Death toll rises on Thai-Cambodian border on third day of fighting
26/07/2025
Taiwan votes in high-stakes recall election that might oust China-friendly party
Asia / Pacific
25/07/2025
Thailand and Cambodia clash: A border dispute fuelled by nationalism
Asia / Pacific
25/07/2025
Thai-Cambodian tensions escalate amid internal rift between Thai military & military-linked parties
Asia / Pacific
25/07/2025
Thai-Cambodian border fighting enters second day
Asia / Pacific
25/07/2025
More than 140,000 flee as Thai, Cambodian border clashes escalate
Asia / Pacific
25/07/2025
100,000 flee Thai-Cambodian border as troops clash for second day
Asia / Pacific
24/07/2025
Thailand-Cambodia border crisis traces roots 'to pre-colonial Southeast Asia"
Asia / Pacific
24/07/2025
EU-China ties hit 'inflection point' and calls climate chage 'a priority'
Europe
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
10 minutes ago
- France 24
Displaced Cambodians return home after Thailand truce
People who fled the Cambodia-Thailand border return to their homes in Oddar Meanchey province The territorial conflict, which ignited into open combat on Thursday, stems from an obscure cartographical dispute dating back decades, and the truce was sealed after interventions from world leaders including US President Donald Trump. Back in his Cambodian village of Kouk Khpos -- about 10 kilometres (six miles) from the Thai border -- 30-year-old farmer Lat Laem is grateful for his homecoming, and more quotidian concerns. Lat Laem said he was working in his rice field when the first blasts broke out, heralding the start of fighting © TANG CHHIN Sothy, TANG CHHIN SOTHY / AFP "I feel happy to be back to my newly built home so I can clean the floor," he told AFP, after a two-hour trip trailing his family home on a tractor through shuttered villages and empty streets. Lat Laem said he was working in his rice field when the first blasts broke out, heralding the start of fighting that was waged with artillery, rockets, jets and ground troops. At least 43 people have been killed on both sides in the deadliest clashes in years over a scattering of ancient contested temples on Thailand and Cambodia's 800-kilometre border. The truce came into effect at midnight on Monday, and while Thailand accused Cambodia of violating the pact with skirmishes, peace has generally prevailed. Hope intact When the strikes started raining down around his home, Lat Laem says he took refuge in his brother's bunker -- built because border residents are accustomed to sporadic strife. He was initially reluctant to abandon his simple white home, so recently constructed that he has yet to hold a house-warming. When the drumbeat of blasts became too much to bear, he fled -- joining around 140,000 others in Cambodia, and 180,000 more in Thailand who were forced to quit their homes. He left with his wife and daughter, his sister-in-law and her children on a tractor-drawn wagon known locally as an "iron cow" -- piled with a few scant belongings including cooking gear and a fan -- and headed to a shelter 50 kilometres away. While they were gone the border was scarred by destruction, as both sides traded fire and allegations about the use of cluster bombs, the targeting of civilian homes and even of hospitals. Evacuated far from his prized property, Lat Laem was consumed by anxiety it would be claimed by the conflict. "I was worried that my house that I spent all that money to build might be damaged -- that would upset me," said Lat Laem. "I could not sleep." But pacing the perimeter of his own patch of land back near the contested frontier he confirms it is free of shrapnel scars -- totally undamaged by the turmoil. "It was not hit, it is intact," he marvelled. "Now I am happy that it is all good." © 2025 AFP
Euronews
11 minutes ago
- Euronews
German politicians furious at von der Leyen over new EU-US trade deal
German politicians across party lines denounced European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday, calling for her resignation after she agreed to asymmetric trade terms that impose 15% US tariffs on EU exports while granting Americans duty-free access to European markets. The deal, struck under pressure from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz both in public and behind the scenes to avoid threatened 30% punitive tariffs, triggered unprecedented cross-party criticism in Germany, where lawmakers described the arrangement as a "capitulation" and "betrayal of Europe". Merz himself initially appeared satisfied. "With the agreement, we have succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-oriented German economy hard," the German chancellor said on Sunday. By Monday evening, however, Merz suddenly had a change of heart, expressing strong reservations. The agreed tariffs were now a "considerable burden" for the German economy, in the eyes of Merz. Under the agreement announced Sunday, EU products face 15% US tariffs while American goods enter Europe levy-free. For the EU, the US tariff rate for steel and aluminium imports will remain at 50%. The EU also committed to purchasing $750 billion in US energy and pledged $600 billion in European corporate investments in America. The deal led to an unprecedented wave of shock and outrage across all camps of German politics. Now, for the first time in a long time, all German parties are criticising the move. "Due to pressure from the German chancellor, the EU has agreed to a deal that abandons fundamental principles of rules-based global trade. Instead of long-term stability, the agreement creates uncertainty," Sandra Detzer from the Greens said, slamming the deal at the Bundestag. In fact, this agreement hits Germany particularly hard. According to the Institute for Economic Research (IfW), the deal will cost the German economy around €6.5 billion in terms of its GDP in the first year. "This is an inadequate compromise and sends a fatal signal to the closely interlinked economies on both sides of the Atlantic," warned Wolfgang Niedermark from the Federation of German Industries (BDI). A rate of 15% is set to have immense adverse effects, and the lack of an agreement for steel exports was an "additional low blow", he pointed out. 'Von der Leyen should resign for this worst deal ever' German EU politician Fabio De Masi (BSW) is also shocked. "This bad deal will do immense economic damage to Europe - it is a betrayal of Europe. Mrs von der Leyen should resign for this worst deal ever," he told Euronews. "While the US is to export duty-free to the EU, EU exporters will be subject to a 15% tariff. In addition, European companies are to make direct investments worth hundreds of billions of US dollars." "So Trump is hitting us with new punitive tariffs and, as business, we are filling his order books with purchases of dirty US fracking gas and defence equipment." EU politician Svenja Hahn (FDP) concurs. "15% tariffs are better than the threatened 30 - but the deal is not a success. At best, it is damage control," she told Euronews. The deal struck on Sunday represents "unbalanced to the detriment of the EU, contains no substantial successes" and weakens "rules-based trade". "Ursula von der Leyen has damaged the EU's reputation and economic strength with her weak conduct of negotiations, she must finally deliver: less bureaucracy, a strong internal market and real progress on free trade agreements, especially Mercosur," Hahn explained. German-Polish MEP Tomasz Froelich (AfD) told Euronews that the agreement reached is "not a deal", but "a capitulation of the EU", as there had been no serious attempt to exert pressure on the US, according to him. "This declaration of bankruptcy stands in stark contrast to the EU's otherwise grandiloquent behaviour on the international stage: confrontation in all directions, leaving hardly any options, especially in the area of energy imports," he explained. "I will work in the EU Parliament to ensure that this humiliating and ruinous agreement is prevented after all," Froelich, who serves as the first deputy head of the AfD delegation at the European Parliament, added. Governing parties lob criticism too Ruling CDU/CSU lawmaker Johannes Winkel stepped up to the plate. "This humiliation of Europe by the US must above all be a reason for self-criticism," Winkel warned on X. "Energy saving, bureaucracy, ESG instead of innovation, growth and technology. This politically motivated economic self-deprecation must end." Others representing the coalition partner SPD also dared to come forward with particularly harsh criticism. Bremen's mayor, Andreas Bovenschulte said on X: "The worst thing is how our EU leader is allowing herself to be humiliated into licking Trump's boots and flattering him as a 'tough - even fair - dealmaker'. Not a spark of honour in her body." The SPD politician later walked back on a part of his statement. "I take back the honour thing. That was a bit harsh," he said. In his hometown of Bremen, thousands of jobs at the ArcelorMittal steel plant are in jeopardy. Bavaria's Minister President Markus Söder (CSU) was honest and made it clear on Monday: things cannot go on like this. "The customs deal has prevented the worst," Söder said, "but the situation is now more difficult than before, especially for the automotive industry." "That's why it must be clear: There must be no additional taxes in Europe, as the EU is currently planning." Relief would now be needed to offset the tariffs. Söder criticised von der Leyen: "We simply need to do less of a Green Deal in Europe and more of an Economic Deal." Economic expert and longstanding German MEP Markus Ferber (CSU) also made it clear to the Bild newspaper: "If you consider that our offer was the complete elimination of all tariffs, then the deal is not a great success." "Fifteen per cent makes European products massively more expensive in the US and will hit the German economy particularly hard. Even if a non-agreement would have been even more expensive, a good deal looks different."
France 24
41 minutes ago
- France 24
Fossil-fuel pledge in EU-Trump deal sparks climate fears
As part of the framework agreed Sunday, the EU said its companies would buy $750 billion of liquefied natural gas, oil and nuclear fuels from the United States -- split equally over three years -- to replace Russian energy sources. Many experts believe the eye-watering figure to be unrealistic -- and point out that market dynamics rather than EU policymakers dictate companies' energy choices. Even on the supply side, Simone Tagliapietra of the Bruegel think-tank noted that the United States might not be able to build the additional export capacity within such a short time frame. Brussels insists the number was not plucked out of thin air to keep Trump happy, but was based on an analysis of energy needs as it phases out Russian imports because of the Ukraine war between now and 2027. The proposed increase would mean more than tripling annual energy imports from the United States -- about $70 billion last year -- and equate to well over half the 378 billion euros' worth of overall EU energy imports last year. 'Submission' A large part of the EU's additional billions would go to imports of LNG, which is transported in liquid state to European ports before being converted back to gaseous form and injected into the bloc's power network. The United States currently account for about half of the EU's LNG imports, ahead of Russia on 20 percent -- a figure Brussels wants to cut to zero to choke off income that helps fund the war in Ukraine. But environmental groups warn against a massive switch to American LNG extracted in part though hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which uses explosives to create cracks in rock formations to release oil and gas deposits. The highly polluting process comes with steep costs to both the climate and local environment, and is banned in a number of European countries. "The Commission risks replacing one disastrous dependency with another -- unplugging Putin's gas and plugging in Trump's," Greenpeace warned when the EU's phase-out plans were presented. Francois Gemenne, a policy expert who co-authored the UN's most recent IPCC report on climate change, in 2023, accused the EU of "submission" to Trump's pro-fossil fuel agenda. Elected on a promise to "drill, baby drill," the US leader is openly hostile to renewable energy efforts and lashed out again at windmills "ruining" the landscape before meeting with EU chief Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland last weekend. For Aymeric Kouam of the Strategic Perspectives think-tank, the energy deal with Trump is both "dangerous and counterproductive" and imperils its goal to become carbon neutral by 2050. "Tying Europe's energy future to the US as a main supplier undermines the bloc's energy security strategy, anchored in supply diversification, renewable energy development, and energy efficiency increase," he said. The EU pushed back at the charge on Tuesday. "This agreement does not contradict our medium- to long-term decarbonisation objectives or targets at all," a commission spokesperson told reporters of the three-year energy pledge. The Trump trade deal comes as the EU debates its 2040 emissions-reduction target, a key step towards its net zero goal. The commission has proposed a target of cutting emissions by 90 percent compared to 1990 levels, but with new flexibilities to win over reluctant member states. The EU says it has already cut climate-warming emissions by 37 percent relative to 1990, but its green agenda faces pushback with a rightward shift and rising climate scepticism in many European countries.
