ties

OAKLAND — Mayor Jerry Brown, who has projected an unconventional, even enigmatic, persona during 3 1/2 decades of public life, took a traditional step in his private life Saturday, marrying his longtime companion and manager of his upcoming campaign for state attorney general.

In a formal and quasireligious civil ceremony orchestrated by Brown himself and attended by almost 600 guests, the 67-year-old former governor exchanged rings with former Gap Inc. executive Anne Gust. It was the first marriage for each, and came after 15 years together.

Elements of Brown’s past, present and future converged in the half-hour ceremony packed with much of the Bay Area’s Democratic political establishment. It was held in the rotunda of a renovated, historic Civic Center office building, the sort of project Brown has promoted as a pro-development mayor. The wedding was laced with biblical readings and Gregorian chants in Latin that Brown knew all too well as a former Roman Catholic seminarian.

“I wanted the sound to be traditional,” Brown said afterward. “Most [of it] is 800 years old and nothing is less than 500.”

It was not exactly the sort of wedding people had come to expect from a man who many years ago was dubbed Gov. Moonbeam for living in Spartan fashion, driving a state-issued Plymouth and dating singer Linda Ronstadt. Nor was it the wedding of a man who studied yoga, volunteered for Mother Teresa’s home for the poor people in Calcutta, or more recently lived in lofts in gritty parts of this city.

“This is more than traditional,” former San Francisco mayor and onetime Assembly Speaker Willie Brown said after the wedding. “It would have satisfied anything the Kennedy clan would have put together. It’s California [political] history for 40 years.”

The attendees were like signposts on the political road traveled by the son and namesake of the late Gov. Edmund G. “Pat” Brown.

Jerry Brown, who grew up in San Francisco and graduated from UC Berkeley and Yale Law School, served as secretary of state from 1970 to 1974 and governor from 1975 to 1983. He also ran for president and headed the state Democratic Party. He was elected mayor of Oakland in 1999, and is seeking the Democratic nomination for state attorney general in 2006.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a former San Francisco mayor, presided over the wedding in a pink dress. The 47-year-old bride, in an ivory Diane von Furstenberg dress, was presented by her father, Rockwell T. Gust Jr., who once ran for lieutenant governor of Michigan.

Gust, who is a lawyer, and Brown, in a black suit with white shirt and tie, exchanged rings and vows. Then Feinstein declared them husband and wife, and they embraced and kissed to applause as singers performed the final chant.

Brown’s sister, Kathleen, a former state treasurer and candidate for governor, was present. So were many other Democratic politicians, including Oakland’s top city officials, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and former Gov. Gray Davis.

Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, Brown’s designated successor as mayor, was there along with people from the early years of Brown’s career, such as Orville Schelle, dean of the journalism school at UC Berkeley, and PG&E; executive Dan Richard, who served on then Gov. Brown’s staff from 1979 to 1982.

“One person just said we should have buttons saying ‘I’m from the ‘70s,’ … ‘I’m from the ‘80s’ … ‘the ‘90s,’ ” Richard said.

After the civil ceremony in Oakland, another set of nuptials was to be held at the San Francisco church where Brown’s parents were married and he was baptized.

Then Brown said the newlyweds plan to spend a couple of days on the Russian River — then take a belated honeymoon in Italy in August — after the June primary.

“We have a little campaign in the meantime,” he said.

Political analyst Matthew Dowd lost his contributor role at MSNBC because of comments he made about Charlie Kirk after the young right-wing activist was murdered Wednesday.

Shortly after Kirk was shot to death while speaking on stage at Utah Valley State University, Dowd told MSNBC anchor Katy Tur that “hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions.”

The angry reaction on social media was immediate after Dowd’s comments suggested that Kirk’s history of incendiary remarks led to the shooting.

MSNBC President Rebecca Kutler issued an apology Wednesday night.

“During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive, and unacceptable,” Kutler said in a statement. “There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.”

The network then severed ties with Dowd, according to a person briefed on the decision who was not authorized to comment.

“My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Charlie Kirk,” Dowd later wrote on his Bluesky account. “I was asked a question on the environment we are in. I apologize for my tone and words. Let me be clear, I in no way intended for my comments to blame Kirk for this horrendous attack.”

Dowd is a political consultant who served as the chief strategist for George W. Bush’s successful 2004 presidential reelection campaign. Dowd broke away from the Republican party due to his unhappiness with Bush’s handling of the Iraq war.

Dowd previously served as a political analyst for ABC News.

Indian leader’s remarks follow Trump reaffirming their personal friendship and downplaying his earlier remarks about ‘losing India’ to China.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi says ties with the United States remain “very positive”, after US President Donald Trump reaffirmed their personal friendship and downplayed earlier remarks about “losing India” to China.

“Deeply appreciate and fully reciprocate President Trump’s sentiments and positive assessment of our ties,” Modi said in a statement posted on X on Saturday, adding that India and the US “have a very positive and forward-looking comprehensive and global strategic partnership”.

Strains have emerged between the two longtime allies after the Trump administration imposed tariffs of up to 50 percent on Indian imports, accusing New Delhi of fuelling Moscow’s deadly attacks on Ukraine by purchasing Russian oil.

Speculation of a deepening rift further intensified when Trump remarked on Friday that India, alongside Russia, seems to have been “lost” to China. This came after Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a security summit in China.

Earlier this week, Xi hosted more than 20 leaders of non-Western countries – including Modi and Putin – for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in the Chinese port city of Tianjin. It was Modi’s first visit to China in seven years, signalling a thaw between the two Asian powers.

“Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China. May they have a long and prosperous future together!” Trump wrote in a social media post, with a photo of Modi alongside Xi and Putin.

When asked by reporters later on Friday about his remarks, Trump downplayed his earlier statement, saying he did not think the US had lost India to China.

“I don’t think we have,” he said. “I’ve been very disappointed that India would be buying so much oil, as you know, from Russia. And I let them know that.”

Trump insisted that he “will always be friends with Modi”, adding that “India and the United States have a special relationship“. “There is nothing to worry about,” he said.

Since his first term in office, Trump and Modi, both right-wing populists, have shared a strong bond.

But recently, Trump also appeared irritated at New Delhi as he sought credit for what he said was Nobel Prize-worthy diplomacy for brokering peace between Pakistan and India following the worst conflict in decades between the nuclear-armed neighbours in May.

India, which adamantly rejects any third-party mediation on Kashmir, has since given the cold shoulder to Trump on the matter.

Trump has also been frustrated at his inability to convince Russia and Ukraine to reach an end to their war, more than three years after Russian forces invaded Ukraine.

Brett Steigh, a Narbonne High graduate, booster, local businessman and gambler, claims he violated City and Southern Section rules by paying parents of high school football players to help level the playing field.

Steigh said during a Monday night appearance on the “Fattal Factor” podcast that he paid parents to secure transfers for Narbonne and St. Bernard before currently “helping” Bishop Montgomery. Narbonne in Harbor City is part of the Los Angeles Unified School District, while the Archdiocese of Los Angeles operates St. Bernard in Playa del Rey and Bishop Montgomery in Torrance.

While name, image and likeness policies allow for payment of players, recruiting transfer athletes and paying their parents as much as $50,000 remains a violation of the California Interscholastic Federation’s undue influence rules.

“I ain’t doing nothing that others aren’t doing,” Steigh said, alleging Orange County private schools, including national powerhouse Mater Dei, paid to secure transfer players.

A Mater Dei spokesperson has not yet responded to a request for comment in response to the allegation.

Steigh said he recruited players in 2018 and 2024 to Narbonne without the knowledge of the head coaches while paying parents to move. Both times, Narbonne was sanctioned by the City Section for rule violations.

He said he met with St. Bernard President Carter Paysinger in 2020 and agreed to support that school after former Narbonne coach Manuel Douglas took over the program. Douglas told The Times on Tuesday the payments reached close to $1 million between funding tuition for incoming freshman football players and improvements at the school. Douglas said school administrators were aware of the contributions.

Douglas and Steigh became the subject of FBI and IRS investigations after Douglas failed to report donations from Steigh and didn’t pay taxes on them. Steigh said they didn’t face any charges. Douglas resigned in 2020 and St. Bernard shut down its football program in 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Steigh said he has now been “supporting” Bishop Montgomery with the knowledge of the school’s president, Patrick Lee.

Bishop Montgomery had five transfers declared ineligible by the Southern Section and has received more than 20 transfers in its football program entering this school year. The school fired its head coach, Ed Hodgkiss, on Saturday.

In a text message to The Times, Lee denied any connection to Steigh.

“What he said was an outright lie,” Lee said. “Neither the principal nor I ever met this man, spoke to him, emailed him, texted him — nothing.”

The City and Southern Section commissioners are aware of the statements Steigh made during the podcast, with one telling The Times they are reviewing them.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is investigating why five Bishop Montgomery transfer students were declared ineligible for two years by the Southern Section for violating CIF bylaw 202, which involves submitting false information. The archdiocese declined to address questions about Steigh’s allegations.

“The Archdiocese of Los Angeles does not discuss details of an ongoing investigation,” a spokesperson told The Times. “Once we have more information, we’ll share that with you.”

Bishop Montgomery canceled the game it was scheduled to play Friday against Leuzinger High, the second consecutive week the team forfeited a game after calling off a contest against Mater Dei last week. If Bishop Montgomery cancels the remainder of its football season, the players on the roster might be free to immediately transfer to other programs if they get a hardship waiver.

Steigh said he agreed to appear on reporter Tarek Fattal’s podcast because he felt it was wrong that Hodgkiss — the Bishop Montgomery football coach — was fired.

“Pat knew what the deal was and now he’s backing away. Not fair,” Steigh said, referring to the Bishop Montgomery president.

Hodgkiss told The Times he has been advised by legal counsel not to answer any questions.

A Bishop Montgomery parent wrote in a letter to The Times that an influx of football transfers joining the program was given preferential treatment.

“Returning players were demoted, excluded from trips or quit,” the parent wrote. “Archdiocesan Catholic values appear secondary to short-term athletic exposure. Despite my June outreach to the school, no reply ever came.”

In the spring, The Times asked new Bishop Montgomery Principal Michele Starkey if she was aware of any involvement by Steigh in Bishop Montgomery’s program. She said no.

When Steigh was asked during the podcast why he would risk players’ eligibility by getting involved at Bishop Montgomery, Steigh said he felt previous administrations he worked with didn’t have the backbone to succeed at recruiting players.

“They told us it wouldn’t be … sorry I shouldn’t say that,” Steigh said of Bishop Montgomery’s leadership. “They’re basically supporting to win right now.”

When pressed for more details, Steigh said, “I can’t comment on any players at Bishop Montgomery.”

He said he has now decided to retire from supporting high school football programs.

Steigh said he previously was a traditional booster at Narbonne, making donations to help pay for helmets, uniforms and a washing machine.

“In 2018, I decided to play the game that everyone else was playing,” Steigh said. “The head coach at the time did not want to do this. It was all on me. I lied to him. These players just showed up. Why? I wanted to compete with the private schools. I felt it was unfair public schools being left behind.”

Four coaches of Marine League schools forfeited games against Narbonne last season while demanding a City Section investigation into whether transfers were paid to play for the school.

“All these rumors through all these years, it’s all true,” Steigh said. “It was all me.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are among the more than 20 world leaders attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit, which is now the world’s largest regional grouping by population.

The Beijing-backed bloc will convene on Sunday and Monday in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin, bringing together a diverse range of power brokers from across Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

Founded by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in 2001, the summit has shifted focus over the past two decades from Central Asian concerns to global matters.

More significantly, the SCO has become an essential part of China’s “parallel international governance architecture”, said Eric Olander, editor-in-chief of the China-Global South Project.

As Beijing assumes the mantle of the world’s second-largest superpower, the SCO has created spaces for dialogue and cooperation outside “the US-led international system”, Olander told Al Jazeera.

While the summit in Tianjin is largely symbolic, it is a valuable chance to bring together global leaders and bureaucrats in a forum where they can share “common grievances”, Olander said.

With the gathering set to be overshadowed by United States President Donald Trump’s trade war against much of the world – including many traditional allies of Washington – attendees are likely to have even more common ground.

Guests range from Putin, who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, to Belarus’s authoritarian leader Alexander Lukashenko and the likes of United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

Many of the attendees also have longrunning rivalries and border disputes, such as India with Pakistan, India with China, Saudi Arabia with Iran, and Central Asia with both China and Russia.

“There are complex dynamics at play here,” Olander said.

“Underneath the happy family photo is a lot of looking over shoulders,” he said.

‘Swing states’

The SCO has expanded its membership in recent years to include such political heavyweights as India, Pakistan, Iran and Belarus as full members, with Afghanistan and Mongolia joining as observers.

Official “dialogue partners” have also grown to 14 countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Qatar, Cambodia, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

The summit will also notably feature Southeast Asia, a region that Olander likened to the “swing states” in the great power competition between the US and China.

Five heads of state will attend from the region, including Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim and Indonesia’s Prabowo Subianto, as well as ASEAN Secretary-General Kao Kim Hourn.

Observers will be closely watching the dynamics between Chinese President Xi Jinping and India’s Modi, who have not met in seven years, said Claus Soong, an analyst at Germany’s Mercator Institute for China Studies who specialises in China’s global strategy.

India has traditionally been an ally of Washington, but it was hit this week by Trump’s 50 percent tariffs as punishment for its ongoing purchase of Russian oil.

The White House says India’s trade is helping to keep Russia’s economy afloat despite international sanctions, and with it, Russia’s war on Ukraine.

But the shared threat of US tariffs has helped improve relations between New Delhi and Beijing, which had plummeted in 2020 over a deadly skirmish between border forces in the Himalayas.

The two sides reached a deal on their remote frontier in 2024, but their relationship has remained frosty.

Analysts say China sees Trump’s trade war as a chance to ease India away from US-led political and military blocs such as the QUAD, a strategic security forum that includes Japan and Australia in addition to India and the US.

“The key is to look at how China [characterises] its relationship with India after the visit and how the relationship improves between China and India,” Soong told Al Jazeera.

Even subtle changes in language by Beijing carry important diplomatic signals, he said.

The SCO summit will also mark the first meeting between Putin and Xi since the Russian leader met with President Trump in Alaska earlier this month to discuss the Ukraine war.

Analysts will be listening for similar changes in language for how the two leaders describe the China-Russia relationship.

In 2022, just weeks before Moscow invaded Ukraine, China and Russia signed a “no limits partnership”, and Xi has played a vital role in propping up Russia’s economy since then.

This is a point of contention for New Delhi, as China has done far more to support Russia economically since the war started, but has not faced similar sanctions from Trump.

With so many dynamics at play behind the scenes, Daniel Balazs, a research fellow at the China Programme at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said the most likely outcome of the SCO will be a joint statement from all attendees.

China and Russia are expected to push talking points such as their opposition to “unilateralism” – a coded reference to the US – but most of the language will be watered down to make it palatable to all.

“The symbolism of actually achieving a joint statement is more important than the content of the statement itself,” Balazs said.

“What I would expect is to have a statement which is a very non-controversial one, in order to get everybody on board,” he said.

“Security and stability, comments about improving economic cooperation, and a couple of comments about the importance of multilateralism,” Balazs said.

Police officers stand guard in front of the Tiananmen Gate, in an area temporarily closed to visitors due to construction, in advance of a military parade marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, in Beijing, China, on August 20, 2025 [Florence Lo/Reuters]

Following the summit, guests will have a full day in China before travelling to Beijing for a massive military parade on September 3 marking 80 years since the end of World War II in Asia.

That extra day – September 2 – will be prime time for bilateral meetings, the China-Global South Project’s Olander said.

“Who will meet who on the second of September – that’s something to pay attention to,” he said.

More heads of state are due to attend the parade the next day, with additions said to include North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, and Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico.

India’s Modi is not expected to stay for the parade, although analysts say he may send a representative, such as his foreign minister.

The Mercator Institute’s Soong said the expansive guest list for the summit and the military parade will give Beijing a boost to its public image, especially among the Global South.

“This is how China demonstrates its friend circle – who can be China’s friend and who is willing to endorse China’s narrative,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The AI company’s new council comes a month after the Pentagon signed a deal with several AI companies to develop tools for defence.

The artificial intelligence company Anthropic launched a National Security and Public Sector Advisory Council in efforts to deepen ties with Washington and allied governments as AI becomes increasingly central to defence.

The San Francisco-based start-up announced the new panel on Wednesday.

The council’s launch underscores AI firms’ growing efforts to shape policies and ensure their technology supports democratic interests amid global competition.

Anthropic’s new effort comes as rivals, such as OpenAI and Google DeepMind, step up engagement with governments and regulators on AI safety, though neither has announced a dedicated national security advisory council.

Anthropic’s council brings together former senators and senior officials from the US Department of Defense, intelligence agencies, as well as the Departments of Energy and Justice.

It will advise Anthropic on integrating AI into sensitive government operations while shaping standards for security, ethics and compliance.

Its members include Roy Blunt, a former senator and intelligence committee member, David S Cohen, a former deputy CIA director, and Richard Fontaine, who leads the Center for a New American Security.

Other appointees held top legal and nuclear security roles across Republican and Democratic administrations.

Anthropic said the group will advise on high-impact applications in cybersecurity, intelligence analysis and scientific research, while helping set industry standards for responsible AI use.

The company plans to expand the council as partnerships with public-sector institutions grow.

Last month, the Pentagon established a $200m programme to develop AI tools for defence, highlighting the sector’s push to balance innovation with security risks. The initiative reflects intensifying global competition over AI capabilities, with Washington seeking to maintain an edge against rivals, such as China and Russia.

The effort, which includes Anthropic, OpenAI, Alphabet – Google’s parent company, and xAI – the AI company championed by Elon Musk.

HERMOSILLO, Mexico — A judge in Mexico said boxer Julio César Chávez Jr. will stand trial over alleged cartel ties and arms trafficking but could await that trial outside of detention, the boxer’s lawyer said.

Chávez’s lawyer, Rubén Fernando Benítez Alvarez, confirmed that the court imposed additional measures and granted three months of further investigation into the case. He described the claims against his client as “speculation” and “urban legends” following the court hearing Saturday in the northern Mexican city of Hermosillo.

If convicted, Chávez — who took part in the hearing virtually from a detention facility — could face a prison sentence of four to eight years, Alvarez said.

Chávez, 39, who had been living in the United States for several years, was arrested in early July by federal agents outside his Los Angeles home, accused of overstaying his visa and providing inaccurate details on an application to obtain a green card. The arrest came just days after a fight he had with famed American boxer Jake Paul in Los Angeles.

Since 2019, Mexican prosecutors have been investigating the boxer following a complaint filed by U.S. authorities against the Sinaloa cartel for organized crime, human trafficking, arms trafficking and drug trafficking.

The case led to investigations against 13 people, among them Ovidio Guzmán López — the son of convicted drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán — along with some alleged collaborators, hit men and accomplices of the criminal organization. Guzmán López was arrested in January 2023 and extradited to the U.S. eight months later.

Following the inquiry, the federal attorney general’s office issued several arrest warrants, including one for Chávez.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that Chávez was wanted since 2023 in Mexico but that he wasn’t detained because he spent most of the time in the U.S.

“The hope is that he will be deported and serve the sentence in Mexico,” Sheinbaum said in July.

The boxer, who is the son of Mexican boxing great Julio César Chávez, was deported by the U.S. on Tuesday and handed over to agents of the federal attorney general’s office in Sonora state, who transferred him to the Federal Social Reintegration Center in Hermosillo.

The high-profile case comes as the Trump administration is pressuring Mexico to crack down on organized crime, canceling visas of notable Mexican artists and celebrities and ramping up deportations.

Chávez has struggled with drug addiction throughout his career and has been arrested multiple times. In 2012, he was found guilty of driving under the influence in Los Angeles and was sentenced to 13 days in jail.

He was arrested last year on suspicion of weapons possession. Police reported that Chávez had two rifles. He was released shortly afterward upon posting $50,000 bail, on the condition that he attend a facility to receive treatment for his addiction.

Téllez writes for the Associated Press.

Israeli leader claims Australian prime minister’s legacy ‘tarnished’ by decision to recognise a Palestinian state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stepped up his government’s bitter diplomatic dispute with Australia, claiming that Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s legacy has been irrevocably blackened by his “weakness” towards Hamas.

In an interview with Sky News Australia scheduled to air on Thursday night, Netanyahu said Albanese’s record would “forever be tarnished” by his decision to recognise a Palestinian state.

“When the worst terrorist organisation on earth, these savages who murdered women, raped them, beheaded men, burnt babies alive in front of their parents, took hundreds of hostages, when these people congratulate the Prime Minister of Australia, you know something is wrong,” Netanyahu said in the interview, portions of which were posted online by Sky News before the broadcast.

Netanyahu’s accusation appeared to refer to a disputed statement that appeared last week in the Sydney Morning Herald, in which Hamas cofounder Sheikh Hassan Yousef was quoted praising Albanese for his “political courage”.

Following the report, Hamas publicly denied that any statement had been issued by Yousef. The Palestinian armed group, which governs Gaza, said Yousef had been in Israeli custody for nearly two years without means of communicating with the outside world.

Netanyahu’s broadside against Albanese follows an extraordinary missive earlier this week in which he claimed the Australian leader would be remembered by history as a “weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia’s Jews”.

On Wednesday, Australia’s Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke hit back at the Israeli leader, saying strength was “not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry”, though Albanese attempted to play down the spat by saying he did not take it personally.

Relations between Australia and Israel, traditionally close allies, have sunk to their lowest ebb in decades following Canberra’s decision to recognise Palestine.

On Monday, Australia said it had cancelled a visa for Simcha Rothman, a far-right member of Netanyahu’s governing coalition, amid concerns that a speaking tour he had scheduled in the country aimed to “spread division”.

Hours after that decision, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Gideon Saar said he had revoked the visas of Australian diplomats to the Palestinian Authority.

Expressing dismay at the tensions, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry said on Wednesday that it had written to both prime ministers to urge them to address their differences “in the usual way through diplomacy rather than public posturing”.

“The sum total of human wisdom would not have been diminished in the slightest if none of these public comments had been made,” the peak body for Jewish Australians said in its letter to Albanese.

“The Australian Jewish community will not be left to deal with the fallout of a spat between two leaders who are playing to their respective domestic audiences.”

Israel has come under mounting international pressure, including from some of its closest allies, over the scale of human suffering being inflicted by its war in Gaza.

More than 62,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel since it launched its war on Gaza following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attacks, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health.

Hamas killed about 1,200 people and took 251 people captive during its incursion into southern Israel, according to Israeli authorities.

India and China have agreed to step up trade flows and resume direct flights in a major diplomatic breakthrough, as the two most populous nations try to rebuild ties damaged by a 2020 deadly border clash and amid US President Donald Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy.

The two rivals also agreed to advance talks on their disputed border during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s two-day visit to India.

The rebuilding of India-China ties coincides with friction between New Delhi and Washington, following the recent imposition of steep tariffs on India by the Trump administration.

So why did India and China decide to mend their ties, and what steps were taken to address their border dispute?

What specific points were agreed?

Discussions covered a range of issues related to withdrawing tens of thousands of troops that both countries have amassed along their Himalayan border, boosting investment and trade flows, hosting more bilateral events, and enhancing travel access.

The Asian neighbours agreed to reopen several trading routes – namely the Lipulekh Pass, Shipki La Pass and Nathu La Pass. An expert group will also be established to explore “early harvest” steps (i.e. mini-agreements that can be implemented quickly before the conclusion of a more complex deal) to improve border management, a move India had previously opposed.

In the past, India was keen to avoid a situation where China secured partial gains up front, but where its territorial integrity concerns remained unresolved. India’s opposition has accused the government of ceding territory to China.

Elsewhere, China has reportedly agreed to address India’s concerns over its export curbs on fertilisers, rare earth minerals and tunnel-boring machines, according to Indian media reports.

But Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning, when asked about Indian media reports on the lifting of export controls, said she was not familiar with the media reports.

“As a matter of principle, China is willing to strengthen dialogue and cooperation with relevant countries and regions to jointly maintain the stability of the global production and supply chain,” she said in a media briefing on Wednesday.

New Delhi and Beijing also agreed to resume direct flights between the two countries, enhance river-sharing data and drop certain visa restrictions for tourists, businesses and journalists.

Who said what?

During his two-day trip, Wang Yi held meetings with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, encounters that will pave the way for Modi’s first visit to China in seven years at the end of August.

“Stable, predictable, constructive ties between India and China will contribute significantly to regional as well as global peace and prosperity,” Modi posted on X after his meeting with Wang.

Meanwhile, Doval said that China and India had achieved a “new environment” of “peace and tranquillity”. He added that “the setbacks that we faced in the last few years were not in our interest”, and “delimitation and boundary affairs” had been discussed.

A readout from China’s Foreign Ministry said Wang told Doval that “the stable and healthy development of China-India relations is in the fundamental interests of the two countries’ people”.

The two sides “should enhance mutual trust through dialogues and expand cooperation”, Wang said, and should aim for consensus in areas such as border control and demarcation negotiations.

Looking ahead, Modi is scheduled to travel to China at the end of this month to take part in the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – his first visit to the country since June 2018.

Why did relations sour in the first place?

Relations between the two countries plummeted in 2020 after security forces clashed along their Himalayan border. Four Chinese soldiers and 20 Indian soldiers were killed in the worst violence in decades, freezing high-level diplomatic relations.

The chill in relations after the deadly Ladakh clash – the first fatal confrontation between India and China since 1975 – also affected trade and air travel, as both sides deployed tens of thousands of security forces in border areas.

Following the border tensions, India imposed curbs on Chinese investments in the country. Months later, New Delhi banned dozens of Chinese apps, including TikTok, owned by China’s ByteDance, citing security concerns.

But despite the soaring tensions, the bilateral trade between the two countries did not see a drastic drop, and in fact, New Delhi’s imports from Beijing have grown to more than $100bn from $65nb in the financial year 2020-2021 as the country’s electronics and pharma industries heavily rely on raw materials from China.

On Monday, Wang said, “The setbacks we experienced in the past few years were not in the interest of the people of our two countries. We are heartened to see the stability that is now restored on the borders.”

For his part, Modi emphasised the importance of maintaining peace and tranquillity on the border and reiterated India’s commitment to a “fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable resolution of the boundary question”, his office said in a statement on Tuesday.

Why did the two sides decide to mend ties?

The geopolitical disruption caused by Donald Trump’s trade wars has helped create an opening for Asia’s leading and third-largest economies to try to mend their diplomatic and economic relations.

Indeed, the improvement in ties has accelerated since Trump increased tariffs on both countries earlier this year – particularly India, which had been pursuing a closer relationship with the United States in a joint front against China.

Moreover, India and the US have been haggling over free trade agreements for months, with Trump accusing India of denying access to American goods due to higher tariffs. China has also been locked in months-long trade negotiations with the US.

China and India increased official visits and discussed relaxing some trade restrictions and easing the movement of citizens since Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Kazan, Russia last October. In June, Beijing even allowed pilgrims from India to visit holy sites in Tibet while India issued tourist visas to Chinese nationals in a sign of improving ties.

But Trump’s decision to declare a 25 percent “reciprocal” tariff on India in June over the country’s imports of Russian oil – and his move a week later to raise it again to 50 percent – have hastened dramatic diplomatic realignment. Even the US’s close allies – South Korea and Japan – have not been spared by Trump’s tariffs.

Top Trump officials have accused India of funding Russia’s war in Ukraine, with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday accusing India of “profiteering”.

But China’s imports of Russian oil are even larger than India’s. And on August 12, the US extended a tariff truce on Beijing for another 90 days – staving off triple-digit tariffs. In turn, New Delhi has accused Washington of double standards over its tariff policy.

Suhasini Haidar, an Indian journalist writing in the newspaper The Hindu, said that the rationale behind the US sanctions on India is “dubious”. “The US has itself increased its trade with Russia since Trump came to power,” she wrote.

US Treasury Secretary Bessent, however, has defended Washington’s decision not to impose secondary sanctions against China, saying Beijing “has a diversified input of their oil”. Beijing’s import of Russian oil, he said, went from 13 percent to 16 percent while India’s went from less than one percent to over 40 percent.

Trump’s claim that he secured a ceasefire between India and Pakistan has further caused anger in India, which has refused to give credit to the US president for the May 10 ceasefire that stopped the five-day war between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Trump’s hosting of the Pakistan Army’s General Asim Munir has not helped the cause, either.

US-India relations have frayed despite Modi cultivating personal ties with Trump, particularly during his first term. The Indian prime minister was Trump’s first guest in his second term in February, when he coined the slogan “Make India Great Again” (MIGA), borrowing from Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) base. “MAGA plus MIGA becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

But Trump’s repeated attacks on India have poured cold water on “the partnership”, with Indian foreign policy experts fearing the ties are headed towards uncharted territory.

“At risk is three decades of India’s economic ascent, and its careful positioning as an emerging power, shaped in the shadow of US strategic backing,” wrote Sushant Singh, a lecturer in South Asian studies at Yale University, in the Financial Times. “Trump has shredded India’s road map; it could be replaced by strategic drift, realignment or eventual rapprochement.”

The turbulence in India-US ties has forced New Delhi to repair ties with its adversary China, which supplies military equipment to Pakistan and took the side of Islamabad during the recent war.

Amid Trump’s trade war, New Delhi and Beijing have joined forces to improve trade and people-to-people contact.

The new developments may also boost relations between members of the BRICS bloc – with India and China being the group’s founding members, along with Brazil, Russia and South Africa. India and China will host the 2026 and 2027 BRICS summits, respectively. Trump has also railed against BRICS nations, warning the member nations against challenging the US dollar.

HANOI — Although the war was hardly mentioned by either side, its presence hovered on the edges of almost every topic as U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Vietnam’s aging leadership met Friday to work toward closer economic and diplomatic relations.

There were the issues of Americans missing in action, and Vietnamese refugees and political prisoners. And there was the presence of Albright herself, on her first visit to Vietnam. Her black sedan with an American flag moving through the streets of what was once the enemy capital received no more notice than a commuter on the way to work.

“There are various things in life I never thought would happen,” she told American and Vietnamese workers at the U.S. Embassy, speaking of the implausibility of such a visit a generation ago. “This is one of them for sure.”

Albright brought with her a list of the steps Vietnam needs to take to achieve the closer economic ties that Hanoi wants with the United States. They include quickening the pace of economic reform, increasing cooperation on accounting for the 1,584 Americans still listed as missing since the war and bolstering respect for human rights.

To some observers, there was irony in the fact that the vanquished were attempting to set an agenda for the victors.

Vietnamese officials, State Department spokesmen said, were receptive to resolving the MIA issue but maintained that their record on human rights cannot be judged by U.S. standards.

“People in Vietnam are saying, ‘We’ve done everything the Americans have asked us to do in every area, and still they don’t give us the trade status we should enjoy as friends,’ ” Le Van Bang, Vietnam’s ambassador to the U.S., said in Washington last week.

Washington and Hanoi have been trying for months to work out a trade agreement that would lead to most-favored-nation status–which all but a few countries enjoy–for Vietnam. U.S. negotiators are seeking a reduction in trade barriers that now limit U.S. business and investment here in return for giving Vietnam more access to U.S. markets.

As a prerequisite for a new trading partnership, the United States wants Vietnam to speed up the processing of 16,000 cases involving Vietnamese who returned home from Asian refugee camps. Washington is considering the resettlement of some of them in the United States but cannot interview individuals until Vietnam has granted them exit permits. The Hanoi government has issued just 359 permits this year, though it had promised to process 1,500 refugees a month.

Albright also asked Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet to release three individuals among the estimated 60 political prisoners that Vietnam is said to be holding: Doan Viet Hoat, Nguyen Dan Que and the Buddhist leader Thich Quang Do.

In her discussions with Kiet and other officials, Albright said, she frequently raised the issues of religious, individual and press freedoms.

When her discussion with Kiet lasted longer than scheduled, she was asked at a news conference how much the war had figured into their talks.

“Interestingly enough,” she said, “there wasn’t a lot of discussion about the war. I very much got the sense . . . there was a great desire to look to the future rather than to the past.”

Significantly, Albright’s first stop in Hanoi was at the compound housing the task force trying to account for missing Americans.

Lt. Col. Jonathan Chase, the unit’s director, told the secretary he believes that Vietnam is making a “full faith” effort to resolve the issue. But he said the Americans need more access to documents and more cooperation in the field.

The recovery campaign costs the United States $10 million a year and is producing diminishing results as more and more service personnel are accounted for. The fate of all but 48 of the missing 1,584 Americans has been “determined,” Chase said, implying that they are believed to be dead.

In the past two years, 40 sets of remains have been identified. But none of the 95 “live sightings” of Americans since 1992 have produced positive results.

Albright’s trip, in pushing speeded-up economic and social reform, took on special significance because Vietnam’s Communist leadership–Kiet, 74; President Le Duc Anh, 76; and Communist Party General Secretary Do Muoi, 80–all intend to step down soon.

Some Western diplomats believe that Vietnam has appeared increasingly uncertain about how far and how fast it wants to move in liberalizing what 10 years ago was a rigid Communist structure. Thus, having a new generation of leadership would be considered particularly significant.

Kim Yo Jong denies claims that Pyongyang has removed propaganda-blaring loudspeakers at the inter-Korean border.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s powerful sister has accused South Korea of misleading the public about ties between the Koreas, denying claims that Pyongyang removed some propaganda-blaring loudspeakers from their shared border.

In a statement carried by the state-controlled Korean Central News Agency on Thursday, Kim Yo Jong blasted the claim by South Korea’s military as an “unfounded unilateral supposition and a red herring.”

“We have never removed loudspeakers installed on the border area and are not willing to remove them,” Kim said.

Kim accused Seoul of “building up the public opinion while embellishing their new policy” towards Pyongyang.

“It is their foolish calculation that if they manage to make us respond to their actions, it would be good, and if not, their actions will at least reflect their ‘efforts for detente’ and they will be able to shift the responsibility for the escalation of tensions onto the DPRK and win the support of the world,” Kim said, using the acronym of North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Such a “trick” is nothing but a “pipedream” and “does not arouse our interest at all,” Kim added.

“Whether the ROK withdraws its loudspeakers or not, stops broadcasting or not, postpones its military exercises or not and downscales them or not, we do not care about them and are not interested in them,” she said, using the acronym of South Korea’s official name, the Republic of Korea.

“The shabby deceptive farce is no longer attractive.”

In a statement quoted by local media, South Korea’s Ministry of Unification did not directly address Kim’s claims, but said it would continue its efforts toward the “normalisation” and “stabilisation” of inter-Korean ties.

Kim’s broadside comes after South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Saturday that Pyongyang had removed some of the loudspeakers, days after the South Korean side took down similar speakers on its side of the border.

North Korea is highly sensitive to criticism of the ruling Kim family, which has ruled the isolated state with iron first for nearly eight decades and is treated with God-like reverence in official commentary.

Since the inauguration of left-leaning South Korean President Lee Jae-myung in June, Seoul has been seeking rapprochement with its reclusive neighbour, after years of elevated tensions between the Koreas under the conservative ex-president Yoon Suk-yeol.

But Kim Yo Jong, who oversees the propaganda operations of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea, has repeatedly shot down the possibility of reconciliation between the sides.

In a scathing dismissal of Lee’s rapprochement efforts last month, Kim said there was no “more serious miscalculation” than believing that relations could be repaired “with a few sentimental words.”

In her remarks on Thursday, Kim also poured scorn on South Korean media reports suggesting that Pyongyang could use Friday’s summit between United States President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to communicate with Washington.

“This is a typical proof that the ROK is having a false dream,” she said.

“If a dream is dreamed very often, it will be an empty one, and so many suppositions will lead to so many contradictions that will not be solved. Why should we send a message to the US side.”

President Javier Milei of Argentina has proposed a new $1m initiative to strengthen relations between Latin America and Israel, ahead of an anticipated visit from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On Monday, the Genesis Prize Foundation — a group that offers an annual award to members of the Jewish community — announced that Milei, its most recent winner, would use his prize money to launch a new nonprofit, the American Friends of the Isaac Accords (AFOIA).

“AFOIA is a vehicle to promote Milei’s bold vision and encourage other Latin American leaders to stand with Israel, confront antisemitism, and reject the ideologies of terror that threaten our shared values and freedoms,” Genesis Prize co-founder Stan Polovets said in a news release.

The statement explained that the new nonprofit was inspired, in part, by efforts under United States President Donald Trump to normalise relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

During Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2021, countries like Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates agreed to establish diplomatic relations with Israel in a series of deals known as the Abraham Accords.

Milei’s efforts, meanwhile, come as Israel faces growing condemnation in Latin America over its war in Gaza, which United Nations experts have compared to a genocide.

Countries like Colombia and Bolivia have severed diplomatic ties with Israel since the start of the war in 2023, and Brazil recently became the latest nation to join a case against Israel brought by South Africa before the International Court of Justice.

“The Isaac Accords aim to mirror the success of the Abraham Accords by fostering diplomatic, economic, and cultural cooperation between Israel and key Latin American nations,” the news release said.

Pushing against a regional trend

The nonprofit will initially focus its efforts on three Latin American countries: Uruguay, Panama and Costa Rica. The news release credits regional analysts as saying those countries are “primed for enhanced cooperation with Israel”.

“These nations stand to benefit significantly from Israeli expertise in water technology, agriculture, cyber defense, fintech, healthcare, and energy,” it said.

But the Isaac Accords nonprofit ultimately aims to expand its mission to Brazil, Colombia, Chile and potentially El Salvador by 2026.

Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, applauded the establishment of the nonprofit and praised Milei as “setting an example for his neighbors in the region”.

But he acknowledged that several high-profile Latin American leaders have spoken out against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

“Given the hostility toward the Jewish state from some nations in the region, support of Israel by Latin American countries which are now on the sidelines is very important,” Danon said in the release.

Top leaders like Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva have forcefully denounced the human rights abuses unfolding in Gaza, where more than 61,500 Palestinians have been killed and many risk perishing from hunger.

The enclave is under an Israeli blockade that restricts the amount of food, water and essential supplies reaching residents. Last month, the UN warned of “mounting evidence of famine” and “catastrophic hunger” in Gaza.

“We cannot remain indifferent to the genocide carried out by Israel in Gaza, the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians and the use of hunger as a weapon of war,” Brazil’s President Lula told the BRICS economic alliance in July.

Milei embraces Israel

But while left-wing Latin American leaders like Lula take steps to distance themselves from Israel, Milei, a libertarian, has taken the opposite approach.

In June, for example, Milei confirmed his intention to move Argentina’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by 2026, despite conflicting Israeli and Palestinian claims on the city. Trump made a similar decision in 2018.

Milei has also praised Israel for its human rights record, including in a social media post this past May honouring the 77th anniversary of its establishment in 1948, which resulted in the mass displacement of Palestinians.

“I congratulate the State of Israel on its short but glorious 77 years of existence,” the Argentinian president wrote. “Like Argentina, Israel is a beacon of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.”

Milei, a Catholic, has even expressed interest in converting to Judaism, which would be a first for an Argentinian president.

His selection as the 2025 Genesis Prize winner is considered a first for a non-Jewish person, and it is tradition for winners to give the cash award to a cause they support.

But Milei’s pro-Israel stance has prompted public backlash in Argentina. On Saturday, thousands of protesters flooded the streets of the capital Buenos Aires to condemn Israeli actions in Gaza.

“We not only demand the opening of borders and the entry of humanitarian aid: We support the fight for a #FreePalestine. Zionism is not Judaism,” one group involved in the protests, JudiesXPalestina, posted on social media.

A test for the International Criminal Court

Many demonstrators also voiced opposition to reports that Netanyahu would visit Argentina in the coming weeks.

The Israeli prime minister’s arrival would test Argentina’s commitment to the International Criminal Court (ICC), of which it is a member.

In 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, on the basis that there are reasonable grounds to believe they had overseen war crimes in Gaza.

The ICC, however, relies on member countries to carry out such arrests. Argentina’s decision to welcome Netanyahu may therefore be seen as a rebuke to the court’s authority, further weakening its power.

WASHINGTON — As the Mother of All Dirty Campaigns gathers its facts and innuendo for November, probable Democratic nominee Bill Clinton is already so smeared and so ready to return fire that George Bush, in his clean white shirt of upright Republicanism and family values, can look forward to a savaging of his own. How much of this dirt sticks could be critically important.

Political logic, press reports and recent Democratic mutterings all suggest the main fire will be directed against three targets. First, the business ethics of the Bush family, three presidential sons and three presidential brothers, some with eyes for a marginally tainted deal. Second, Bush’s personal relationships–about which there have been snide hints, but no proof. And third, far more important in its national implications, the argument that, under this Administration, U.S. foreign policy–ostensibly the laurel wreath on Bush’s imperial brow–has become a gravy train for Bush family members and policy advisers, and for GOP campaign functionaries, who openly double as registered foreign agents.

Significantly, this last point is bipartisan. Vivid indictments have been made by GOP nomination rival Patrick J. Buchanan. Moreover, potential third-party candidate H. Ross Perot, a nominal Republican, is given to making harsh charges about Bush’s Persian Gulf connections. But on the first two subjects, the messengers will be Democratic and the motivation as political as Election Day itself.

The length and intensity of the trail of vaguely sleazy deals, apparent influence-peddling and periodic legal wrist-slappings left by Bush family members while their relative is in the White House is only the second-biggest surprise. The biggest is that George Herbert Walker Bush, Mr. Patrician Probity, let it happen.

Other Presidents have had the problem with several sons ( Franklin D. Roosevelt) or one brother (Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter), and should have served as cautionary examples for Bush–which makes his paternal and fraternal permissiveness so hard to understand.

The most recent sweeping indictment came in a March 27 column on the New York Times Op-Ed page portraying: 1) son Neil’s grubby conflict-of-interest involvement with the failed Silverado savings and loan (he was fined a relative pittance of $50,000); 2) son Jeb’s “unwitting” acceptance of improper political contributions; 3) brother Prescott’s highly paid role as adviser to a Tokyo investment firm identified by Japanese police as a mob front, and 4) son George Jr.’s 1990 dumping of $848,000 of Harken Energy Co. stock in possible violation of SEC insider-trading regulations. The only consolation for the President must have come in the apparent space limitation: There was no room for brother Jonathan’s 1991 violation of securities laws in Massachusetts and Connecticut, for which he was fined more than $30,000 and (in Massachusetts) barred from trading with the public for one year.

Based on previous Administrations, one or perhaps two family transgressions could be taken as typical. Bush’s problem is that Democratic campaign commercials will make the multiplicity of it come alive–perhaps portraying the Bushes as the First Family of Financial Flimflam–and throwing dirt as well on the motivations in the President’s relentless advocacy of capital-gains tax cuts.

Meanwhile, Democratic National Chairman Ronald H. Brown and others have been tee-heeing that, if the press discusses allegations about Clinton’s girlfriends, it should deal with kindred speculation about Bush. Well, maybe, but not necessarily. Comedian Mark Russell has joked on TV about Republican girlfriends named Jennifer being classier–they spell their names with a “J.” But back in 1988, similar rumors that major media were about to pursue an old Bush relationship never came true. But, for 1992, Clinton’s Gennifer Flowers problem could mean that, at some point, Democrats have little to lose from recklessness or even irresponsibility.

Paradoxically, however, the less titillating charges may be most serious–that, under Bush, the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs is starting to resemble the “bank” at the House of Representatives: a cash club for the favored and faithful. Alas, it is hard to overstate the ethical and historical transformation of U.S. foreign policy since the days of Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower or even Carter. No one had to examine Lend-Lease, the Marshall Plan or U.S.-Soviet detente for private economic deals involving the President’s family or the fingerprints of presidential campaign spokesmen who doubled as lobbyists for foreign interests and governments.

Compared with Bush, however, no previous President has had so many immediate family members involved in what can politely be called international consulting and deal-making. Until 1990, brother Prescott S. Bush Jr. was an adviser to New York-based Asset Management International, partly owned by West Tsusho, a Japanese investment company. In February, NBC News reported Prescott had stood to make $1 million by arranging U.S. deals for Tsusho, which Japanese police say is a front for the Inagawakai crime syndicate. Son George, meanwhile, is a significant shareholder–along with Saudi and South African investors–in a Texas company, Harken Energy. Just before the Gulf War, Harken won a major oil-drilling contract–one it had no obvious qualification for–from Bahrain.

Brother William (Bucky) Bush is an international consultant who has been advising Samsung, the Korean conglomerate, on U.S. investments. Son John E. (Jeb), running his father’s reelection campaign in Florida, is an international real-estate investor, who has received multimillion-dollar backing from Japan’s Mitsui Trust. Lawyers in a suit filed against the shadowy Bank of Commerce and Credit International have just identified Jeb as a potential witness because his company invested in real estate with a company controlled by a major BCCI borrower.

Several of the President’s closest foreign-policy advisers have been mired in financial conflict-of-interest situations. In 1988, Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III, approved policies that permitted U.S. banks to avoid having to write off a portion of their hefty loans to Brazil. Baker himself was a prime beneficiary of this policy, because stock in New York’s Chemical Bank, where he had a large chunk, quickly rose 40%.

Conflict-of-interest issues have even been raised about the Gulf War. In October, 1990, the President denied, no doubt justly, that son George’s Bahrain oil connection had any influence on his commitment of troops to rescue Kuwait. However, the President himself had a commercial connection with Kuwait. Many years earlier, as he told White House dinner guests, his company had built Kuwait’s first offshore oil well.

In a more speculative vein, there is the possible Washington pro-war leverage of several Gulf owners of BCCI, the shadowy international bank that helped finance Iran-Contra. Press accounts suggest that Sheik Kamal Adham, former head of Saudi intelligence, and Sheik Zayed ibn Sultan al Nuhayan of Abu Dhabi, the bank’s dominant shareholder, were both able to use BCCI as their piggy bank, which presumably gave them enormous influence in Washington. Zayed, meanwhile, has been treated with kid gloves at every point of the U.S. government’s continuing BCCI investigation.

Quite extraordinarily, Zayed’s chief Washington strategist happens to be James A. Lake, deputy manager of the Bush reelection campaign, who also butters his bread as U.S. public-relations adviser to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, one vehicle by which Zayed holds majority control of BCCI. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who has been chairing the Senate BCCI investigation, recently demanded Lake’s resignation: “I have to question the propriety of the President of the United States’ campaign being managed by someone who is simultaneously being paid over $200,000 every three months to represent BCCI’s biggest shareholder.”

Democratic researchers have thick folders to amplify these and other reported incidents. White House strategists may be making a mistake in assuming that voters now judging Clinton harshly won’t do the same for Bush.

Part of the explanation for the collapse of any serious conflict-of-interest yardstick to restrain the mingling of party politics, personal business and the for-profit modification of U.S. foreign policy is simple. Back in the mid-1980s, the line between private industry, private financial bankrollers and foreign policy was dissolved in the Iran-Contra blueprint to aid the Nicaraguan rebels. Since then, Persian Gulf bankers and Washington consultants have become de facto assistant secretaries of state and assistant U.S. trade representatives. In 1987, leading members of Congress involved in the Iran-Contra investigation voiced fears about the dangers of the privatization of foreign policy. They were prophetic.

Further proof of the privatization pudding has since emerged in the central role that registered agents or lobbyists for foreign interests have played in the 1992 GOP presidential campaign. But not everyone was pleased. Buchanan ran TV commercials and made speeches criticizing Lake’s status as a lobbyist for various Japanese interests, while the firm of Charles Black, another senior Bush adviser, also has foreign clients. Buchanan’s campaign manager said, “Bush has Japanese foreign agents running his campaign, (and) a Panamanian agent running the Republican Party.”

No other major nation was so permissive, but old barriers had dissolved, and with them, old proprieties. In late February, another presidential candidate, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey attacked the financial dealings of Bush and his family, noting that brother Prescott was “building a golf course” in China for the “butcher of Tien An Men Square,” and charging that Bush policy “is pretty closely tied to his own family interests.” In March, Perot, revealing his plans for a possible third-party presidential bid, spiced his anti-Washington rhetoric by proposing “a law making it a criminal offense for foreign companies or individuals to influence U.S. laws or policies with money.” Legislation like that would strike at the heart of both privatized foreign policy and Washington’s international influence bazaar. But Perot–the derring-do businessman who arranged for a commando raid into Iran to free two of his employees a decade ago–understands what Iran-Contra unleashed.

In a year of profound public disillusionment, the politics could be incendiary. Just as the House of Representatives’ check-bouncing scandal essentially represents Democratic institutional corruption–though 25%-30% of congressmen involved are Republicans–the executive branch’s moral breakdown on foreign-policy corruption and self-dealing is institutionally Republican–though a fair minority of Washington’s foreign agents and international consultants are Democrats.

If his eventual presidential rivals pick up the criticisms now beginning to swirl, Bush could find the 1992 foreign-policy debate turning ugly.

Move comes after Trump administration labeled Haiti’s Viv Ansanm gang a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’.

The administration of President Donald Trump has said it will deport Haitians living in the United States as legal permanent residents if they are deemed to have “supported and collaborated” with a Haitian gang.

The announcement on Monday is the latest move against Haitians living in the US amid the president’s mass deportation drive, and comes as the Trump administration has sought to end two other legal statuses for Haitians.

The update also comes as rights groups are questioning how the Trump administration determines connections to organisations it deems “terrorist organisations”.

In a statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not reveal how many people were being targeted or any names, saying only that “certain individuals with US lawful permanent resident status have supported and collaborated with Haitian gang leaders connected to Viv Ansanm”.

Following the determination, the Department of Homeland Security can pursue the deportation of the lawful permanent residents, also known as green-card holders, Rubio added.

As the Trump administration has sought to ramp up deportations, the State Department has been invoking broad powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act to attempt to deport people living in the US on various visas, including as permanent legal residents or students.

Under the law, the state secretary can expel anyone whose presence in the US is deemed to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

The administration has sought to deport four people under the law for their pro-Palestine advocacy, which the State Department repeatedly equated, without evidence, to anti-Semitism and support for the “terrorist”-designated group Hamas.

All four people are challenging their deportations and arrests in immigration and federal courts.

In the statement regarding Haitians on Monday, Rubio said the US “will not allow individuals to enjoy the benefits of legal status in our country while they are facilitating the actions of violent organisations or supporting criminal terrorist organisations”.

In May, the State Department labelled the Viv Ansanm and Gran Grif gangs “foreign terrorist organisations”, calling them a “direct threat to US national security interests in our region”.

That followed the February designation of eight Latin American criminal groups as “terrorist organisations”, including the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua.

The administration has used alleged affiliation with the gang to justify swiftly deporting Venezuelans living in the US without documentation under an 18th-century wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act.

Critics have said the removal flouted due process, with court documents indicating that some of the affected men were targeted for nothing more than tattoos or clothing said to be associated with the group.

Haitians singled out

The Haitian community living in the US has been prominently targeted by Trump, first during his campaign, when he falsely accused Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, of “eating” pets.

Since taking office, the administration has sought to end several legal statuses for Haitians, including a special humanitarian parole programme under former President Joe Biden, under which more than 200,000 Haitians legally entered the US.

In May, the US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end the special status.

The Trump administration has also sought to end temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians, a legal status granted to those already living in the US whose home countries are deemed unsafe to return to.

In late June, despite the violent crime crisis gripping Haiti, US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem declared that the Caribbean nation no longer met the conditions for TPS.

However, earlier this month, a federal judge blocked the administration from prematurely halting the programme before its currently scheduled end in February 2026.

Indonesia is apparently seeking a secure position in an unstable world situation. It fosters cooperation through partnerships for this purpose. In this situation, Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto has recently engaged in dialogue and cooperation with world powers. Last weekend, on 6-7 July 2025, Prabowo went to the summit in the BRICS meeting. They discussed economic orientation and a few of the members’ common interests. They called an emerging power against the old power that had ruled the world for decades. Indonesia seems to join the cooperation to get a huge benefit since it is the largest economy in the world, namely China, Russia, and India. As the 10th member of BRICS, Indonesia clearly focuses on economic development through cooperation among countries.

This is not just stopping there. Just a week later, on Sunday, 13 July 2025, Prabowo met and discussed in front of journalists cooperation between Indonesia and the EU in developing Indonesia’s economy. Not only for the economy but also for geopolitical reasons. Indonesia’s effort to make agreements, dialogue, and meetings with actors who highlight global issues recently seems to secure its position.

“We found out that Indonesia’s motto is ‘unity and diversity’; one of our core sentences in the European Union is ‘united in diversity.’” Ursula von der Leyen said they share common sense.

In the EU-Indonesia joint presser to officially announce their strategic partnership in an uncertain economy and a confusing world. The partnership between them is not only for their economic interest but also as a depiction of what countries should do amid the instability and confusing situation.

Europe favors this cooperation first to strengthen the supply chain of critical raw materials, which Indonesia has abundant resources for. Europe is also seeking power for the clean and digital transition. Moreover, Europe would like to set a goal on geopolitics and security, particularly in ASEAN. Indonesia clearly says that the European Union is a significant partner for Indonesia’s economy and geopolitical stability in the global situation right now.

“Partnership between Europe and Indonesia, also being a large part of ASEAN, I think will be a very important contribution to economic and geopolitical stability in the world. We consider Europe to be very important for us. That’s why we would like to see more European presence and more European participation in our economy,” said Prabowo Subianto.

Future action of this agreement EU-Indonesia, it potentially massive investment in mining since the EU mentions critical raw materials in Indonesia. Indonesia will please welcome the EU to invest in this sector to leverage economic development. Despite this future prediction, Indonesian societies will have easier access to Europe as Ursula von der Leyen said,

“I’m pleased to announce that the European Commission has adopted a decision on a visa cascade. It means that from now on, Indonesian nationals visiting the European Union for a second time will be eligible for a multi-entry Schengen visa. This will make it easier to visit, but also to invest, to study, and to connect.”

Both of them have a beneficial partnership with a long-term goal. It seems Indonesia does not want to lose its investor and 5th market for commodities. Also, Europe does not want to lose its core country to secure its position in Southeast Asia and its supply chain of raw materials, obviously for its goal of energy transition. To secure a position in an uncertain world is one of the most important things for the EU to maintain its leadership, especially in the energy transition.

To conclude, Indonesia’s action in making cooperation with the EU one of its strategies in this uncertain world. We can see that prior to this agreement, Indonesia had met the BRICS countries in a summit with the same purpose of economic development. This action is a reflection of Indonesia’s principle of action in foreign policy, called “bebas-aktif.” Bebas means “free” in English, which is the right of Indonesia to act however they want without relying on one side; aktif means “active.” Is Indonesia actively promoting peace throughout the world? We can see Indonesia’s effort, which is one reflection of this principle.

British foreign secretary pledges support for Syria’s new government after talks with interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

The United Kingdom has announced it is formally restoring diplomatic ties with Syria as British Foreign Secretary David Lammy travelled to the capital Damascus to meet with interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Al-Sharaa received Lammy on Saturday alongside Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, according to photos of the meeting released by the presidency.

“After over a decade of conflict, there is renewed hope for the Syrian people,” Lammy said in a statement released by his office, noting that the visit was the first by a British minister to Syria in 14 years.

“The UK is re-establishing diplomatic relations because it is in our interests to support the new government to deliver their commitment to build a stable, more secure and prosperous future for all Syrians,” he said.

Syria has been improving relations with Western countries after longtime President Bashar al-Assad was removed from power in December 2024 in an offensive led by al-Sharaa’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) armed group.

In April, the British government lifted sanctions against a dozen Syrian entities, including government departments and media outlets, to help the country rebuild after al-Assad’s fall.

Weeks earlier, the UK had dropped sanctions against two dozen Syrian businesses, mostly banks and oil companies.

On Monday, United States President Donald Trump signed an executive order to dismantle a web of sanctions against Syria that had crippled the country’s economy under al-Assad.

In a statement posted on X, al-Shaibani – the Syrian foreign minister – welcomed Trump’s decision, saying it would “open the door of long-awaited reconstruction and development”.

“It will lift the obstacle against economic recovery and open the country to the international community,” he said.

Syria’s new leaders have been struggling to rebuild the country’s decimated economy and infrastructure after nearly 14 years of civil war that killed half a million people.

July 3 (UPI) — Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested former middleweight world champion boxer Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. on Wednesday in Studio City, Calif., due to alleged cartel ties.

Chavez “has an active arrest warrant in Mexico for his involvement in organized crime and trafficking firearms, ammunition and explosives,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release on Thursday.

“It is shocking the previous administration flagged this criminal illegal alien as a public safety threat, but chose not to prioritize his removal and let him leave and come back into our country,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

“Under President Trump, no one is above the law — including world-famous athletes.”

DHS accuses Chavez of being a “criminal illegal alien” and said the Biden administration determined he was not an immigration enforcement priority despite knowing he had been “flagged as a public safety threat.”

Chavez legally entered the country on a tourist visa in August 2023 and is “believed to be an affiliate of the Sinaloa Cartel,” which is a designated foreign terrorist organization, according to the DHS.

The tourist visa expired in February 2025, and Chavez on April 2, 2024, filed an application to become a lawful permanent resident.

His application is based on being married to a U.S. citizen, who DHS says is connected to the Sinaloa Cartel through the now-dead son of cartel leader Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

DHS officials said Chavez made “multiple fraudulent statements” on the application, determined he illegally was in the United States and was removable as of Friday.

Officials with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in December had notified ICE that Chavez “is an egregious public threat.”

Despite the notice, the Biden administration on Jan. 3 allowed Chavez to re-enter and paroled him into the country at the San Ysidro, Calif., port of entry.

While in the United States, Chavez was arrested, charged and convicted of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and driving without a license in 2012.

A district judge in 2023 issued an arrest warrant for Chavez for alleged organized criminal activities involving firearms, ammunition and explosives, according to DHS.

He also was arrested on Jan. 7, 2024, by Los Angeles Police and charged with illegal possession of an assault weapon and manufacture of a short-barreled rifle.

Chavez lost a cruiserweight boxing match against Jake Paul by unanimous decision on Saturday.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties.

The decision comes after the court’s conservative majority found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger.

The court’s latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured to a naval base in Djibouti weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision.

The majority wrote that their decision on June 23 completely halted Murphy’s ruling and also rendered his decision on the South Sudan flight “unenforceable.” The court did not fully detail its legal reasoning on the underlying case, as is common on its emergency docket.

Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. “Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,” Sotomayor wrote.

Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face “imprisonment, torture and even death” if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war.

“We know they’ll face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival,” Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Thursday.

The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump’s Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration has called Murphy’s finding “a lawless act of defiance.”

The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can’t quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S.

Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden, didn’t prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country.

The men have been held in a converted shipping container on the naval base in Djibouti since Murphy found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow them a chance to challenge the removal to South Sudan. They have since expressed a fear of being sent there, Realmuto said.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.