacknowledged by ITV, despite airing pre-watershed.

As Americans, the pair aren’t used to European football. Tim continued to say he was going to “try to work out how you win or lose a game on a penalty shot”. Tom, who said he did have some knowledge of the UK game, jokingly hit back: “You cannot use your hands.”

Soccer Aid celebrated its 20th anniversary this weekend with a massive showdown at the London Stadium. The fixture occurs every year and its mission is to raise vital funds for UNICEF while bringing together a unique mix of world-class football legends and beloved celebrities.

Former United captain Wayne Rooney led the line for England. Big football names taking to the pitch included Jill Scott, Jack Wilshere and Theo Walcott.

Other huge names making up the England side were Tom Hiddleston, Danny Dyer, Paddy McGuinness, Olly Murs and Joe Marler. They were joined by Toni Duggan, Steph Houghton, Jordan North, Angry Ginge, GK Barry, Jack Wilshere, Joe Hart, Sam Thompson, Chloe Burrows, Jack Whitehall and Owen Cooper.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

The Civil Aviation Authority today said ‘more awareness’ was needed as travellers ‘not aware’

Airlines have banned very common electrical items from flights – as news emerged of a surge in problems on flights caused by the items. Some carriers have begun to completely ban power banks that people use to charge their phones and tablets due to safety concerns. Generally, power banks are only permitted in carry-on, not checked luggage, amid fears they could explode and catch fire mid-flight.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) today said ‘more awareness’ was needed as portable chargers carry ‘serious risks’ of overheating or catching fire. Jonathan Nicholson from the CAA told BBC News that restrictions such as not putting the devices in checked luggage were not “somebody being pedantic” or “for the sake of it”, with passengers urged “to do the right thing”.

Concerns are rising that people are ignoring the bans and simply taking the devices on board. Power banks have become popular because they offer essential, portable, and fast-charging power for smartphones and other devices while on the move, easing battery anxiety. They are affordable, compact, and versatile, enabling users to remain connected without needing a wall outlet, making them perfect for travel.

It comes after a UK-bound easyJet flight was diverted to Rome last week because a passenger had packed a charging power bank in hold luggage. The airline said the captain had decided to divert “in line with safety regulations” after a passenger informed crew during the flight that the portable charger was in the hold of the aircraft. Many airlines have toughened rules on power banks, often requiring that they be stored in hand luggage because of the risk of lithium-ion batteries catching fire.

The flight touched down safely at Rome Fiumicino and was rescheduled to the next day. A survey by the CAA of 1,000 UK passengers in November 2025 suggested more than a third know what lithium batteries are and are aware rules exist, but are unsure what the rules involve. Over-55s typically knew the rules better.

Mr Nicholson said the “basic set of international rules” all passengers must follow on power banks are:

• Take them with you on board the aircraft, not in checked luggage
• A maximum of two power banks per passenger
• When on board the aircraft, don’t use them and “absolutely do not charge the power bank itself because that’s when they become really hot and most susceptible to having an issue”

Mr Nicholson said incidents involving power banks were “certainly on the rise” as portable chargers grow in popularity, alongside vapes which are not allowed in checked luggage either.

Vietnam Airlines, Vietjet Air and now Emirates have banned the batteries. Emirates states, like many airlines, the devices cannot be used during flight. In certain circumstances, they will be permitted on planes provided they are switched off and stored under your seat – not in the overhead cabin – with these rules coming into effect in October.

According to UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) safety experts, lithium batteries pose a danger on planes primarily because of their potential to enter “thermal runaway,” a phenomenon where a battery undergoes a rapid, uncontrollable rise in temperature, leading to fire, explosion, and the release of toxic fumes. Ryanair, easyJet and TUI all have regulations in place concerning power banks, batteries and electrical devices.

Ryanair

You may carry up to 15 personal electronic devices (this includes but not limited to: smartphones, tablets, laptops, cameras, handheld game consoles, headphones, power banks). Spare lithium batteries (including power banks) must be individually protected to prevent short circuits by placement in the original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch and carried in carry-on luggage only.

You may also carry up to 20 spare lithium batteries, provided they do not exceed 100Wh each.

Spare lithium batteries including power banks brought into the cabin should not be used to charge or power other portable electronic devices during taxi, take-off, or landing, not exceed 100Wh. They should not be placed in the cabin baggage loaded in the overhead storage locker. Be placed in cabin baggage under the seat in front, or on your person. Devices or batteries over 100Wh are not permitted in the cabin or the hold with the exception of Electric Wheelchair batteries.

Spare batteries, including power banks are not permitted in checked baggage.

For more information click here.#

easyJet

EasyJet strictly requires all lithium-ion batteries, spare batteries, and power banks to be carried in cabin hand luggage only, prohibited in hold luggage due to fire risks. Power banks under 100Wh (roughly 27,000mAh) are allowed without approval; items between 100-160Wh require airline approval. Batteries contained in portable electronic devices should be carried as carry-on baggage.

Should these items be packed in checked baggage, steps must be taken to prevent accidental activation and to safeguard the devices against damage; all devices must be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode). EasyJet imposes a limit of 15 portable electronic devices per passenger. Portable electronic devices containing non-spillable batteries must not exceed 12V or 100Wh, and passengers may carry no more than 2 spare batteries.

Where Smart Baggage is being brought into the cabin, the customer must be able to easily disconnect and remove the lithium battery / power bank, but it can remain in the bag. Smart baggage must not be accepted for travel if the lithium battery / power bank cannot be readily disconnected and removed by the customer. If smart luggage is to be checked in and placed in the hold, the lithium battery/power bank must be disconnected from the smart luggage at Bag Drop and taken into the cabin. Any exposed terminals should be protected from short circuit. The lithium battery/power bank needs to be disconnected, so if you are unable to remove it from your luggage, we won’t be able to accept the bag on board.

For more information click here.

TUI

TUI’s regulations forbid passengers from carrying loose lithium batteries, power banks, or spare batteries in checked-in luggage. These items must be kept in hand luggage only. Power banks must generally not exceed 100Wh, and terminals must be shielded from short circuits. Devices should not be recharged while on board. Dry AA(A) batteries (type Alkaline, NiMh, NiC) for small personal items such as a pocket torch or a radio are permitted, provided they are inside the device or enclosed in sturdy packaging.

Where devices are stored in hold baggage, precautions must be taken to safeguard the device from damage and to prevent accidental activation; the device must also be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode). Loose batteries and power banks should be individually protected against short circuits by storing them in their original packaging, with terminals taped or placed in a plastic bag in hand luggage.

Airline permission is always required for medical devices. For further details, see section Baggage – Medical baggage. TUI fly requires all power banks to be carried in hand luggage, never in checked baggage. They must be packed to prevent short circuits (original packaging or taped terminals). Generally, capacity is limited to 100 Watt-hours (Wh) per battery, with power banks not permitted to be used for charging devices or recharged onboard.

• Hand Luggage Only: Due to fire risk, all lithium-powered battery packs must be in the cabin. Capacity Limits: Power banks up to 100 Wh (roughly 27,000 mAh at 3.7V) are generally permitted.
• Safety Requirements: Terminals must be protected against short circuits, such as by taping them or keeping them in individual plastic bags.
• In-flight Usage: Power banks cannot be used to charge phones or laptops during flight, nor should they be recharged using aircraft power outlets.
• Storage: Keep them in your seat pocket or under your seat, not in overhead bins

For more information click here.

May 22 (Asia Today) — Concerns are growing over possible security gaps in East Asia after the United States used large numbers of advanced interceptor missiles while defending Israel during the Iran conflict, according to a report published Wednesday.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday, citing recent Pentagon assessments, that the United States fired more than 200 THAAD interceptors during Operation Epic Fury to block Iranian ballistic missile attacks.

The figure reportedly amounts to about half of the Pentagon’s total THAAD interceptor inventory.

The United States also used more than 100 Standard Missile-3 and Standard Missile-6 interceptors launched from Navy warships, the report said.

By contrast, Israel reportedly used fewer than 100 interceptors each from its Arrow and David’s Sling missile defense systems, preserving more of its own stockpile and raising questions about uneven resource consumption between the allies.

Military experts told the newspaper the imbalance stemmed from a prearranged ballistic missile defense structure under which the United States assumed responsibility for the most advanced interception missions.

Israel has increasingly relied on the United States for ballistic missile defense while fighting simultaneous conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen, stretching its military capabilities.

The report said growing U.S. missile consumption, combined with limited production capacity, is heightening anxiety in East Asia, where countries such as South Korea and Japan depend heavily on U.S. deterrence against threats from North Korea and China.

Kelly Grieco of the Stimson Center warned that “the bill could come due in a theater completely unrelated to Iran,” referring to East Asia.

The concerns follow earlier reports that U.S. Patriot missile stockpiles had fallen to about 25% of required levels, fueling fears of weakening missile deterrence across the region.

Analysts said any renewed hostilities involving Iran could deepen global security vulnerabilities further.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260522010006688

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Cuba poses a national security threat to the US.

United States President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have issued new threats of military action against Cuba.

Rubio told reporters late on Thursday that Cuba has been a national security threat for years because of its ties to US adversaries Russia and China, while Trump said he is likely to be the president to finally take action.

The Trump administration, with Cuban-American Rubio at the forefront, has been raising the pressure on the communist-led island in an apparent bid to institute “regime change,” including a fuel blockade that has put the Cuban economy on the edge of collapse.

The push has accelerated in recent days, with the US indicting Cuba’s former President Raul Castro and gathering military forces in the Caribbean.

Rejecting suggestions of “nation building,” Rubio told reporters the issue is one of “national security”. He added that while a negotiated agreement is the US “preference”, the path of diplomacy with Cuba is “not high”.

“Their economic system doesn’t work. It’s broken, and you can’t fix it with the current political system that’s in place,” Rubio said.

Over the years, Cuba has gotten used to “buying time and waiting us out,” Rubio said. “They’re not going to be able to wait us out or buy time. We’re very serious, we’re very focused.”

Separately, President Donald Trump told reporters that US presidents have considered intervening in Cuba for decades, but that it looks like he will be “the one that does it”, adding that he would be “happy” to do so.

In response, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez lambasted Rubio for falsely labelling Cuba a threat.

“The US secretary of state lies once again to instigate a military aggression that would provoke the shedding of Cuban and American blood,” Rodriguez said.

Raised tension

Since returning to office, Trump has slapped Cuba with numerous sanctions, implemented a fuel blockade and overseen a military build-up in the region.

The renewed threats on Thursday came amid rising tensions between the countries.

The US indicted Cuba’s former President Raul Castro on Wednesday, in connection with the 1996 downing of a plane.

On Thursday, Adys Lastres Morera – sister of a high-ranking executive of the Grupo de Administracion Empresarial SA (GAESA) conglomerate, which is controlled by Cuba’s military and controls large swaths of the economy – was arrested.

More sanctions were imposed on the Cuban government in the past week. The US military announced that several navy ships, including an aircraft carrier, had arrived in the Caribbean on Wednesday to take part in maritime exercises with partners in Latin America.

Rubio has noted that Cuba had earlier tentatively accepted an offer of $100m in aid in return for reforms. But he said it was unclear if the US would accept Cuba’s terms, as Washington insists on circumventing the military-backed conglomerate GAESA.

Analysts caution that Trump and Rubio are eyeing a similar course of action in Cuba to the regime change manufactured in Venezuela. Left-wing President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were kidnapped in a military operation in January. They were taken to the US, where Maduro was charged with “narcoterrorism”.

Rubio insists that Cuba poses a serious national security threat to the US because of its security and intelligence ties with China and Russia.

Both countries have criticised the US pressure on the island.

China said on Friday it “firmly supports” Cuba and urged the US to de-escalate tensions and “stop threatening force”.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: “We believe that under no circumstances should such methods – which border on violence – be used against either former or current heads of state.”