sovereignty

Israel has conducted more than 1,000 air strikes and more than 400 ground incursions in Syria since al-Assad overthrow.

Israel’s army has renewed its incursions into Syria, setting up a checkpoint in the southern province of Quneitra, according to local media, as it continues daily attacks, destabilises its neighbours and occupies and assaults Palestine.

State news agency SANA reported that two tanks and four military vehicles entered the town of Jabata al-Khashab in the Quneitra countryside on Wednesday, setting up the military post on the road leading to the village of Ain al-Bayda.

Damascus did not immediately comment but has repeatedly condemned Israel’s repeated violations of its sovereignty, highlighting Israel’s failure to adhere to the 1974 Disengagement Agreement that followed the 1973 war.

In that war, Syria was unable to retake the occupied Golan Heights. The 1974 agreement saw the establishment of a United Nations-patrolled buffer zone, which Israel has violated since the fall of Bashar al-Assad last December

Israel has previously said the 1974 agreement is void since al-Assad fled, breaching Syrian sovereignty with air strikes, ground infiltration operations, reconnaissance overflights, the establishment of checkpoints and the arrests and disappearances of Syrians. Syria has not reciprocated attacks.

Back in September, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa stated that Israel had conducted more than 1,000 air strikes and more than 400 ground incursions in Syria since al-Assad was overthrown, describing the actions as “very dangerous”.

Numerous villages in Quneitra, southern Syria, have experienced Israeli incursions, according to Syrian outlet Enab Baladi.

De-escalation discussions

Syria and Israel are currently in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israel’s air strikes on its territory and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.

In the background, the United States has been pushing diplomatic efforts to restore the 1974 deal. On Saturday, Trump’s special envoy Tom Barrack said the two countries are expected to hold a fifth set of de-escalation discussions.

Amid Israel’s continued belligerence and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promotion of his vision for a “Greater Israel“, al-Sharaa has been forging closer ties with the US.

On Monday, he is heading to Washington for talks with President Donald Trump, marking the first visit by a Syrian president to the White House in more than 80 years.

Barrack said on Saturday that Syria is expected to join the US-led anti–ISIL (ISIS) coalition, describing it as “a big step” and “remarkable”.

Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani said earlier this week that al-Sharaa was also expected to discuss Syria’s reconstruction with Trump.

Japanese horse racing has been on the precipice of breaking through on the U.S. scene. It seemed like it was almost there in 2021 when it won three Breeders’ Cup races. But after that it leveled off.

Through 10 races at this year’s Breeders’ Cup, horses from Japan underperformed. But in the 11th, the most important race in the two-day event, the breakthrough became official when Forever Young held off Sierra Leone, last year’s winner, to win the $7-million Breeders’ Cup Classic by a half-length.

The last time we saw Forever Young in this country was a year ago when the 4-year-old colt finished third in the Classic. Before that, he was third in the Kentucky Derby by a whisker while being on the receiving end of some bumping down the stretch by Sierra Leone. Without that he might have been victorious in a race that was won by Mystik Dan.

The commonality between the 2021 and 2025 Breeders’ Cup days was that both were run at Del Mar.

Forever Young was almost the victim of some legal chicanery on Saturday as trainer Chad Brown entered a horse — called a rabbit — with little chance to win so that he could set a fast pace. Sierra Leone, also trained by Brown, needs a fast pace to weaken the other horses, which would benefit Sierra Leone’s late running style.

But this time, Forever Young overcame all the obstacles thrown at him. He ran a very tactical race being placed close to the lead and never farther back than third.

Forever Young paid $9.00 to win. He was followed in order by Sierra Leone, Fierceness, Journalism, Mindframe, Baeza, Nevada Beach, Antiquarian and Contrary Thinking, who was the rabbit in the 1 1/4- mile race.

It was the third Breeders’ Cup win for trainer Yoshito Yahagi. When asked if this was his most satisfying win, Yahagi said, through a translator: “I will never, ever get satisfied until I get retired as a trainer.”

Forever Young was the third foreign horse to win the Classic, joining Argentine-bred Invasor in 2006 and Irish-bred Black Tie Affair in 1991.

“So last time here, the horse was 75% conditioned,” Yahagi said. “And this time we create 100% condition. Forever Young is an amazing horse.”

The winning jockey was Ryusei Sakai.

“We got the No. 1 in America,” Yahagi said to NBC.

The Classic lost a lot of luster when the favorite, Sovereignty, the winner of the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes, was scratched earlier in the week when he spiked a fever. Sovereignty was the top-rated horse in the country and a possible horse-of-the-year winner. Many were hoping for a rematch with Journalism, who finished second in both those races and won the Preakness, which Sovereignty did not run in.

Trainer Bill Mott only brought two horses to the Breeders’ Cup, Sovereignty and Scylla. While Sovereignty didn’t make the starting gate on Saturday, Scylla ($17.20 to win) sure did, winning the biggest race of the year for female horses, the $2-million Distaff.

“It’s certainly difficult to see what happened to Sovereignty,” Mott said. “I think everybody that’s connected [with this sport] has been through it and we knew when it happened, he wouldn’t be able to compete and not at the level that he would need to. And it seems as though he’s recovering well but he’s really not the story here.

“I mean this one is about Scylla and about Junior [Alvarado, his jockey] and the Juddmonte connections.”

Alvarado took her to the front and never looked back, winning the 1 1/8-mile race by 5 1/2 lengths. Nitrogen was second and Regaled finished third. Favorite Seismic Beauty contended early but then faded to 12th in the 13-horse field.

The second richest race on the card, the $5-million Turf, was supposed be a matchup of two-time winner Rebel’s Romance and Minnie Hauk, who had five wins and two seconds in seven starts. They ran together for most of the 1 1/2-mile race but long shot Ethical Diamond started rolling in the top of the stretch and cruised to a 1 1/4-length win. Rebel’s Romance was second.

The Irish-bred Ethical Diamond, trained by William Mullins and ridden by Dylan Browne McMonagle, paid $57.40 to win.

The first Breeders’ Cup race of the day, the $1-million Filly & Mare Sprint, became less interesting when two of the favorites, Sweet Azteca (2-1 morning line) and Tamara (7-2), were scratched by the veterinarian. There was a third scratch that took the field down to seven.

Bob Baffert had three of the horses in the race, including Splendora, who won in dominating fashion by 4 3/4 lengths and paid $7.80. He was midpack until the far turn of the seven-furlong race before jockey Flavien Prat let him loose in the stretch.

It was Baffert’s 20th Breeders’ Cup win, tying him for second with the late Wayne Lukas. Aidan O’Brien won his 21st Breeders’ Cup race on Friday.

“[Lukas] changed every industry for the better,” Baffert said. “He brought elegance to the game. … To be part of it and then to tie him, it’s an honor for me. … I still miss him. I loved having conversations with him. It’s an honor to tie him.”

Shisospicy ($12.60) broke on top and held the lead to the finish to win the $1-million Turf Sprint, which was ran at five furlongs. The 3-year-old filly is trained by Jose Francisco D’Angelo and was ridden by Irad Ortiz, Jr., who picked up his 22nd Cup victory.

She’s Quality was eased shortly out of the gate in the Turf Sprint by jockey Colin Keane and walked onto the equine ambulance. She was transported to an equine hospital and is back in her barn being monitored.

Ortiz picked up his 23rd win in the next race when he won the $2-million Sprint aboard Bentornato. It was also the second straight victory for D’Angelo. Bentornato broke on top and was never headed in the six-furlong race. It was only his second race of the year for the 4-year-old ridgling. Bentornato finished second in last year’s Sprint, losing to Straight No Chaser, who finished seventh on Saturday.

There were three additional Breeders’ Cup races after the Classic, the turf Mile, Dirt Mile and Filly & Mare Turf.

DEL MAR — Sometimes the toughest part of owning a horse is deciding what to name it. If you own a bunch of horses, you run out of logical names pretty quickly. You can only do a play on the sire’s name so many times. And if you name it after a living person, you need permission from that person.

But every once in a while happenstance is your guide.

Ned Toffey has been the general manager of Spendthrift Farm for 21 years. Spendthrift saw an Into Mischief colt it liked and bought the yet unnamed colt as a yearling for $650,000. Now the tough part, naming him.

Toffey had just completed an interview with a publication and it was trying to promote it on social media. The only problem is they got a couple of first letters transposed and sent out posted a message on X calling the longtime Spendthrift executive Ted Noffey. Innocent mistake. Once notified it was corrected but not before a few screenshots were taken.

John Velazquez smiles after riding Ted Noffey to victory in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile horse race in Del Mar on Friday.

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

Noffey went with the joke.

Now people will remember that colt as the winner of the $2 million Breeders’ Cup Juvenile, pushing his name to the top of Kentucky Derby future pools.

His win wasn’t a surprise as he has won all four of his races, but none this prestigious on the first day of the two-day Breeders’ Cup held at Del Mar. All five of the races on Friday were worth no less than $1 million with nine more on Saturday.

Ted Noffey, the horse, was the favorite and was within a length of the lead all the way around the 1 1/16-mile race for 2-year-old males, winning by a length.

“It pretty much unfolded like we thought it would,” said trainer Todd Pletcher. “I’m just glad that he was able to keep finding more.”

Brant, the $3 million purchase for trainer Bob Baffert, went to the lead and was in front until the top of the stretch when Ted Noffey inched past and then kept going. He ended up winning by a length over Mr. A.P.

“I was happy with the trip, [Brant] just got tired,” Baffert said. “The lack of two turns caught up with him. He was beat by a real good horse, and they ran really fast. I think he will move up off this race.”

Brant finished third and Baffert’s other horse, Litmus Test, finished fourth. Ted Noffey was the favorite and paid $3.60 to win .

The other $2 million race, the Juvenile Fillies, was won by Super Corredora ($19.60 to win), whose last race was a maiden win, the only time this has happened in this race.

Southern California based John Sadler had to go 42 races before he won his first Breeders’ Cup race in 2018 when he won the Classic with Accelerate.

“My journey has been, there was a time when they’d say, he’s the best trainer that hasn’t won a Breeders’ Cup,” Sadler said. “They stopped asking that after Accelerate. So we’ve won quite a few of them now. So, I’m very pleased with that.

“And as you’re an older trainer, which I am at this point (he’s 69), these are the races you want to win. I think I hold most of the categories here at Del Mar, right behind Baffert—number of wins, number of stakes wins and money earned. The big days are especially rewarding.”

The 2-year-old filly led the entire 1 1/16 mile race and was the front half of a Southern California exacta with Baffert’s Explora finishing second. Hector Barrios was the jockey and it was his first Breeders’ Cup win with a three-quarters of a length victory.

The first race of the day, the $1 million Juvenile Turf Sprint, was won by Cy Fair ($12.00), a horse named after a high school in Texas and trained by George Weaver. Everyone gave Aidan O’Brien a good shot to win the five-furlong race since he had three horses in the race and his next win would give him 21, the most ever, breaking a tie with the late Wayne Lukas.

O’Brien had to wait for the last race of the day, the $1 million Juvenile Turf over one mile to pick up No. 21. Gstaad ($4.40) was the favorite and didn’t disappoint coming off the pace at the top of the stretch and winning by three-quarters of a length.

The other Breeders’ Cup race of the day, the $1 million Juvenile Fillies Turf, was won by Balantina ($43.20) by 1 ¼ lengths, the largest margin of the day. She came from well off the pace in the one mile race with a strong stretch drive for trainer Donnacha O’Brien, Aidan’s son.

The first day of the Breeders’ Cup is all 2-year-old races, but Saturday is where all the money is, $23 million in purses to be exact. It’s headed by the $7-million Classic, a 1¼ mile race for horses of any age or sex. The race, and the whole event, took a major blow when Sovereignty, the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes winner and top-ranked horse in the country, was scratched after he spiked a fever early in the week. He was the 6-5 morning line favorite.

Everyone was looking forward to the rematch of Sovereignty and Journalism (5-1 adjusted odds), who finished one-two in both the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes. McCarthy, who trains Journalism and owner Aron Wellman replaced jockey Umberto Rispoli after they didn’t like his ride in the Pacific Classic. Jose Ortiz picked up the mount.

“I think it’s unfortunate that Sovereignty is not in there but this is probably one of the best Classics we’ve seen in about 20 years,” McCarthy said. “We’ll bounce out of there and try and be tactical and try to be within four or five lengths of the lead.”

There should also be some interest in Fierceness (5-2), who won the Pacific Classic after a terrible break when he ducked near the rail breaking from the one. He drew the one for this race too.

“He’s got to break straight and establish the position he wants and run his race,” trainer Todd Pletcher said. “His best race gives him a big chance, if he can deliver that.”

Among others in the race are Santa Anita-based Baeza (10-1), who won the Pennsylvania Derby; Japanese horse Forever Young (7-2), winner of the Saudi Cup; last year’s winner Sierra Leone (7-2); and Nevada Beach (20-1) for Baffert and winner of the Los Alamitos Derby and the Goodwood Stakes at Santa Anita.

Another race to watch on Saturday is the $5-million Turf in which Rebel’s Romance is trying to become the first three-time winner of this race and the third horse to ever win three Breeders’ Cup races, joining Goldikova and Beholder.

Sovereignty, the top-ranked horse in the country, will not run in the $7-million Breeders’ Cup Classic after developing a fever this week. The winner of the Kentucky Derby, Belmont Stakes and Travers Stakes will recover although it’s unclear if he will ever race again.

Trainer Bill Mott made the announcement Wednesday morning and informed Breeders’ Cup officials of the scratch.

“I actually started thinking, ‘We might be OK.’ But then, in a matter of hours, my optimism was taken away,” Mott said. “When he had a real mild fever and we medicated him right away, he acted normal. I actually was maybe looking at it with rose-colored glasses.”

On Wednesday morning, Sovereignty was standing upright in his stall munching on hay and showed no obvious discomfort.

“We’ve gone through the entire year with this horse without a hiccup,” Mott said.

The fever was detected on Monday and he was treated with an NSAID, similar to Tylenol. He could not be given an antibiotic at that time because he would then likely fail a drug test. On Tuesday, Mott puts his odds at running at 50-50.

“If we don’t think he’s 100%, he won’t run in the Breeders’ Cup Classic,” Mott said on Tuesday.

After he was initially treated, his temperature went back to normal but then it spiked again overnight.

Sovereignty was the biggest star of the 42nd Breeders’ Cup and was installed as the 6-5 favorite to win the Classic.

Mott and owner Godolphin have been very cautious with this Sovereignty. After he won the Kentucky Derby his connections elected to not run him in the Preakness because it was only two weeks after the Derby. Horse racing is a dying brand on the sports landscape and a possible Triple Crown winner could have a shot in the arm the sport desperately needs.

A decision has not been made if the colt will return to racing next year or be retired to stallion duty.

In a rare appearance at the United Nations, North Korea’s Vice Foreign Minister Kim Son Gyong staunchly defended the country’s nuclear programme. It was the first time North Korea had dispatched an official from Pyongyang to address the UN General Assembly since 2018.

MEXICO CITY — Security, sovereignty, tariffs, trade, drugs and migration — all hot-button issues for the Trump administration and its neighbors in the Western Hemisphere — will top Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s agenda this week on his third trip to Latin America since becoming the chief U.S. diplomat.

In talks with leaders in Mexico and Ecuador on Wednesday and Thursday, Rubio will make the case that broader, deeper cooperation with the U.S. on those issues is vitally important to improving health, safety and security in the Americas and the Caribbean.

Yet, President Trump has alienated many in the region — far beyond the usual array of U.S. antagonists like Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela — with persistent demands, coupled with threats of sweeping tariffs and massive sanctions for not complying with his desires.

Mexico has been a focus for Trump

Mexico, the only country apart from Canada to share a border with the U.S., has been a particular target for Trump. He has demanded, and so far won, some concessions from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s government, which is eager to defuse the tariff threats.

Just a few hours before Rubio’s arrival Tuesday, Sheinbaum was set to lead a meeting of the country’s most important security forum, which brings together all 32 governors, the army, navy, federal prosecutor’s office and security commanders to coordinate actions across Mexico.

Sheinbaum had been talking for weeks about how Mexico was finalizing a comprehensive security agreement with the State Department that, among other things, was supposed to include plans for a “joint investigation group” to combat the flow of fentanyl and the drug’s precursors into the U.S. and weapons from north to south.

“Under no circumstance will we accept interventions, interference or any other act from abroad that is detrimental to the integrity, independence and sovereignty of the country,” she said Monday in her State of the Nation address marking her first year in office.

Last week, however, a senior State Department official downplayed suggestions that a formal agreement — at least one that includes protections for Mexican sovereignty — was in the works.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to preview Rubio’s meetings, said sovereignty protections were “understood” by both countries without having to be formalized in a document.

Sheinbaum lowered her expectations Tuesday, saying during her morning news briefing that it would not be a formal agreement but rather a kind of memorandum of understanding to share information and intelligence on drug trafficking or money laundering obtained “by them in their territory, by us in our territory unless commonly agreed upon.”

Mexico’s president touts keeping close ties with the U.S.

Of her meeting with Rubio on Wednesday, she said it was always important to maintain good relations with the United States.

“There will be moments of greater tension, of less tension, of issues that we do not agree on, but we have to try to have a good relationship, and I believe tomorrow’s meeting will show that,” Sheinbaum said. “It is a relationship of respect and at the same time collaboration.”

To appease Trump, Sheinbaum has gone after Mexican cartels and their fentanyl production more aggressively than her predecessor. The government has sent the National Guard to the northern border and delivered 55 cartel figures long wanted by U.S. authorities to the Trump administration.

The Trump-Sheinbaum relationship also has been marked by tension, including the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announcing a new initiative with Mexico to combat cartels along the border that prompted an angry denial from Sheinbaum.

Despite American officials singing her praises, and constantly highlighting collaboration between the two countries, Trump glibly said last month: “Mexico does what we tell them to do.”

Migration and cartels are a focus of Rubio’s trip

In announcing the trip, the State Department said Rubio, who has already traveled twice to Latin America and the Caribbean and twice to Canada this year, would focus on stemming illegal migration, combating organized crime and drug cartels, and countering what the U.S. believes is malign Chinese behavior in its backyard.

He will show “unwavering commitment to protect [U.S.] borders, neutralize narco-terrorist threats to our homeland, and ensure a level playing field for American businesses,” the department said.

Rubio’s first foreign trip as secretary of state was to Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, during which he assailed Chinese influence over the Panama Canal and sealed deals with the others to accept immigrant deportees from the United States. Rubio later traveled to Jamaica, Guyana and Suriname.

The senior State Department official said virtually every country in Latin America is now accepting the return of their nationals being deported from the U.S. and, with the exception of Nicaragua, most have stepped up their actions against drug cartels, many of which have been designated foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S.

The official also said progress has been made in countering China in the Western Hemisphere.

Lee and Janetsky write for the Associated Press. AP writer María Verza in Mexico City contributed to this report.

The Moroccan Sahara dispute is one of the most persistent and complex regional conflicts in North Africa, lasting over forty years. This ongoing disagreement involves the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front, which is supported by Algeria. The conflict centers on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national identity, making it a highly sensitive and crucial issue for regional stability.

In this ongoing dispute, China’s role as an emerging global power and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council is particularly significant. China’s involvement is strategically important due to its increasing influence in international affairs and its promotion of a multilateral approach to global stability. As a result, China’s position on the Sahara issue holds critical strategic importance, not only for Morocco but also for the broader regional and international community.

Recently, Moroccan scholars and researchers have been actively examining and questioning China’s stance on the Sahara conflict. They ask whether China recognizes the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco in 2007 as a valid political solution. There is also an ongoing debate about whether the Chinese Communist Party holds a neutral position or leans toward supporting one side. These questions are important because they influence how Morocco and its allies perceive China’s diplomatic approach.

Furthermore, experts are eager to determine China’s official stance on Morocco’s sovereignty over its southern territories. Given China’s foreign policy focus on non-interference and respect for territorial integrity, the analysis assesses whether China follows these principles in this situation or if its actions suggest a departure. Overall, China’s changing position in this dispute has significant implications for regional stability and the future diplomatic landscape of North Africa.  

First: The evolving strategic landscape of Moroccan-Chinese relations

Since the announcement of the strategic partnership between Morocco and China in May 2016, bilateral relations have experienced significant growth across various sectors. These include the economy, infrastructure development, energy projects, technological progress, and higher education initiatives. Morocco also actively participated in China’s ambitious “Belt and Road” initiative, which aims to enhance connectivity and foster economic cooperation among participating countries. Through this involvement, Morocco has established itself as a key financial partner for Beijing in North and West Africa, strengthening regional ties.

This expanding cooperation and engagement have transformed Morocco into a strategic launchpad for China’s broader strategy in Africa. The partnership has enhanced the country’s international reputation, presenting Morocco as a stable, open, and welcoming partner for foreign investment and diplomacy. Furthermore, this strengthened relationship has indirectly influenced China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue, where China has adopted a more cautious, pragmatic, and balanced approach, demonstrating a deeper diplomatic understanding and respect for regional sensitivities.

Second: China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue

China’s official position at the United Nations is neutral, consistent with its traditional foreign policy principles of non-interference and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

During discussions on extending the MINURSO mission’s mandate, China emphasizes the need for a realistic, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution. It advocates for the “continuation of dialogue” between the involved parties, refrains from harsh language toward Morocco, and seeks to maintain a balanced tone while not recognizing the Polisario Front as a sovereign state. Although this position seems “neutral,” it implicitly supports Morocco’s sovereignty.

Third: China’s position on the Moroccan autonomy proposal

In 2007, Morocco proposed its autonomy initiative as a practical political solution within the framework of national sovereignty for the ongoing conflict, and this initiative gained support from many major countries in Africa, as well as in the Arab and Western worlds, including France, the United States, Britain, Germany, and Spain.

Regarding China, it did not explicitly support or oppose the initiative but expressed indirect approval, noting that it “contributes positively to international efforts to find a solution to the conflict.” Since then, China has not opposed the Moroccan proposal but has shown tacit acceptance, especially when calling for “realistic and viable” solutions.

Fourth: Factors Affecting China’s Position

Many key factors and influences shape China’s stance on the Moroccan Sahara issue.

The principle of sovereignty and national territorial integrity: China rejects any efforts at secession, as it faces similar challenges within its territory, such as those in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet. Therefore, it tends to support countries that uphold their territorial integrity, although it has not explicitly stated this.

Relations with Algeria: Despite the increasing closeness between China and Morocco, Algeria remains a key energy partner for China, especially in the gas sector. This leads China to carefully balance its diplomatic efforts to protect its interests with both countries. Investing in regional stability: China believes that regional stability benefits its economic interests, so it prefers peaceful and stable solutions to disputes without supporting separatist movements that could cause chaos or armed conflicts.           

Fifth: Is China’s stance shifting?

This question poses a challenge for researchers and those interested in the Moroccan Sahara conflict, as increasing signs suggest a possible gradual shift in China’s stance in the years to come.

– Growing Chinese trade and investments in Morocco, including the Mohammed VI Smart City project, the Atlantic port in Nador, and solar energy initiatives.

– Enhancing strategic visits and high-level diplomatic meetings between China and Morocco.

– China’s diplomatic language, like “realistic solution” and “viable political solution,” hints at autonomy and is a key reference for the Moroccan autonomy proposal.

– China’s ties with the West, especially the U.S., are weakening, pushing China to build and diversify its alliances in the Global South, including with Morocco.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Chinese Communist Party’s approach to the Moroccan Sahara issue is marked by a kind of “thought-out neutrality,” balancing core principles of Chinese foreign policy with increasing strategic interests in Morocco. Despite China’s public commitment to the policy of “neutrality,” its diplomatic and economic actions imply implicit support for Morocco’s sovereignty over its deserts, or at least a practical acceptance of the autonomy initiative. Therefore, in light of international geopolitical shifts, Morocco has a strategic opportunity to strengthen its ties with Beijing and convince it that supporting the autonomy proposal does not conflict with its political and diplomatic principles but aligns with its vision of global stability.  

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

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

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

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

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

On June 16, the Ukrainian government started the process for opening bids for foreign companies to mine lithium deposits in the country. Among the interested investors is a consortium linked to Ronald S Lauder, who is believed to be close to United States President Donald Trump.

The bid is part of a minerals deal signed in April that is supposed to give the US access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth. The agreement was negotiated over months and was touted by Trump as “payback” for US military support for the Ukrainian military.

The final text, which the Ukrainian side has celebrated as “more favourable” compared with previous iterations, paves the way for US investment in the mining and energy sectors in Ukraine. Investment decisions will be made jointly by US and Ukrainian officials, profits will not be taxed and US companies will get preferential treatment in tenders and auctions.

Trump’s demand for access to Ukrainian mineral wealth was slammed by many as infringing on Ukrainian sovereignty and being exploitative at a time when the country is fighting a war and is highly dependent on US arms supplies. But that is hardly an aberration in the record of relations between Ukraine and the West. For more than a decade now, Kyiv has faced Western pressure to make decisions that are not necessarily in the interests of its people.

Interference in domestic affairs

Perhaps the most well-known accusations of Western influence peddling have to do with the son of former US President Joe Biden – Hunter Biden. He became a board member of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma in May 2014, three months after Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian president of Ukraine, fled to Russia during nationwide protests.

At that time, Joe Biden was not only vice president in President Barack Obama’s administration but also its pointman on US-Ukrainian relations. Over five years, Hunter Biden earned up to $50,000 a month as a board member. The apparent conflict of interest in this case bothered even Ukraine’s European allies.

But Joe Biden’s interference went much further than that. As vice president, he openly threatened then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko with blocking $1bn in US aid if he did not dismiss the Ukrainian prosecutor general, whom Washington opposed.

When Biden became president, his administration – along with the European Union – put pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give foreign “experts” a key role in the election of judges for Ukraine’s courts. As a result, three of the six members on the Ethics Council of the High Council of Justice, which vets judges, are now members of international organisations.

There was fierce opposition to this reform, even from within Zelenskyy’s own political party. Nevertheless, he felt compelled to proceed.

The Ukrainian government also adopted other unpopular laws under Western pressure. In 2020, the parliament passed a bill introduced by Zelenskyy that removed a ban on the sale of private farmland. Although polls consistently showed the majority of Ukrainians to be against such a move, pressure from the West forced the Ukrainian president’s hand.

Widespread protests against the move were muffled by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Subsequently, Ukraine’s agricultural sector became even more dominated by large, export-oriented multinational companies with deleterious consequences for the country’s food security.

Attempts to challenge these unpopular laws were undermined by attacks on courts. For example, the Kyiv District Administrative Court ruled that the judicial reform law violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and constitution, but this decision was invalidated when Zelenskyy dissolved the court after the US imposed sanctions on its head judge, Pavlo Vovk, over accusations of corruption.

The Constitutional Court, where there were also attempts to challenge some of these laws, also faced pressure. In 2020, Zelenskyy tried to fire all the court’s judges and annul their rulings but failed. Then in 2021, Oleksandr Tupytskyi, the chairman of the court, was sanctioned by the US, again over corruption accusations. This facilitated his removal shortly thereafter.

With Western interference in Ukrainian internal affairs made so apparent, public confidence in the sovereignty of the state was undermined. A 2021 poll showed that nearly 40 percent of Ukrainians did not believe their country was fully independent.

Economic sovereignty

In step with interference in Ukraine’s governance, its economy has also faced foreign pressures. In 2016, US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt urged the country to become an “agricultural superpower”. And it appears that the country indeed has gone down that path, continuing the process of deindustrialisation.

From 2010 to 2019, industry’s share of Ukraine’s gross domestic product fell by 3.7 percentage points while that of agriculture rose by 3.4 percentage points.

This didn’t benefit Ukrainians. UNICEF found that nearly 20 percent of Ukrainians suffered from “moderate to severe food insecurity” from 2018 to 2020, a figure that rose to 28 percent by 2022. This is more than twice as high as the same figure for the EU.

This is because the expansion of agriculture has favoured export-oriented monocrops like sunflowers, corn and soya beans. Although Ukraine became the world’s biggest exporter of sunflower oil in 2019, a 2021 study found that the domination of agriculture by intensively farmed monoculture has put 40 percent of the country’s soil at risk of depletion.

The 2016 free trade agreement with the EU also encouraged low-cost exports. Due to the restrictive provisions of the agreement, Ukrainian business complained that domestic products were often unable to reach European markets while European producers flooded Ukraine. Ukraine had a 4-billion-euro ($4.7bn) trade deficit with the EU in 2021, exporting raw materials and importing processed goods and machinery.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s industrial output collapsed under the blows of closed export markets, Western competition and neoliberal economic policies at home. According to the Ministry of Economy, by 2019, automobile production had shrunk to 31 percent of its 2012 level, train wagon production to 29.7 percent, machine tool production to 68.2 percent, metallurgical production to 70.8 percent and agricultural machinery production to 68.4 percent.

In 2020, the government under the newly elected Zelenskyy tried to intervene. It proposed new legislation to protect Ukrainian industry, Bill 3739, which aimed to limit the amount of foreign goods purchased by Ukrainian state contracts. Member of parliament Dmytro Kiselevsky pointed to the fact that while only 5 to 8 percent of state contracts in the US and EU are fulfilled with imports, the same figures stood at 40 to 50 percent in Ukraine.

But Bill 3739 was immediately criticised by the EU, the US and pro-Western NGOs in Ukraine. This was despite the fact that Western countries have a range of methods to protect their markets and state purchases from foreigners. Ultimately, Bill 3739 was passed with significant amendments that provided exceptions for companies from the US and the EU.

The recent renewal of EU tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural exports, which had been lifted in 2022, is yet another confirmation that the West protects its own markets but wants unrestricted access to Ukraine’s, to the detriment of the Ukrainian economy. Ukrainian officials worry that this move would cut economic growth this year from the projected 2.7 percent to 0.9 percent and cost the country $3.5bn in lost revenues.

In light of all this, Trump’s mineral deal reflects continuity in Western policy on Ukraine rather than a rupture. What the US president did differently was show to the public how Western leaders bully the Ukrainian government to get what they want – something that usually happens behind closed doors.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

June 21 (UPI) — Leaders of many European nations say they need to do more to develop technological infrastructure to ensure digital sovereignty instead of relying on services from global tech firms.

A recent forum discussion on the market dominance of global corporations assessed the “blurring of the boundaries between economic and political control” among European nations by tech firms.

A consensus of attendees at the ongoing Berlin Summit 2025 agreed European nations need to coordinate their efforts to develop infrastructures to “avoid path dependencies and long-term dependence on global platform players,” Forum New Economy reported on Friday.

“European countries are highly dependent on companies from the USA and China in a variety of technological infrastructures, from cloud services and social media to generative artificial intelligence,” Forum New Economy reported.

Such companies dominate European markets and are increasing their control of digital infrastructures, innovation networks, supply chains, data flows and research agendas.

An example is Microsoft earlier this year suspending the business email account for International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan.

The action occurred within months of the ICC issuing a warrant for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Although the tech firm suspended Khan’s ICC email account, Microsoft officials said it still is providing services for the ICC.

The company also announced their intent to support the digital sovereignty of European nations.

“We’ve operated in Europe for more than 40 years, and we have been and always will be a steadfast partner to Europe,” Microsoft Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella said in a social media post on Friday.

Microsoft is supporting European sovereignty and that of its respective nations with several existing and new tech offerings, Nadella said.

The services include Microsoft Sovereign Cloud, Data Guardian, External Key Management and Sovereign Private Cloud.

The existing and new offerings “bring digital sovereignty to all European organizations” and”unlock new sovereign ways to run private sovereign clouds,” Nadella said.

“These new offerings build on decades of pioneering work in sovereign cloud solutions by ourselves and to our partners,” he added.

Australia is approaching a moment of strategic reckoning in Asia. For years, it has maintained a posture of alliance loyalty to the United States while professing regional engagement. This balancing act is losing credibility.

As Warwick Powell, adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology and senior fellow at Taihe Institute in Beijing, observes, Australia is increasingly viewed by Southeast Asian nations not as a regional partner but as an actor pursuing extra-regional agendas. The habits of strategic ambiguity are no longer fit for purpose.

The region faces converging challenges: intensifying great power competition, accelerating climate disruption, and growing political fragmentation. Yet the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue revealed little recognition of this reality.

There was no serious discussion of climate as a security issue, and China chose not to attend. These silences at Shangri-La matter. As Admiral Chris Barrie has warned, climate change presents the most immediate threat to Australia’s security and stability. He has called for a new national climate intelligence capability and urgent reorientation of defense strategy.

Keating’s enduring observation remains relevant. Australia will not find its security from Asia, but in it. That vision has been sidelined by a bipartisan consensus around AUKUS, preserved more from inertia than necessity.

With a strong majority in the House and recent Greens defections in the Senate, the Albanese government no longer requires this alignment to govern. It now has the opportunity to reassess and reset.

This is Australia’s ASEAN moment. The choice is between continuing to defer to distant agendas or stepping forward as a credible, sovereign leader in the region. The time for inaction has passed.

Losing the Region—Powell’s Warning

Powell’s recent analysis delivers a pointed diagnosis of Australia’s standing in Southeast Asia. Regional governments increasingly view Canberra not as a constructive partner, but as a proxy advancing external interests.

As Australia strengthens its alignment through frameworks such as AUKUS and deepens its strategic dependence on the United States, it drifts further from the multipolar outlook now shaping the region.

This divergence was clearly visible during the Shangri-La talks in Singapore. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim reaffirmed ASEAN’s position of strategic non-alignment, stating, “We won’t choose sides.”

His remarks reflect a growing resolve among Southeast Asian nations to assert agency in the face of great power rivalry. The absence of China from the Dialogue was just as significant. Its decision not to attend signalled a breakdown in regional dialogue and rising mistrust of Western-led security platforms, even as the region confronts converging risks that demand cooperation.

This fragmentation leaves Australia exposed. While countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam are deliberately hedging, engaging the United States, China, and one another without locking into rigid blocs, Australia has placed itself firmly within a binary security framework. That decision undermines its relevance in a region that no longer sees power through Cold War lenses.

Powell’s warning is clear. Australia is at risk of losing the region not through neglect, but through strategic misalignment. Rebuilding trust will require more than reassurance. It will require a visible shift in posture, purpose, and the substance of Australia’s regional engagement.

The Keating Contrast—Abandoned Independence

At a time when Australia’s regional credibility is under strain, it is worth recalling the last prime minister to articulate a confident, independent vision for Asia: Paul Keating.

He recognized that Australia’s future would be shaped not by its proximity to traditional allies, but by its integration with the region. Keating argued that Australia must find its security in Asia, not from it, framing strategic independence as a prerequisite for regional respect.

Unfortunately, that vision has been sidelined. In its place, Australia has adopted a defense posture that prioritizes transoceanic alliance obligations over sovereign strategic design.

Despite ministerial rhetoric about listening to Southeast Asia, the Albanese government has largely maintained the security architecture of its predecessors. The bipartisan unity around AUKUS is being preserved not out of necessity, but out of habit.

The political landscape has shifted. With a firm parliamentary majority and shifting Senate dynamics, the Albanese government now governs from a position of confidence.

This presents an opportunity to chart a course independent of inherited defense orthodoxy, allowing for a recalibration of the nation’s strategic settings, and to realign its security posture to restore regional credibility.

Hugh White has argued that Australia must develop a self-reliant defense capacity. Keating reminds us that sovereignty is the foundation of regional trust. Both point toward the same conclusion. Australia must make choices grounded in its own interests, not inherited reactions, but sovereign priorities.

The Forbidden Threat—Climate Collapse as the Real Security Challenge

While Australia’s defense debate remains fixated on hypothetical conflicts and future weapons platforms, the most immediate and destabilizing threat in the region is already unfolding: climate disruption. Sea-level rise, collapsing food systems, water insecurity, and intensifying weather extremes are straining state capacity, regional cooperation, and economic stability. These risks are not abstract; they are accelerating.

Yet the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue failed to formally address climate security. No multilateral framework was proposed to tackle ecological disruption, and no regional initiative was announced to manage displacement or enhance food system resilience. That China chose not to attend the Dialogue only reinforced the lack of coordinated leadership in the face of shared risks.

This neglect of climate as a strategic issue reveals a deeper problem. Security planning remains anchored to twentieth-century concepts of threat, despite clear evidence that ecological systems now shape the landscape of conflict and cooperation. The regional security architecture is ill-equipped to meet these challenges.

Australia cannot lead in the region while ignoring the risks that matter most to its neighbors. Climate change is not peripheral; it is the context within which all other issues now unfold. Ecological security must be viewed not as an add-on to national strategy, but as its foundation.

Admiral Chris Barrie’s Climate Imperative

Admiral Chris Barrie has emerged as one of Australia’s leading voices on the intersection of climate change and national security. As a former Chief of the Defence Force, his warning is clear: the most immediate threats to Australia will not come from hostile navies but from disrupted ecosystems, broken supply chains, and mass displacement across the region.

Barrie has consistently argued for a broader conception of security. He calls for the establishment of a national climate threat intelligence capability and a strategic reassessment of defense investment allocation.

His emphasis is not on rejecting military preparedness but on adapting it to the realities of a climate-disrupted world. This entails reallocating resources toward civil resilience, logistics, infrastructure hardening, and anticipatory intelligence.

At the Shangri-La talks, United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Indo-Pacific allies to increase defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP.

Barrie would not dispute the need for greater investment. But he would challenge the logic behind it. More submarines or missile systems will not secure Australia against water insecurity, regional migration crises, or the collapse of vital infrastructure.

A modern defense strategy must be grounded in environmental foresight and regional interdependence. It must prepare for cascading, interconnected disruptions, not simply conventional threats. In this view, spending more is not enough. Australia must spend wisely and in ways that build adaptive, sovereign capacity to meet the challenges already unfolding.

A New Compact with Asia—Reimagining Leadership

In a previous article, I argued that the Coalition’s failure to engage meaningfully with regional climate diplomacy reflected a strategic blind spot that undermined Australia’s credibility. That failure created space for Labor to lead.

With a clear majority in the House and recent defections from the Greens in the Senate, the Albanese government is no longer dependent on inherited defense orthodoxy to govern. It has the mandate and the responsibility to chart a different course.

The unity ticket with the Coalition on AUKUS may have served a political purpose, but it is no longer essential. The region does not need alignment. It needs leadership—anchored in capability and trust. Australia must demonstrate that it understands the security needs of Southeast Asia and the Pacific and is willing to lead in response.

Meeting U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s call to lift spending to 3.5 percent of GDP is achievable. But that spending must serve Australia’s own strategic priorities. It should support Hugh White’s vision for a self-reliant force, and it must advance Admiral Chris Barrie’s call to prepare for the systemic consequences of climate change. Sovereignty now depends not only on defense capability but also on ecological readiness, civil resilience, and regional cooperation.

Ken Henry’s warning against short-termism remains relevant. His leadership of the 2012 Australia in the Asian Century White Paper reflected an understanding that long-term security must integrate economic, environmental, and strategic foresight. That insight is more urgent now than ever.

Australia could lead the development of a Climate Resilience Compact with ASEAN, focused on adaptation finance, early warning systems, and joint infrastructure investment. These initiatives would reinforce regional stability, build long-term credibility, and restore Australia’s standing as a partner rather than a proxy.

This approach would also align with French President Emmanuel Macron’s call in Singapore for a third way in regional affairs. His vision of a cooperative Eurasia, shaped by middle powers and not defined by major power rivalry, speaks directly to the moment of geopolitical recalibration Australia must now embrace. The tools are at hand. What is needed now is resolve.

Strategic Spending for a Different Century

Defense spending must increase—not to prepare for someone else’s war, but to build the strategic, ecological, and societal resilience necessary for the century we are already in. Australia needs more capability, but of a different kind.

That means investing in economic sovereignty, with secure supply chains and domestic capacity in critical industries. It means strengthening cyber and digital infrastructure to defend not only borders but also networks and information systems.

It also means preparing for climate-driven displacement and regional instability by building humanitarian logistics and planning for migration and crisis response. Civil defense and national infrastructure resilience must become core security priorities, capable of protecting communities from floods, fires, and system shocks.

Soft power matters too. Australia must rebuild regional trust through strategic communications, education, and long-term relationships, not just treaties and defense platforms.

And it must plan with the future in mind, embedding intergenerational thinking into every major investment, in line with what Henry has called for across national policy.

These are the foundations of a secure, sovereign Australia. More spending is needed, but it must serve the world we are entering, not the one we are leaving behind.

Conclusion—A Sovereign Future Begins in the Region

Australia stands at a point of strategic inflection. The architecture of the old order is fraying. The assumptions that underpinned decades of defense and foreign policy are no longer sufficient.

As Warwick Powell has warned, alignment without purpose risks diminishing Australia’s standing in the region it most depends on. The habits of subordination must give way to a posture of agency.

The region is evolving. Middle powers are asserting independence, ASEAN is upholding non-alignment, and the Indo-Pacific is emerging as a theater not just of competition but of ecological disruption and social upheaval.

The defining threats of this era—ecological disruption, infrastructure risk, and forced migration—are systemic, not hypothetical.

The Albanese government possesses electoral authority, parliamentary confidence, and regional goodwill. It no longer needs to defend inherited positions; it can lead. This leadership must start by redefining national security for the twenty-first century.

Barrie warns of ecological risk, while Henry emphasizes that serious nations plan for the long term. Hugh White reminds us that dependence is not strategy—self-reliance is. Paul Keating’s insight was not rhetorical; it was strategic: security is found in Asia, not from it.

Together, these voices advocate for a different kind of strength. One built on stewardship rather than subservience, cooperation rather than coercion, and the capacity to endure rather than merely to respond.

This is Australia’s ASEAN moment. To remain relevant in the Asian century, Australia must lead as a trusted regional partner, not as a tethered auxiliary. Drift is no longer an option; purpose must now prevail. Sovereignty begins not in reaction to threats, but in the purposeful shaping of what endures.

There are two things that can help make a sport popular: dynasties and rivalries. Horse racing is immune from dynasties because the sport is built mostly around breeding, which is where the money is. But, after Saturday’s 157th running of the $2 million Belmont Stakes, it certainly has a rivalry, if only for one year.

The winners of the Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes hooked up in a much-anticipated rematch of the Kentucky Derby with the same result — Sovereignty running down Journalism in deep stretch to etch his name in history as the 52nd winner of two legs of the Triple Crown.

Sovereignty’s three-length win leaves a lot of people asking “what if” Sovereignty had run in the second leg of the Triple Crown, the Preakness, and won. He would have been the 14th winner of the Triple Crown, although with an asterisk.

Both the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes were run at 1¼ miles because Belmont Park is undergoing a rebuilding project forcing the race to move to Saratoga Race Course in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The New York Racing Assn. opted to run the Belmont at 1¼ miles instead of the usual 1½ miles so the race wouldn’t start on a turn.

But that technicality didn’t dampen the spirits of Sovereignty’s trainer, Bill Mott, after the race.

“I think there are three really good horses and I’m glad he was able to come back and put in a race like he did in the Derby,” Mott said. “If we wouldn’t have won today, we would have taken a lot of criticism, but it turned out good. Sometimes you make the right decision and a lot of times you make the wrong ones, but today it really worked out well.”

Mott, and the colt’s owner Godolphin, decided that running in Belmont was the better move. It allowed Journalism, second in the Derby, to run and win the Preakness in a race for the ages, where he bulled his way through horses at the top of the stretch and ate up incredible ground in the final furlong to win by half a length. And a rivalry was born.

Sovereignty was the first horse to intentionally skip the Preakness after winning the Derby and then come back and win the Belmont. It was the first time in the last 22 Triple Crown races that there was a repeat Triple Crown race winner, a streak going back to Justify in 2018. The Triple Crown is restricted to 3-year-olds, meaning a horse only gets one year to compete in those races.

Sovereignty crosses the finish line ahead of Journalism to win the Belmont Stakes on Saturday.

(Seth Wenig / Associated Press)

The race ran pretty much to form with Rodriguez going immediately to the front with Crudo close by as they headed into the first turn. But as the horses went down the backstretch Journalism started to get engaged with Sovereignty close by. Entering the homestretch, Journalism poked his head in front as Rodriguez started to slow. Sovereignty was working his way to the outside of Journalism and with 200 yards to go moved swiftly to the front and won easily.

The top three finishers were exactly the same as the Derby with Baeza finishing third. He was followed by Rodriguez, Hill Road, Heart of Honor, Uncaged and Crudo. Journalism, Baeza and Rodriguez are all currently based at Santa Anita.

Sovereignty paid $7.00 to win.

After the race, winning jockey Junior Alvarado and Umberto Rispoli, who rode Journalism embraced while atop their horses.

“It’s about two great horses,” Alvarado said. “[Journalism] ran amazing again for coming back after the Preakness. He fought very hard but he didn’t make it easy for my horse.

“It’s unreal to be honest. There was a point in my career, I think probably four or five years ago when I kind of saw everything fading away, to be honest. And now here I am. It’s unbelievable.”

It was Alvarado’s first Belmont Stakes win. It was also his first Kentucky Derby win, although he was fined $62,000 and suspended two days for using his riding crop eight times on Sovereignty, two over the allowable number.

The race was run on what was labeled either fast or good after rain pelted the track all morning. It even resulted the postponing until Sunday of two Grade 1 turf races for safety reasons. The track and Equibase, the official statistician of racing, do not have to agree on the quality of track surfaces.

“Look, anytime good horses get space in between their races, they are very, very dangerous,” said Journalism’s trainer Michael McCarthy. “He [Sovereignty] is a very good horse, he trains up here, he’s been up here for a while, he’s in his backyard. Let’s hope everybody stays happy and healthy, and we’ll see him in Del Mar hopefully in November, in our backyard. I can’t say enough good things about that horse or about my horse. It has been a fantastic experience for me and my guys.”

Jockey Junior Alvarado, center, holds up the August Belmont Trophy after riding Sovereignty to victory in the Belmont Stakes.

(Jessica Hill / Associated Press)

McCarthy did not rule out running in the Travers at Saratoga later this summer.

Journalism appeared to have stumbled coming out of the gate but Rispoli dismissed it as a reason for the loss.

“[It was a ] perfect trip,” Rispoli said. “I was lucky to be on the outside today to take the chance. I would say he had a little bit of a stumble coming out of the gate, but I don’t think it would’ve been an excuse that affected anything.

“I had a good trip. I was running down the lane, Junior [Alvarado] was just coming by, easing past, so the only thing I can say is probably the freshness. He [Journalism] is a warrior, he ran in three legs. He [Sovereignty] ran in one and had five weeks to recover, but that’s no excuse. Obviously, I would say the fresh horse won, but he’s a great horse, he beat me already. He beat me twice.”

The rivalry may not be Affirmed and Alydar or Dodgers-Yankees or Lakers-Celtics. But it’s the best horse racing has had to offer in a few years and that’s something to take note of.

OTTAWA, Ontario — King Charles III said Canada is facing unprecedented challenges in a world that’s never been more dangerous as he opened the Canadian Parliament on Tuesday with a speech widely viewed as a show of support in the face of annexation threats by President Trump.

Trump’s repeated suggestion that the U.S. annex Canada prompted Prime Minister Mark Carney to invite Charles to give the speech from the throne outlining his governments priorities for the new session of Parliament. The king is the head of state in Canada, which is a member of the Commonwealth of former colonies.

“We must face reality: since the Second World War, our world has never been more dangerous and unstable. Canada is facing challenges that, in our lifetimes, are unprecedented,” Charles said in French.

He added that “many Canadians are feeling anxious and worried about the drastically changing world around them.”

It’s rare for the monarch to deliver what’s called the speech from the throne in Canada. Charles’ mother, Queen Elizabeth II, did it twice before in 1957 and 1977.

”I have always had the greatest admiration for Canada’s unique identity, which is recognized across the world for bravery and sacrifice in defense of national values, and for the diversity and kindness of Canadians,” he said.

Charles, on his 20th visit to Canada, noted that it has been nearly 70 years since his mother first opened Parliament.

“In the time since, Canada has dramatically changed: repatriating its constitution, achieving full independence, and witnessing immense growth. Canada has embraced its British, French, and Indigenous roots, and become a bold, ambitious, innovative country that is bilingual, truly multicultural,” the monarch said.

He said when his late mother opened a new session of Canadian Parliament in 1957, World War II remained a fresh, painful memory and said the Cold War was intensifying.

“Freedom and democracy were under threat,” he said. “Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination, and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the government is determined to protect.”

Charles also said that the Canadian government “will protect Canada’s sovereignty by rebuilding, rearming, and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces.

“It will stimulate the Canadian military industry by participating in the ‘ReArm Europe’ plan and will thus contribute, together with European partners, to trans-Atlantic security. And it will invest to strengthen its presence in the North, as this region, which is an integral part of the Canadian nation, faces new threats,” the king said.

Former Canadian Prime Ministers Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper were among those in attendance.

The speech isn’t written by the king or his U.K. advisers as Charles serves as a nonpartisan head of state. He read what was put before him by Canada’s government, but makes some remarks of his own.

Carney, the new prime minister and a former head of the Bank of England, and Canada’s first Indigenous governor general, Mary Simon, the king’s representative in Canada, met with Charles on Monday.

Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, but Carney has been eager to show the differences between Canada and the United States. The king’s visit clearly underscores Canada’s sovereignty, he said.

Carney won the job of prime minister by promising to confront the increased aggression shown by Trump.

The king said that Canada can build new alliances and a new economy that serves all Canadians. More than 75% of Canada’s exports go to the U.S. and Carney is eager to diversify trade.

The new U.S. ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, said that sending messages to the U.S. isn’t necessary and Canadians should move on from the 51st state talk, telling the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that if there’s a message to be sent, there are easier ways to do that, such as calling him or calling the president.

“There are different ways to ‘send a message’ and a phone call is only of them,” said Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University. “The king would normally add his own short introductory remarks and observers will be listening to them very carefully with the issue of Canada’s sovereignty in mind.”

The king said that among the priorities for the government is protection of the French language and Quebec culture, which are at the heart of Canadian identity.

“They define the country that Canadians, and I, love so much. Canada is a country where official and Indigenous languages are respected and celebrated,” he said.

“The government is committed to protecting the institutions that promote these cultures and this identity throughout the world, such as CBC/Radio-Canada.”

He also said the Canada must protect Quebec’s dairy supply management industry. Trump attacked the industry in trade talks.

A horse-drawn carriage took king and queen to the Senate of Canada Building for the speech. It will accompanied by 28 horses, 14 before and 14 after. He will receive the Royal Salute from the 100-person guard of honor from the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment before entering the chamber for his speech.

The king will return to the U.K. after the speech and a visit to Canada’s National War Memorial.

Justin Vovk, a Canadian royal historian, said the king’s visit reminds him of when Queen Elizabeth II opened the Parliament in Grenada, a member of the commonwealth, in 1985.

A U.S.-led force invaded the islands in October 1983 without consulting the British government following the killing of Grenada’s Marxist prime minister, Maurice Bishop.

Gillies writes for the Associated Press.