Japan hits out at China over close-call with fighter jets
Japan has condemned China 's 'close approaches' after Chinese J-15 fighters flew dangerously near to a Japanese P-3C patrol plane monitoring the Shandong aircraft carrier over the Pacific.
The Japanese defence ministry stated that the J-15 fighters tailed the surveillance aircraft for 40 and 80 minutes, respectively, with one instance of a jet crossing 900 metres in front of the P-3C's flight path.
Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said Japan raised serious concerns with China, urging them to prevent such incidents.
Japan delayed disclosing the encounters to interview the P-3C's crew and assess flight data, while also reporting that two Chinese aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, were conducting simultaneous operations in the Pacific.
China confirmed its carriers were training to test capabilities in far seas defence and joint operations, stating the exercises were routine and not targeting any specific country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US attacks on Iran redraw calculus of use of force for allies and rivals around globe
For US allies and rivals around the world, Donald Trump's strikes on Iran have redrawn the calculus of the White House's readiness to use force in the kind of direct interventions that the president said he would make a thing of the past under his isolationist 'America First' foreign policy. From Russia and China to Europe and across the global south, the president's decision to launch the largest strategic bombing strike in US history indicates a White House that is ready to employ force abroad – but reluctantly and under the extremely temperamental and unpredictable leadership of the president. 'Trump being able to act and being willing to act when he saw an opportunity will definitely give [Vladimir] Putin pause,' said Fiona Hill, a former Trump national security adviser and one of the principal authors of the UK's strategic defence review. While Trump has pulled back from his earlier warnings about potential regime change in Iran, going from tweeting 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' to 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' within 72 hours, he has nonetheless reinforced Russian perceptions of the United States as an unpredictable and aggressive rival that will not unilaterally abandon its ability to use force abroad. 'It has some pretty dire warnings for Putin himself about what could happen at a time of weakness,' Hill said. 'It will just convince Putin even more that no matter what the intent of a US president, the capability to destroy is something that has to be taken seriously.' It also shows a shift in the calculus in Washington DC, where hawks – along with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu – were able to convince Trump that launching a strike on Iran was preferable to pursuing negotiations that had not yet failed. That could have knock-on effects for the war in Ukraine, where Republicans and foreign policy hardliners have grown more vocal about Putin's attacks on cities and the need for a tougher sanctions strategy. Although he hasn't changed his policy on resuming military support to Ukraine, Trump is publicly more exasperated with Putin. When Putin offered Trump to mediate between Israel and Iran, Trump said he responded: 'No, I don't need help with Iran. I need help with you.' In the immediate term, however, the strikes on Iran are unlikely to have an impact on Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I don't see it as having a big impact on the Ukraine war, because although Iran was very helpful at the beginning stages in providing Russia with [Shahed] drones, Russia has now started manufacturing their own version and have actually souped them up,' said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, during a roundtable discussion. More broadly, Trump's attacks could undermine a growing 'axis of resistance' including Russia and China, given the pair's reluctance to come to Iran's aid beyond issuing strong condemnations of the attacks during security discussions under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) being held in China this week. 'It also shows that Russia is not a very valuable friend, because they're not really lifting a finger to help their allies in Iran and returning all the help that they've received,' Boot added. The strike could also have implications for China, which has escalated military pressure around Taiwan in recent months and has been holding 'dress rehearsals' for a forced reunification despite US support for the island, according to testimony from Adm Samuel Paparo, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command. Trump had promised a tough line on China, and many of his top advisers are either China hawks or believe that the US military should reposition its forces and focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia in order to manage China as a 'pacing threat'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Yet his previous hesitancy to use US force abroad could have emboldened Beijing to believe that the US would not come to the direct aid of Taiwan if a military conflict would break out – the one wild card in what would otherwise probably be a lopsided conflict between China and Taiwan. Experts cautioned that the stakes were far different, and the conflicts too far removed, to draw direct conclusions about Trump's readiness to intervene if a conflict broke out between China and Taiwan. Trump's administration appears further embroiled in Middle East diplomacy than it wanted and its pivot to focus on China has been delayed as well. And while some close to the military say the strikes have regained credibility lost after some recent setbacks, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan, others have said that it won't send the same message for military planners in Moscow or Beijing. 'We shouldn't conflate willingness to use force in a very low risk situation with deterring other types of conflicts or using force when it's going to be incredibly costly – which is what it would be if we were to come to the defence of Taiwan,' said Dr Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security during an episode of the Defense & Aerospace Air Power podcast. Around the world, US rivals may use the strikes to reinforce the image of the US as an aggressive power that prefers to use force rather than negotiate – a message that may break through with countries already exhausted with a temperamental White House. 'The fact that it all happened so fast, there wasn't much multilateral involvement or chance for diplomacy, I think, is something Russians can point to as an indication of, you know, imperialism to the global south,' said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, a fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings during a conference call. 'But also in their talking points to United States and western allies, they will definitely make a point of highlighting this as something great powers do, and in a way that normalizes Russia's language on its own [conflicts].
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The global south needs more than tinkering at a conference: debt forgiveness is the only fair way
It is 2025, and the architecture of economic power remains grossly tilted against the nations of the global south. Nowhere is this imbalance more acute – and more enduring – than in the debilitating impact of sovereign debt. From the vast countries of Africa to the scattered but strategically vital small island developing states (Sids) of the Caribbean and the Pacific, debt has become a modern form of bondage – the chains that restrict growth, sovereignty and the basic human dignity of nations struggling to define their own path to development. The statistics tell an alarming story. By the start of 2024 developing countries' public debt reached approximately $29tn (£21.2tn), rising from 16% of global debt in 2010 to nearly 30%. This escalation was fuelled by a convergence of a global pandemic and rising costs internationally. Today, average borrowing costs in Africa are almost 10 times higher than for the US. Why? International credit rating agencies will point at risk in Africa but this is perception, and a myth, not reality. Africa has consistently been the least risky continent for returns on the dollar when compared worldwide. But nevertheless, the impact is profoundly immoral as global south countries face prioritising debt servicing over essentials. One-third of these fragile countries have to allocate more to servicing interest – as much as 14% of domestic revenue – than to healthcare, education or climate resilience. For decades, these countries have been trapped in a cycle of borrowing to survive and repaying to remain 'credible' in the eyes of the international financial order. But the terms of this credibility have always been set elsewhere – primarily in western capitals, behind the closed doors of international financial institutions. These institutions, under the guise of technical neutrality, have in fact driven economic ideologies that have crippled the same countries they claim to help. As a young economics student in the 1980s, it was made clear to me that the true path was Thatcherism and Reaganomics, elevated to near-religious orthodoxy, both rooted in neoliberalism. Developing countries were told to liberalise, privatise and deregulate. Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), driven by IMF and World Bank conditionalities, imposed austerity measures that gutted public services and sacrificed the welfare of millions on the altar of fiscal discipline. Healthcare systems collapsed. Schools were closed. Public sector wages were frozen and trade unions deemed to be evil. And yet, we were told to believe this was 'development'. In truth, this was not development but dependency. During the 1980s and 1990s, in Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, these policies led not to prosperity but to deepening poverty, growing inequality and social unrest. In the Caribbean alone, SAPs contributed to lost decades of growth, political upheaval, and widespread disillusionment with the promise of independence. More than a few governments were ousted as a result of electoral backlash against IMF-imposed hardship. Foreign aid – so often touted as a benevolent solution – has played a double-edged role. Far from empowering states, it has often eroded their autonomy. Much of the aid has come with heavy strings attached: contracts that must go to western contractors; conditions that require the opening of markets before local industries are ready; and monitoring mechanisms that diminish sovereign decision-making. No wonder so many African leaders prefer the Chinese offers of lending. The result has been a facade of support, what the great activists Frantz Fanon or Kwame Ture, might have called a 'pitiful mimicry' of development – where countries are forced to pursue western-centric models of skyscrapers, luxury seafront resorts denying locals access to their beaches, and white elephant vanity projects destroying the environment, while their people continue to lack access to clean water, reliable electricity, or functioning hospitals. Development, at its core, should be about expanding the freedoms and capabilities of people. It should mean children can attend school without hunger. That mothers can give birth in safe conditions. That farmers can bring their goods to market on decent roads. That communities can trade, access clean water, and benefit from the natural resources of their lands without being poisoned by extraction. But the dominant model of development, dictated by external creditors and investors, has misconstrued these priorities. In its place, we see the proliferation of unsustainable debt-financed projects, many of which serve elite interests or foreign investors rather than local communities. Loans from the IMF and World Bank have frequently funded projects that do little to enhance long-term national resilience or productivity. And these loans, compounded by high interest rates and currency volatility, are serviced partially – through austerity and further borrowing – but rarely repaid. This is by design. Debt, in this system, is not a tool for development but a mechanism of control. Across the global south, the story is much the same. Multinational corporations, often operating with generous tax concessions and little oversight, engage in resource extraction that depletes environments and communities. They argue that their share of profits is justified by their investment in infrastructure and innovation. Yet these same companies contribute disproportionately to environmental degradation – through oil spills, deforestation, over-mining and pollution – without being fairly taxed or held accountable. One-sided trade agreements perpetuate this imbalance. The rules of global commerce, whether in mining, agriculture or tourism, are rigged in favour of the north. Risk assessments by international credit rating agencies, often influenced by outdated or racist perceptions, and opaque and biased criteria, further discourage equitable investment in the south. These assessments have more to do with where a country is located than with its actual economic potential or fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, the brain drain continues. The brightest young minds of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are drawn to wealthier countries in search of opportunity denied at home, leaving behind hollowed-out institutions and leadership vacuums. Local education systems produce excellence, only for it to be exported. The voices of our nations are also muted on the global stage. Despite holding the majority of the world's population, the global south holds a minority of voting power in institutions such as the UN. Decisions that affect our future are made without our meaningful participation but with token theatre. The UN holds its future of development financing conference in Seville, Spain, next week, it should be a moment for honest discussion on how the world can come together to support sustainable development, but already the US and the UK have blocked action on tackling the unfair burden of debt. When disasters strike – whether hurricanes, earthquakes, or the slow violence of the climate crisis – the burden of recovery falls overwhelmingly on us. The loss and damage fund, formally established at Cop27 in 2022 and only put into operation in 2024, has been long championed by vulnerable nations but still remains underfunded and under-prioritised. Yet for many Sids, the climate emergency is not a future threat – it is a catastrophe now. Shorelines are disappearing. Coral reefs are dying. Agriculture is failing. Lives are being lost. It is long past time for a reckoning. The economic architecture that dominates global development discourse has failed. It has failed the poor. It has failed the planet. And it has failed the very ideals of justice and solidarity upon which the post-second world war international system was supposedly built. We need more than tinkering at the margins. We need more than an extravagant conference in Seville can deliver. We need debt forgiveness – not as a charity, but as a historical rectification. We need concessional financing with reduced interest rates and transparent, fair assessments of investment risk. We need climate reparations through robust, predictable and progressive loss and damage funds. In times of force majeure, we need aid that empowers, not aid that entraps. Most of all, we need the freedom to define development on our own terms – rooted in equity, sustainability and sovereignty. Until these structural injustices are addressed, the global south may remain poor not because of a lack of potential or ambition, but because the rules of the game were never written for our success.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
South Korea ex-President Yoon probed over failed martial law bid
SEOUL, June 28 (Reuters) - South Korea's former President Yoon Suk Yeol answered a summons on Saturday by a special prosecutor under a threat of another arrest as an investigation intensified over the ousted leader's failed bid to impose martial law in December. Yoon, through his lawyers, has protested the special prosecutor's demands to appear for questioning under media attention as a violation of his rights and a tactic to publicly humiliate him. His lawyers said in a statement Yoon would respond to the investigation on Saturday and tell the truth. They described the investigation as "politically motivated" and "full of falsehood and distortion". Yoon did not answer questions from reporters as he entered the special prosecutor's office. The martial law attempt in December shocked a country that had prided itself on becoming a thriving democracy, having overcome military dictatorship in the 1980s. Yoon was later oustered in April by the Constitutional Court that upheld his impeachment by parliament. The special prosecutor sought a warrant to arrest Yoon for refusing to answer repeated summons earlier, but it was rejected by a court this week on grounds that he has since expressed willingness to cooperate. The special prosecutor was appointed in early June and has launched a team of more than 200 prosecutors and investigators to take over ongoing investigations of Yoon, a former top prosecutor who was elected president in 2022. Yoon is already on trial for leading the December 3 martial law declaration. He had been arrested in January after resisting authorities armed with a court warrant trying to take him into custody, but was released after 52 days on legal technicalities.
