rivals

Japan and China are in their most dangerous diplomatic crisis in years as escalating tensions over Taiwan have cancelled earlier hopes of post-pandemic improvement. After COVID-19 restrictions were mostly lifted by 2023, relations between Beijing and Tokyo seemed to slowly improve. However, by late 2025 a series of disputes especially over the so-called “Taiwan Question” have severely deteriorated into their lowest point in years.

The high-stakes diplomatic visit at the October 2025 APEC summit, where Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi immediately followed a stable-ties agreement with President Xi Jinping by meeting Taiwanese officials, only escalated tensions.

Escalation Through Diplomatic and Military Incidents

Sanae Takaichi, declared on November 7, 2025 during a cabinet meeting, that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could justify Japan using military force in the area. China quickly reacted. China’s U.N. ambassador Fu Cong accused Japan of violating international law warning the country of its “self-defense”. Raising such an issue all the way to the United Nations is a rare move we don’t often see in global geopolitics.

In mid-November 2025 China’s coast guard sailed through waters around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (islands which are administered by Japan but claimed by China) on patrol and Japanese Coast Guard vessels sent in response. Japan also sent out fighter jets, and even announced plans to deploy Japanese missiles on Yonaguni island (just 110 km from Taiwan) as a deterring measure.

China also announced travel advisories urging its citizens to avoid Japan, with large numbers of airlines offering ticket refunds. Meanwhile, Japanese officials warned their nationals in China to be cautious amid a rise in hostilities. Chinese authorities abruptly canceled planned concerts by Japanese bands, and state media halted screening of new Japanese films.

The Roots of Tensions: History, the U.S. and Taiwan

The island of Taiwan is an indispensably strategic asset for both countries: for China, Taiwan is the core of its national unity; for Japan the security of a separate and democratic Taiwan is now explicitly seen in Tokyo as linked to Japan’s own defense.

Japan’s long-standing policy of strategic ambiguity on the Taiwan Question, similar to the one upheld by the United States, has been abandoned by P.M. Takaichi. Authorities in Taipei have publicly supported Japan, urging China to show restraint and highlighting how an invasion would draw in allies including Japan and the U.S. .

Invoking Japan’s World War II era atrocities, China claims moral high ground or justify its own territorial aims. For example, Chinese official statements have reminded audiences of Tokyo’s past warcrimes in the region when attacking Japanese policies in the present. Japanese politicians (especially ones from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party) have grown hawkish to these types of statements, any incident easily tying into nationalist sentiment on both sides.

Rapidly expanding its defense capabilities the Japanese 2025 Defense White Paper explicitly names China as its “greatest strategic challenge” and commits to raising defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2026. New submarine fleets and the potential deployment of medium-range missiles on islands like Yonaguni, have developed into a broader security problem. This means that any Chinese blockade or attack on Taiwan would encircle Japan’s supply lines. Therefore to Japan’s leaders, Taiwan’s fate is inseparable from their own national survival. China in turn, claims an eventual military approach to Taiwan as inevitable by 2027.

Economic Dimensions in East Asia

China and Japan remain among each other’s largest economic partners even amid the confrontation. In 2024 China was still Japan’s second-biggest export market (after the US), with roughly $125 billion of Japanese goods sent there, mainly machinery and automobiles. This has been leveraged as a geopolitical tool. China’s Commerce Ministry now warns that Takaichi’s comments have “fundamentally undermined” the political foundation of economic ties.

After the Fukushima nuclear wastewater release in 2023, China imposed a blanket ban on all Japanese seafood imports. (Japan has pointed out that the UN’s nuclear agency found the discharge safe.) In mid-November 2025 China reinstated these seafood bans.

In another economic sector, Chinese tourists make up about a fourth of all visitors to Japan. Japanese travel agencies organising group tours told Reuters they lost ~80% of their remaining bookings for 2025.

U.S. Security and International Alliance Dynamics

U.S. Ambassador to Japan George Glass offered guarantees for its ally if China will militarily intervene and The State Department similarly declared its full support for Japan, explicitly opposing any unilateral attempts to alter the status-quo in the Taiwan Strait or East China Sea. U.S. President Donald Trump has so far avoided endorsing Takaichi’s statements, at least publicly.

China often accuses Japan of following the U.S. strategy of containment and have opposed Japan’s involvement in The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) and its new defense pacts, such as with Australia, and more recently the Philippines. In contrast, Indonesia, Malaysia and others aim for neutrality.

Analysts suggest that China unusually strong criticism may reflect a strategic calculation, a hope that Prime Minister Takaichi’s term will be short-lived, just as the short tenures of other post-Abe premiers. For China, such a political victory could be a great geopolitical win in promoting its view on the Taiwan Question.

With information from Reuters, The Diplomat and South China Morning Post.

GOFFSTOWN, N.H. — In their last joint appearance before Tuesday’s high-stakes New Hampshire primary, the five major Democratic presidential candidates Sunday coasted through a generally desultory debate enlivened only by attacks on former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas for his support of nuclear power.

Tsongas, who leads in state polls, repeatedly came under attack for his staunch backing of nuclear power–a controversial position in a state where many Democratic activists have long opposed the Seabrook nuclear power plant. Each of Tsongas’ four rivals said they would decrease the nation’s reliance on nuclear energy.

“We’re not all trying to gang up on you, we’re not trying to say you’re wrong all the time,” Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey said to Tsongas at one point. “But on this particular issue I think you are. . . . Nuclear power, it seems to me, is fatally flawed.”

The focus on nuclear power–an issue that until recently has played virtually no role in the campaign–underlined the shift in Tsongas’ position from a long-shot who had been gently patronized to a front-runner worthy of pummeling. But other than the criticism of his energy policy–an issue that has not been high on the list of voter concerns here in recent years–Tsongas ran this last gantlet before the vote virtually unscathed.

Early in the debate, former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr.–who later grilled Tsongas most aggressively on his support for nuclear power–even embraced him as a fellow outsider committed to “the politics of the future” as compared to the three current officeholders in the race.

Brown then mildly distanced himself from Tsongas, saying the former senator “represents a more conservative, business-oriented view of the future.”

In fact, the tone of the debate was strikingly low-key, with all of the candidates focusing more of their fire on President Bush than their rivals. Tsongas took the lead, employing the front-runner strategy used earlier by Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. At every opportunity Tsongas stressed his agreements with his rivals and his differences with Bush.

In the debate, sponsored by Cable News Network and the League of Women Voters, the candidates were hampered by a format so disjointed and at times unstructured that twice Clinton felt compelled to suggest questions to moderator Bernard Shaw.

After weeks of focusing on the bread-and-butter concerns of voters in this economically ravaged state, the candidates Sunday found themselves exploring international population control, the destruction of the rain forests, utility pricing reform and whether the nation needs a better class of light bulb.

In this alternately esoteric and disengaged atmosphere, the only energy was generated by the issue of nuclear power.

One by one, each of Tsongas’ rivals insisted they would reduce reliance on nuclear power. Harkin declared that a program “of developing solar . . . for the future” would allow the nation to avoid “going to the nuclear option that Paul Tsongas wants to move to.”

Brown said he would move to phase out all nuclear power plants over the next decade.

Clinton said: “I do not favor anything that will accelerate the building of nuclear power plants. If you have major incentives to the utilities to engage in conservation, if you have a major attempt to convert to natural gas wherever you can. . . . I do not think you are going to see a need for new nuclear power plants.”

Tsongas–after characterizing nuclear power as part of “the third tier” of his preferred energy options for the country–argued in response to the persistent jabs that a reduction in reliance on nuclear power would require greater use of fossil fuels, raising the threat of global warming through the greenhouse effect.

“If you take out all of your nuclear power plants by definition, you are going to have more fossil fuel burning and add to the greenhouse effect,” Tsongas said. “I take the position that the threat long term is global warming.”

Though Tsongas forcefully held his ground, he bristled under the attacks–which were among the most pointed he has endured. “If I could, I would like . . . to characterize my positions myself and not have others do it,” he said.

After the debate, aides to the other candidates maintained that Tsongas had been weakened by the focus on an issue. “I don’t think his position has been laid out before as it was here tonight, so I think it will hurt him,” said Frank Greer, Clinton’s media adviser.

Thaleia Schlesinger, Tsongas’ sister, countered: “People understand his position was based on his fear of global warming.”

When not arguing over whether to split atoms for energy, the candidates managed to make some points about the economy. To a greater degree than usual, Tsongas declared that his approach–which relies heavily on increasing capital incentives for business and rejects a tax cut for the middle class–offered struggle as well as reward.

“There are two roads,” he said in closing remarks. “One is easy, one is comfortable, but it is downhill. The other is the road to economic prosperity. . . . That road is steeper and it’s harder, but it’s more noble and it’s more worthy.”

Harkin reiterated his support for cutting the defense budget in half over 10 years to support infrastructure investments and other programs at home. And he took a harsh line on trade issues, promising to stand up to Japan and prevent former government trade negotiators from lobbying for foreign governments. “I’m saying trade has to be a two-way street, not a one-way bridge,” he said.

As he has in recent days, Clinton sought to differentiate himself from Tsongas by emphasizing his experience as chief executive in Arkansas and his plans to reform government. “I think we have to have a more activist government,” he said, “but it also has to be more community-based, less bureaucratic and provide more citizen choice.”

Like Harkin, Kerrey insisted that America needed to get tougher with Japan on trade. But he called for the establishment of “new trading structures so that we can expand trade into the rest of the world, trying to convert . . . old enemies into new customers.”

Tsongas, who has taken the strongest free-trade position, urged voluntary protectionism, saying that as President he would ask Americans to shun Japanese imports if Japan doesn’t open its markets. “If the Japanese are not willing to be reasonable,” he said, “you have to play hardball.”

For most of this encounter, though, hardball was apparently the last thing on the minds of the five Democrats chasing the White House. With Tuesday’s pivotal vote in sight, they seemed less like contenders stepping into the ring than weary fighters embracing at the end of a bruising match.

Times political writer Robert Shogan contributed to this story.

Conflicting claims come before the release of official results by the country’s electoral commission.

The two leading candidates in Guinea-Bissau’s presidential election – incumbent Umaro Sissoco Embalo and main challenger Fernando Dias – have both declared victory before the release of official results.

Both campaigns had claimed on Monday that their contender exceeded the 50 percent threshold needed to win outright, eliminating the need for a run-off.

“We have won the presidential race. We will not have a second round,” Dias told supporters in the capital, Bissau, adding that people were “tired” and wanted change.

Hours later, Embalo’s campaign spokesperson Oscar Barbosa also claimed the president had won outright, insisting there would be no run-off and calling on rivals to avoid making claims that undermine the electoral process.

There was no immediate comment by the National Electoral Commission, which is expected to announce provisional results on Thursday, regarding the conflicting claims.

Twelve candidates competed in Sunday’s poll that saw a turnout of more than 65 percent.

The African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC), the movement that led the fight against Portuguese colonial rule, was barred from fielding a candidate for the first time.

The party endorsed Dias, boosting his campaign, especially after former Prime Minister Domingos Simoes Pereira, the PAIGC leader, backed him. The 47-year-old is standing with the Party for Social Renewal.

Embalo, 53, is a former army general who served as prime minister from 2016 to 2018. He is seeking to become Guinea-Bissau’s first president in 30 years to win a second term.

Opposition parties argue that Embalo’s mandate should have ended earlier this year. The Supreme Court ruled that his term should run until early September, but the election was pushed back to November.

Embalo dissolved parliament, which was controlled by the opposition after the 2019 and 2023 legislative elections, and has not allowed it to sit since December 2023.

Guinea-Bissau has experienced repeated coups and attempted coups since its independence more than 50 years ago, and remains one of the world’s poorest countries, with half the population living in poverty, according to the World Bank.

More than 200 international observers were in the country to monitor the electoral process, including from the West African regional bloc ECOWAS, the African Union and the community of Portuguese-speaking countries.

Nov. 22 (UPI) — Two of the United Kingdom’s largest media outlets and traditional competing newspapers would unite under a proposed $655 million sale.

Publisher Daily Mail and General Trust announced it has begun negotiations with RedBird IMI to buy the Daily and Sunday Telegraph newspapers for $655 million

RedBird IMI is a joint venture between U.S.-based RedBird Capital Partners and the United Arab Emirates-based IMI.

“The Daily Telegraph is Britain’s largest and best quality broadsheet newspaper, and I have grown up respecting it,” DMGT Chairman Jonathan Rothermere said in a statement shared with The New York Times.

“It has a remarkable history and has played a vital role in shaping Britain’s national debate over many decades,” Rothermere added.

Any agreement would require the approval of Britain’s Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy to ensure the proposed buyer fulfills “the public interest” and prevents “foreign state influence” of media, the BBC reported.

Such scrutiny prompted U.S.-based RedBird Capital Partners to withdraw a prior offer to buy the news outlet outright.

RedBIrd IMI acquired a tangible interest in the newspaper when the Barclay family announced it was for sale amid financial problems in 2023, according to The Washington Post.

RedBird IMI arranged a debt deal with the Barclays that gave it the inside track on buying The Daily Telegraph and sister publication the Spectator.

The British government blocked the sale, though, partly due to concerns of foreign influence by UAE-based IMI.

RedBird IMI then sold the Spectator to British hedge-fund owner Paul Marshall in 2024, but a potential sale of The Daily Telegraph to New York Sun publisher Dovid Efune did not materialize.

RedBird Capital then tried to buy the newspaper with the help of a minority investor from Britain, while limiting IMI to a 15% ownership stake.

RedBird withdrew that plan in October and now has its hopes pinned on the proposed $655 million deal with DMGT.

FORGET who will be the next Bond or AI taking over acting.

There’s currently a bigger issue that’s tearing Hollywood in two… and standing in the middle of it is a doe-eyed firebrand named Sydney Sweeney, who might – or might not – know exactly what she’s doing.

Over the past few months, Sydney, 28, has found herself in the eye of a raging public storm, thanks to never-ending questions over her social and political leanings, and her unapologetic refusal to set the record straight. 

On the one side, we have fans, mostly on the right, praising their “anti-woke warrior” after she chose not to comment on or apologise for her controversial American Eagle advert. 

On the other, the woke corner of the internet accuses her and the commercial – which plays on saying she has “good jeans/genes” – of having a Nazi-like stance on eugenics. 

So, the fact that she hasn’t desperately begged for forgiveness in the wake of all the frenzy and outrage is music to woke-fatigued ears.

TENSION BOILS

Inside feud between Adam Peaty’s mum & Holly’s family as pals share details

SHIFTING SANDS

I ditched UK for Dubai – salaries are HUGE but dating apps are full of pervs

Add to that the fact that Sydney’s been revealed to be a registered Republican and a MAGA supporter – with President Donald Trump himself publicly praising her – and it’s no surprise she’s copping flak to go with her fandom. 

In the past week, whether coincidental or not, her Oscar-touted biopic Christy has definitively bombed at the box office, making a paltry $1.3million in the US in its opening weekend.

Now, no one knows what to think. Has the young budding starlet, who could have been Hollywood’s next leading lady, shot herself in her genetically blessed foot? Or is this all just a storm in a teacup?

The jury’s still out, but for every commenter yelling “anti-woke warrior”, there’s another shouting “white supremacist!”

Yes, Sydney’s swiftly becoming the most polarising thing since pineapple on pizza.

And that’s before you consider her other public stunts – including, but not limited to, her overtly sexual self-branding and her apparent romance with another very controversial character in Scooter Braun.

Scooter, 44, is the disgraced record executive who people’s princess Taylor Swift called a “manipulative bully” after he bought the rights to her first six albums and blocked her performing some of the songs.

He’s also had very public fall-outs with his former protegés Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande and Demi Lovato.

With all this in mind, getting into bed – so to speak – with such a figure may not do Sydney any favours. But does she care? 

Fresh fury

Last week, the star caused fury again, after speaking to GQ to promote her new movie Christy, in which she plays the boxer Christy Martin. 

During the – at times – uncomfortable chat, the topic turned to all the noise surrounding the alleged white supremacist undertones of her American Eagle “good jeans” ad. 

The interviewer began: “White people shouldn’t joke about genetic superiority; that was the conversation. Since we’re talking about this, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about that situation specifically.”

Seemingly unfussed, Sydney simply replied: “I think that when I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear.”

Elsewhere in the Q&A, she said: “I did a jean ad. I mean, the reaction definitely was a surprise, but I love jeans. All I wear are jeans. I’m literally in jeans and a T-shirt every day of my life.” 

As for President Trump’s praise for the jeans campaign – he called it “the hottest ad ever” specifically after hearing that Sydney was a registered Republican – the actress remained coy. She simply responded that his endorsement was “surreal”. 

Again, the masses were divided. Fans – and some loyal celebrity friends – spoke out in defence of the Euphoria star.

Sydney’s former Anyone But You co-star Glen Powell called the public indignation over the ad “bulls***”, while Amanda Seyfried – who’s starring in the upcoming movie The Housemaid alongside Sydney – commented under one of her posts: “You Kill. Brave and true.”

She’s also been publicly supported by Euphoria co-star Maud Apatow and fellow lightning rod Nicola Peltz-Beckham, who have both liked her Instagram posts over the past week.

Woke backlash

But then, there are the celebrities who have no time at all for Sydney’s supposed alt-right politics – and they’re letting it be known. 

In response to YouTuber Jupiter Baal’s video – shared to Instagram – in which he chastised the actress and said, “She was given an opportunity to push back, she didn’t, therefore she’s in on it”, actress Christina Ricci responded: “100%” .

Likewise, fellow The White Lotus star Aimee-Lou Wood made her own feelings known – posting a vomit emoji under a post that talked about the now notorious ad. 

According to insiders, Sydney’s Euphoria co-star Zendaya is refusing to speak to her co-worker, and she won’t be associated with her in any capacity…which makes their future promo trail for season three of Euphoria tricky. 

“It’s a difficult position for Zendaya to be in,” a source told Mail Online this week. “Because if she even stands next to Sydney on the red carpet, it can be read as her excusing Sydney’s views on Trump and her refusal to apologise for the racist ad.” 

I did a jean ad. I mean, the reaction definitely was a surprise, but I love jeans. All I wear are jeans.

Sydney Sweeney

Then, there’s model and actress Ruby Rose, who went apoplectic on Tuesday in response to a post shared by Sydney.

Earlier in the week, Sydney had reflected on the film’s box office failure, telling her followers: “We don’t always just make art for numbers, we make it for impact. And Christy has been the most impactful project of my life.”

But Ruby – who had previously been cast in the project before being let go – was having nothing of it, writing in a scathing Threads post: “Everyone had experience with the core material. Most of us were actually gay [like Christy]. It’s part of why I stayed in acting. Losing roles happens all the time.

“For her PR to talk about it flopping and saying SS [Sydney Sweeney] did it for the ‘people’. None of the ‘people’ want to see someone who hates them, parading around pretending to be us. You’re a cretin and you ruined the film. Period. Christy deserved better.”

She later doubled down in her comments again, calling Sydney a “psychopath”.

Joining the anti-Sydney brigade, Downton Abbey actor Dan Stevens reshared a post which read: “Sydney Sweeney’s GQ interview is a reminder that ‘not having a stance’ on white supremacy is 100% having a stance on white supremacy.”

So, what’s the strategy? And is there even one to begin with?

Brand and culture expert Nick Ede is unconvinced. Speaking exclusively to The Sun, he says that – whether it’s naivety or not –  Sydney’s not helping her career prospects, proven by the fact that her most recent film flopped. 

He explains: “She’s a young girl – she’s making a lot of money, but this proves she’s not a box office draw.

“That not only goes towards her movie career, but her brand deals too, and suggests that the equity she had really isn’t there anymore.

“She might decide to write an autobiography at this early age and be really honest about her opinions and how she felt. And that’s always a cathartic way of getting your story across and winning the affection of the public again. 

“But I think she’s almost too big now to be a character in a film or a show. You just go and see Sweeney and that can be really detrimental to her in the future.”

No backing down

All evidence so far suggests that apologising for herself is the one thing Sydney’s not willing to do. 

Last year, she teasingly wore a T-shirt that read: “Sorry for having great tits and correct opinions”. 

The suggestion was that she knew that people were writing her off as an overtly sexualised starlet – but that she was laughing all the way to the bank.

What’s more, in her most recent GQ interview, she again hinted at her secret shrewdness. 

She said: “I think as time goes on, people will see that I’m way more aware of things than people think.”

Then, in response to the interviewer’s claim that – by not speaking more about her intentions – she’s giving us permission to “keep taking what you do and putting it up on our board of ‘What does Sydney think?’ the actress remained non-committal. 

“I can’t wait to see what the board says,” she deadpanned. 

Last laugh

Sweeney has also got billionaire Jeff Bezos in her corner, who’s reportedly invested “seed money” into a private equity business that will help Sydney launch her very own lingerie line soon. 

Now that Jeff’s Amazon Prime empire has the rights to the James Bond franchise, his admiration for the actress might just clinch her that ultimate prize of being the next Bond girl.

In which case, again, this could all be nothing but hot air surrounding her supposed demise – and prove she might have the last laugh anyway.

moving fast

MAFS couple PREGNANT days after they get married as strangers on show

WEDDING RIFT

Adam Peaty’s family feud escalates as he BANS mum from wedding to Holly Ramsay

One thing we do know is that Sydney’s not about to go on some self-flagellating apology tour anytime soon. 

Love her or hate her, like Marmite, she’s here to stay. 

One place has been enjoying a surge in popularity with Brits in recent months, and it’s not difficult to see why as the country boasts stunning beaches, lush greenery and incredible wildlife

Brits seeking to escape the dreary UK winter for sunnier climates typically opt for destinations like Bali or Thailand. However, travel experts have identified one ‘underrated’ country emerging as a strong competitor, boasting palm-fringed sandy beaches and stunning landscapes.

Sri Lanka, whilst not exactly a hidden gem, has experienced a notable surge in popularity recently, with Travel Republic recording a 72% increase in holiday bookings to the South Asian nation over the past month alone. Across social media platforms, influencers have been documenting their travels throughout the country, with followers eagerly commenting that it’s the “most magical place ever”.

With its picturesque coastline, verdant terrain and diverse wildlife including elephants and leopards, it’s easy to understand why the destination appeals to adventurous travellers.

The ancient fortress of Sigiriya, believed by locals to have been constructed by King Kasyapa, stands as a remarkable landmark. Sihagiri, also known as Lion Rock, derives its name from the massive carved stone lion forming the entrance to the impressive citadel.

Do you have a travel story to share? Email [email protected]

READ MORE: Four airlines now ban passengers from packing AirPodsREAD MORE: Quaint town described as ‘beguiling’ by famous fan perfect for literature lovers

Whilst the ascent is challenging, the panoramic views make it worthwhile (though visitors should note it can become busy, so arriving early helps avoid the tourist crowds). Meanwhile, Udawalawe National Park provides the perfect backdrop for spotting wildlife on safari, from water buffalo and mongooses to jackals and spotted deer, reports the Express.

For those seeking Maldives-style beaches, Unawatuna Beach is essential viewing, with its pristine waters perfect for swimming or watersports.

Then there are the stunning temples scattered across the landscape, but if you can only visit one, make it the Temple of the Tooth. Located in the vibrant city of Kandy, this World Heritage Site contains the relic of the tooth of Buddha – a precious artefact believed to grant its holder the power to govern the country.

Unsurprisingly, the tooth itself remains secured within a golden casket, hidden from view. Nevertheless, the temple complex features numerous shrines and smaller temples to discover, offering a captivating insight into Sri Lankan culture.

A Travel Republic spokesperson said: “Sri Lanka is becoming one of Asia’s most exciting destinations. It offers stunning beaches, lush islands, rich local culture, and incredible wildlife, all without the crowds that have made other destinations feel overrun. For travellers seeking authenticity and adventure, it’s a destination that still feels fresh and undiscovered, much like Bali did two decades ago.”

Add in temperatures reaching 30C during December and January, and the attraction becomes immediately clear. However, a word of caution for those planning to visit during the winter months; it’s best to head to the south and west coasts, where it’s dry season.

The Northern parts of Sri Lanka will be in the throes of their monsoon season, which certainly won’t provide the winter sun you might be after!

The travel expert advised: “With Sri Lanka currently having its moment on social media, now is the perfect time to start planning a trip for 2026. The best time to visit the southwest coast and cultural triangle is from December to March, when conditions are warm and dry. For the east coast, including Arugam Bay, April to September offers ideal weather for surfing and beach activities.”

It is, by both candidates’ admission, a Republican primary race without issues, conflict or many campaign dollars. The low-budget, low-profile contest does not bode well for the eventual nominee’s prospects against Democratic Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman of Tarzana in November.

Attorneys Tom Franklin of Beverly Hills and Edward Brown of Sherman Oaks are competing in the June 7 primary for the GOP nomination in the 43rd Assembly District. The affluent, heavily Democratic district stretches from Studio City to Topanga Canyon and over the Santa Monica Mountains to Beverly Hills, Westwood and Brentwood.

The campaign for the hearts and minds of the district’s 64,237 registered Republicans is being waged at GOP gatherings and door-to-door; neither candidate has raised enough money to mail any brochures or flyers. Both Franklin and Brown seek to contrast themselves with Friedman–who they maintain is too liberal for the district–rather than each other.

“I’m running against Terry Friedman,” Franklin said last week. “I don’t really know Mr. Brown’s interest in the major issues.”

Asked why Republican voters should choose him over Franklin, Brown replied, “I don’t know that they should. I’m not going to lower myself to some kind of mudslinging contest.”

Friedman, meanwhile, responds that his priorities of protecting the Santa Monica Mountains, upgrading education and aiding the elderly and underprivileged “are right in the mainstream of the district.” Democrats enjoy a 54%-to-36% registration advantage, although President Reagan carried the district in 1980 and 1984 and fellow Republican Gov. George Deukmejian won it in 1986.

Inside Track

Franklin, 29, appears to have the inside primary track because he has a base of support among Republicans in Beverly Hills, where he has been active, and has been more visible, according to GOP activists such as Shirley Whitney, chairman of the 43rd District Republican Committee. The committee does not endorse candidates in the primary.

Franklin has served as president of the Beverly Hills Republican Assembly, a 150-member volunteer organization that registers voters and supports candidates, and has been active in GOP politics since he was University of Southern California recruitment chairman for Reagan’s 1980 presidential bid.

The self-styled conservative has also garnered more campaign dollars than Brown, although Friedman has raised 100 times more money than each Republican. Franklin reported raising $1,395 and spending $531 as of March 22, when he filed a campaign statement with the secretary of state. He has a $15-a-person event scheduled Sunday at his parents’ Beverly Hills home but is well short of the pace he needs to attain his original goal of $200,000.

Brown, who says the subject of campaign finances is too personal to discuss, said he has raised less than $500. “I won’t take anything more than $10,” Brown said. “I don’t want to have any special pleading.”

He failed to file a campaign fund-raising report with the secretary of state in mid-March as required by state law, media director Caren Daniels-Meade said. He faces a possible fine, which would be determined by how much he has spent but not reported, she said.

Strongly favored to win a second term, Friedman reported raising $122,575 and having $127,678 on hand in his March 22 campaign statement. He said last week he subsequently took in $40,000 more at a fund-raiser. Many of his contributions are from fellow attorneys.

“Substantially, those are people who know me from my past work as executive director of Bet Tzedek Legal Services,” said Friedman, referring to the Los Angeles legal-service program for low-income elderly. “And from my work on several committees in the Legislature.”

Robert Townsend Leet of Tarzana, a Libertarian candidate, and Marjery Hinds of Los Angeles, the Peace and Freedom candidate, filed March campaign reports with the state stating they had not raised as much as $1,000 and didn’t expect to do so.

Brown, 58, is an ex-Democrat who unsuccessfully sought election to a municipal court judgeship and Congress in the 1960s and to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors in the early 1970s. He describes himself as a conservative who is also concerned about protecting individual constitutional rights.

Bush or Kemp

Franklin and Brown did differ in which candidates they favor for the 1988 Republican presidential primary. Franklin says he supports Vice President George Bush, the apparent nominee; Brown says U.S. Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) is his choice.

Franklin and Brown concur, however, in criticizing Friedman’s opposition to a bill to allow local and state police to eavesdrop electronically on suspected drug dealers. Advocates called it a tool to combat gang violence. It passed the Assembly on a bipartisan 48-18 vote last month and was sent to the Senate, which had previously approved a more sweeping bill.

“I don’t think these punks call each other up to decide where they’re going to do a drive-by shooting,” said Friedman, who says the measure is marred by loopholes and inconsistencies and would be financially inefficient. “That’s not how they plan their evil.

“I believe that the police sweeps in South-Central Los Angeles have been much more effective than any attention-grabbing attempt in Sacramento to appear tough on crime.”

Franklin ridiculed Friedman’s reasoning.

“It’s common knowledge that many gang members bring their beepers with them into the classrooms and that’s how they are informed they have a pending drug deal to consummate,” Franklin said. “It just shows how out of the mainstream he is, even in his own party.”

Brown said, “I’d like to bring in the National Guard. Every four or five blocks you’ll have a cop standing there in a little shed and you won’t have any more gangs.”