&w=3840&q=100)
China, Philippines conduct competing photo ops, displaying their flags on a disputed sandbank
China and the Philippines have displayed their respective national flags in competing photos on a disputed sandbank in the South China Sea amid tensions read more
Amid the brewing tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, China and the Philippines have displayed their respective national flags in competing photos on a disputed sandbank in the South China Sea. The region in question is Sandy Cay, which is part of the disputed Spratly Islands. The displays from both nations came days after the US and the Philippines launched their annual joint military drills called 'Balikatan', or 'shoulder to shoulder'.
According to The Guardian, this year the drills will include an integrated air and missile defence simulation for the first time. On Thursday, the Chinese state media reported that the country's Coast Guard landed on the disputed reef two weeks ago, unfurled a flag and 'exercised sovereign jurisdiction'.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
On Sunday, the Chinese coast guard went on to accuse six Filipino personnel of 'illegally boarding' Sandy Cay, which Beijing calls Tiexian Reef, despite 'warnings and dissuasion'. China's spokesperson Liu Dejun said coast guard personnel then 'boarded the reef and investigated and dealt with it in accordance with the law'.
'We urge the Philippines to immediately stop its infringement,' Liu said, adding that the actions 'violated China's territorial sovereignty'. It is pertinent to note that Sandy Cay is just a few kilometres from Thitu Island, where the Philippines maintains a military outpost.
The Philippines hits back
On Monday, Philippine officials disputed China's claim that it had gained control. 'The facts on the ground belie their statements,' National Security Council spokesperson Jonathan Malaya said. 'It is not to the benefit of any nation if these things are happening, nor is it to the benefit of any nation if such irresponsible announcements and statements are released to the public and to the world.'
Meanwhile, the Philippines Coast Guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela said that its navy, coast guard and police personnel had deployed to Sandy Cay in four rubber boats and had 'observed the illegal presence' of a Chinese Coast Guard vessel and seven Chinese maritime militia vessels.
He went on to share footage of their own flag being displayed. Tarriela added, 'This operation reflects the unwavering dedication and commitment of the Philippine government to uphold the country's sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the West Philippine Sea.'
Over the years, Beijing has claimed sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea, waving away competing assertions from other countries in the region. Not only this, but China has also ignored an international ruling that clearly stated that its position had no legal basis.
At the opening ceremony in Manila for the joint US-Philippines military drills, US Marine Corps Lieutenant General James Glynn said the two sides would 'demonstrate not just our will to uphold our mutual defence treaty in existence since 1951 but our matchless capability to do so'.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'Nothing builds bonds more quickly than shared adversity,' he said, without specifying a common threat. Meanwhile, Beijing maintained that military manoeuvres 'undermine regional strategic stability' and accused Manila of 'collusion with countries outside the region'.
With inputs from AFP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
19 minutes ago
- India Today
Is the Indian dream of studying in the US over?
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated June 16, 2025)A chill wind is blowing through the hallowed halls of American academia, a wind carrying uncertainty and dashing the hopes of aspiring international students, particularly tens of thousands from India. The Trump administration, in a series of abrupt and unsettling moves, has begun to dismantle the welcome mat for global talent. The decision to pause new student visa appointments at US embassies worldwide on May 27, including in India, has plunged countless young scholars into a state of anxious limbo. This pause, officially justified by the need to expand the scrutiny of applicants' social media activity, is no mere procedural tweak; it signals a profound Indian students who have meticulously planned their futures around the promise of an American education, the dream now seems to teeter precariously on the edge of an opaque and shifting policy landscape, forcing many to question if the United States remains a safe or stable choice for their ambitions. One only has to look at the numbers to understand the implications of what is unfolding. In the 2023-24 academic year, the US hosted a record 1.13 million international students. Indian students accounted for 331,602, or around 30 per cent, of them, up by 23 per cent from the year before, while Chinese enrolment fell 4 per cent amid political tensions. A majority of the Indians choose STEM (scitech, engineering, mathematics) fields—42.9 per cent opted for maths and computer science, 24.5 per cent engineering that year. This is the talent that has helped fuel America's robust start-up ecosystem. While there is no nationality-wise break-up, estimates are that one in four US billion-dollar start-ups was founded by a former international student; immigrants have also co-founded nearly two-thirds of America's top AI (artificial intelligence) What makes the Trump administration's decision even more confounding is that the US risks losing the big bucks Indian students bring. According to the Indian Student Mobility Report, 2023-24 by global student housing marketplace University Living, Indian students were projected to spend $17.4 billion in the US in 2025, $10.1 billion on academic expenses alone, another $4 billion on accommodation, and the remaining $3.3 billion on other living costs. This is up from the $10.5 billion spent in 2022. 'International students fund American universities and enrich their intellectual climate,' says Timothy Gibson, president of the Virginia Conference of the American Association of University Professors. 'If the administration continues to view them through a xenophobic lens, the US risks losing its standing as a global leader in science and research.' The Trump administration has also put a freeze on several federal grants and funding programmes that facilitate international scholarships and student exchanges, the Fulbright and Gilman scholarship programmes among them. Another area of concern is the potential restrictions on the Optional Practical Training (OPT) programme, which currently allows international STEM graduates to work in the US for up to three years. If the administration decides to limit or dismantle OPT, it would drastically reduce the opportunities for foreign graduates to gain practical work experience, jeopardising their career prospects and deterring future Subscribe to India Today Magazine HIGH ANXIETYadvertisementMary Gogoi, head of admissions at Delhi-based education counselling firm eduVelocity Global, says, 'All these developments have bred anxiety in international students, as well as among American universities that rely on this cohort for cultural diversity and financial sustainability.' Nothing illustrates this better than the case of a 24-year-old girl student, who does not wish to be named. Admitted into a US university for a master's in computer science with specialisation in AI, her visa application was rejected for no clear reason, forcing her to reapply. Keen on only the US as she finds it the best for research and innovation, she is thinking of deferring her course by a year if visas are not scheduled Trump administration's latest directive—to vet social media accounts before sanctioning a student visa—is also adding to the consternation. Of course, as Rohin Kapoor, partner, education and skilling at global consultancy firm BDO India, points out, social media vetting is not unique to the US; Australia and Canada, too, screen the social media posts of applicants. The current US policy also builds on social media checks introduced in 2019. Now, however, the State Department has said it will use 'all available information' to identify 'antisemitic activity', 'pro-jihadist' views or 'anti-American' sentiments. Charles H. Kuck, founding partner of Atlanta-based law firm Kuck Baxter, which specialises in immigration laws, explains what this means. 'Social media vetting has existed for years,' he says. 'But now artificial intelligence reviews all postings. This violates the core American values of free speech and personal liberty; yet, the administration shows little concern for those principles when it comes to foreigners.' Poorvi Chothani, managing partner at immigration law firm LawQuest, also sees a stark departure from earlier policy. 'Previously, checks were random or suspicion-based,' she says. 'Now they're mandatory for all student visas.'advertisementHowever, things aren't easy even for those who manage to secure visas. They face constant scrutiny: US agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) now wants students to show proof of full-time enrolment and perfect attendance, with deportation a looming consequence for any slip. Pablo S. Bose, professor of Geography and Geosciences and associate dean of research and graduate education at the University of Vermont, points out how Trump's crackdown is not restricted to new enrolments. The administration has revoked more than 300 visas, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio claiming the real figure may be in the thousands. Many of the students are targeted for presumed links to pro-Palestinian activism or alleged online support for 'terrorism'. Another 5,000 students have been expelled for minor infractions, ranging from underage drinking to traffic these measures affect who universities can host, whether current students can stay, and if graduates can work,' says Bose. 'The confusion and anxiety created have already had disastrous consequences.' The mood of many Indian students enrolled in the US is one of fear and extreme caution, with most keeping a low profile and staying informed. Lubaina Kapasi, 19, a sophomore at the Savannah College of Arts, a private university in Georgia, has so far not felt the full brunt of the clampdown on international students compared to those studying in some public universities in the US. Yet, she says, 'It doesn't mean we are fully in the clear. International students, especially from India, give up a lot financially and personally to study here. To then be faced with policy uncertainty and visa complications feels like a nightmare.' THE POLITICS OF ITThe Trump administration's clampdown on international students has been cast as a matter of national security, yet it reeks of a very different, cultural, battlefield. It stems from a desire to police campus discourse, with the administration viewing many universities as excessively 'left-wing' and failing to curb pro-Palestinian activism, which it flatly equates with antisemitism or support for terrorism. Officially, the White House insists the heightened vetting is a 'commonsense measure' to ensure newcomers pose no threat. 'It's a privilege, not a right, to study in the United States,' says White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. The State Department says every visa decision is 'a national security decision'. Trump has suggested that foreign student enrolment at Harvard be capped at 15 per cent from the current 31 per cent, claiming that Americans are losing out. J.D. Vance, his vice president, shares the sentiment, arguing that foreign students 'take spots from American kids'.It is not fooling anyone. Gibson says this is less about immigration, more about tightening controls on universities. 'Trump views colleges with suspicion. The knowledge they produce challenges his worldview,' he says. Issues like climate change and Covid-19 exemplify this, where scientific findings trump Trump's claims. Prof. Rajiv Sethi of Barnard College, Columbia University, recalls how Vance once declared that American conservatism would triumph only by capturing or dismantling elite Mukherjee, Jerome L. Greene clinical professor of law, and director, Immigrants' Rights Clinic, Columbia Law School, says the policy 'seems driven by cruelty, white nationalism and racism', with visa decisions now vulnerable to prejudice arising out of race, religion and political views. This security narrative has expanded to include counter-terrorism and antisemitism. The Department of Homeland Security warns that 'antisemitic activity on social media' and 'harassment of Jewish individuals' may affect migrant visas. Visa eligibility is now linked to the administration's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also part of a wider ideological assault on universities deemed too liberal. Harvard, for instance, is accused by the Trump administration of fostering antisemitism and promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, which it sees as racist (see column Anatomy of a Standoff). Columbia University, on the other hand, risks losing its accreditation over claims it violated the civil rights of its Jewish students. LIMITED LEGAL RECOURSEAs international students, particularly from India, navigate the uncertainties thrown up by the Trump administration's new visa policies, they are exploring the legal avenues available to them, the specifics of the expanded social media vetting, and support structures. For individual students, the financial stakes are steep. B.K. Shukla of The Ivy League Edge, a college application consultancy, notes that university applications alone cost Rs 10,000-15,000 per institution, while education consultants typically charge Rs 5-6 lakh. Many students have already paid tuition fees or booked housing, sums that may not be refundable. The real blow, though, Shukla says, is in the opportunity cost. 'Losing a year means forgoing a degree, work experience and an early start to a career.' The risk is not just in the money, but also the Indian students whose visa applications have been put on indefinite hold, direct legal avenues seem severely limited. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the State Department is immune from lawsuits over the denial of a visa abroad under what is called the consular non-reviewability doctrine. 'When a person requests a visa for a country, it is a request to that government, not a right,' says BDO's Kapoor. 'A case filed in an Indian court will have no locus standi to direct a foreign government. The only recourse for students is to send a petition to the US embassy in India requesting an update on their visa status or seeking expedited processing.' Kuck offers some practical advice: 'Students can better prepare for an interview, ascertain the underlying reason for the denial, and bring evidence and verbal description of how to overcome that initial decision.' Indian consultants also recommend students erase even mild political posts or join 'safe' groups on social though the Trump administration's new student visa measures will primarily affect individuals and institutions, they may also have diplomatic reverberations. The Indian ministry of external affairs (MEA) has publicly urged the US to 'ensure timely issuance of student visas based on merit'. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, while acknowledging that 'a visa is a sovereign right of a country', emphasised this appeal and reiterated that 'the welfare of Indian students abroad remains a top priority for the Government of India'. A GLIMMER OF HOPEEven as the clouds of uncertainty hover, many see it as a temporary reset rather than a permanent barrier for the world's best and brightest. Vibha Kagzi, a Harvard alumna and founder of foreign education consultancy believes the 'American dream' is merely being recalibrated, not extinguished. 'Historically, policy shifts in international education have corrected themselves, especially with strong pushback from universities, industry leaders and lawmakers who value global talent,' she says. She also believes the US still offers unmatched advantages in scale, research funding, alumni networks and global Chaturvedi of study abroad platform Leverage Edu, thinks likewise. 'This isn't a shutdown,' he says, 'but a systemic reset in how the US engages with global talent. America has always bounced back, and these cyclical shifts often create more inclusive and outcome-focused systems.' Shukla believes top-tier universities will remain largely unaffected. 'The crackdown seems aimed at filtering those who misuse admissions at obscure institutions just to settle in the US,' he says. 'For highly skilled roles, like data analysis or cybersecurity, US still needs international talent.'There are also those who think the new vetting process of international student visas will improve immigration screening. University Living founder and CEO Saurabh Arora says, 'Scrutiny of social media handles, email addresses and phone numbers from applicants over the past five years will better verify identities, prevent fraud and ensure a safe environment for living in the US.' Aman Singh of GradRight, an agency that guides students on finding suitable colleges and funding, believes legitimate applications will continue to be processed. 'Students actively stoking anti-US sentiment may face trouble, and new vetting steps could slow decisions,' he notes. 'Yet, with sophisticated AI tools parsing global chatter, delays are unlikely to be drastic.' ALTERNATIVES TO AMERICAIn the long run, the Trump administration's visa clampdown threatens not just foreign students, but also the economic lifeblood of higher education in the US and its innovative edge. Many universities, especially those outside the Ivy League, depend on full-paying foreign students to subsidise domestic education. A drop in enrolment would plug this crucial revenue stream. Indian students are already exploring backup plans. They are considering deferring admissions, or looking at alternative countries. Bengaluru-based Nishant (name changed), who will complete his BTech in electronics engineering next May, is among those reconsidering their choices. 'People who have already finished their master's [in the US] still haven't found jobs,' he says. 'Is it worth it then to spend so much in the US when places like Germany offer more subsidised tuition?'Enrolment patterns of Indian students reflect the shift. Between 2023 and 2024, Germany saw a 49 per cent rise in Indian students, from 23,296 to 34,702, as per a response by Union minister of state of education Sukanta Majumdar in Parliament. Kalpesh Banker of EduShine Search Partners, an education strategy consulting firm, lists the advantages of other destinations. 'Canada has friendly visa policies and post-study work permits, Australia and the UK offer strong research and shorter courses. Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore and the UAE, too, are rising education hubs, with low fees, cultural diversity and robust facilities.'Meanwhile, the Trump administration's crackdown on international students signals more than just bureaucratic tinkering; it portends a potential reordering of America's relationship with global talent. Cloaked in the garb of national security, a legitimate concern for any country, these policies are sowing confusion and fear, eroding the very advantages that have underpinned American academic and innovative pre-eminence. A recalibration is indeed in order: one balancing security with openness and reaffirming the value of international students. Else the US could squander its role as a magnet for the world's brightest.—with Ajay SukumaranMust Watch
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
China and the US at the upcoming G7 summit
If the G7 once stood as the West's economic command centre, today it is a stage for the world's most consequential rivalry: The US and China. The 2025 Kananaskis summit arrives not as a celebration of unity, but as a crucible, testing both the G7's cohesion and its capacity to respond to a world reordered by Beijing's rise and Washington's anxieties. In this context, the G7 is forced to grapple with the reality that its own cohesion is increasingly defined by how it manages the China question. The summit's agenda, though broad, is inevitably shaped by the undercurrents of this strategic contest. Every policy proposal, from digital standards to global health, is now filtered through the lens of US-China competition. The G7's ability to adapt, innovate, and present a credible alternative to China's growing influence will be scrutinised more closely than ever before. Let's acknowledge the elephant in the room: The G7 was created in the 1970s to manage western economic crises, with the US as its undisputed conductor. Fast-forward to 2025, and the G7's very relevance is under scrutiny not least because of the US's own internal divisions and the relentless ascent of China. The G20 was once hailed as the premier forum for global economic coordination, precisely because the G7's old formula could no longer contain the ambitions of China, India, and the wider Global South. Yet, as the G20 has stumbled, mired in geopolitical paralysis, Russian aggression, and China's assertiveness, the G7 has tried to reassert itself as the last redoubt of liberal democracy and economic order. But with the US now led by a president openly sceptical of alliances, tariffs weaponized as policy, and unity fraying, the G7 faces an existential crisis at its own doorstep. The irony is thick: the very institutions designed to manage western dominance now find themselves wrestling with the limits of that dominance. The G7's attempts to reassert itself are both a response to and a symptom of a shifting global order, where old alliances are tested and new alignments are uncertain. The summit thus becomes not just a meeting of leaders, but a barometer of the West's willingness to reinvent itself in the face of profound change. The US enters Kananaskis less as the first among equals and more as the unpredictable uncle at the family reunion. President Trump's return to the summit table brings a familiar playbook: Scepticism of multilateralism, open disdain for the EU, and a willingness to use tariffs as both carrot and cudgel. The US's stance on the climate crisis has reversed course yet again, leaving Europe and Japan to pick up the slack. Intelligence-sharing, once a pillar of trust, is now a source of European anxiety. Trade, too, is a battlefield. Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs have injected uncertainty into global markets, and while G7 finance ministers might dance around the issue in public, the reality is that America's economic statecraft is now as much about managing allies as it is about confronting adversaries. The question for Kananaskis: Can the US still lead a coalition it seems intent on destabilising? The American approach to the summit is further complicated by domestic political pressures. With an eye on the upcoming election cycle, the administration is keenly aware that foreign policy gestures must resonate with domestic audiences. This dynamic risks turning the G7 into a stage for political signalling rather than substantive cooperation, with allies left to interpret shifting signals from Washington. The US's ability to balance domestic imperatives with global leadership will be a key subplot at Kananaskis. China, of course, is not at the table but it is everywhere in the conversation. The G7's agenda is saturated with China's presence: From concerns over the East and South China Seas, to the militarisation of the Taiwan Strait, to the ever-present anxiety over supply chains and critical technologies. The phrase 'free, open, prosperous, and secure Indo-Pacific' is now G7 code for containing China's influence. Yet, the G7's China policy is riven by contradictions. Europe's economic entanglement with Beijing tempers its hawkishness, while Japan and the US push for a harder line. The group will likely issue hortatory statements on peace, stability, and the rules-based order, but the real contest is about who sets the standards for Artificial Intelligence (AI), digital trade, and green technology. China's growing economic footprint in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia also complicates the G7's calculus. As Beijing deepens its Belt and Road investments and forges new trade alliances, the G7 faces the challenge of offering compelling alternatives. The summit's deliberations on infrastructure, debt relief, and technology standards will be shaped by the need to counter China's expanding influence, even as member States weigh the risks of economic decoupling. Here lies the G7's central paradox: It is united in its concern over China's rise but divided on the means and ends of responses. The US wants to de-risk supply chains and decouple where possible; Europe wants to hedge; Japan wants security guarantees without sacrificing economic ties. Meanwhile, China's absence from the summit is itself a statement: The world's second-largest economy is both the target and the test of the G7's continued relevance. This dilemma is compounded by the reality that no member can afford a full rupture with China. The interdependence of global supply chains, the need for cooperation on climate and health, and the risks of escalation in the Indo-Pacific all constrain the G7's options. The summit will thus be a study in ambiguity, with leaders seeking to project resolve while quietly managing risk. The outcome may be less about grand strategy and more about the art of muddling through. If the G7 is to avoid becoming a relic, it must do more than issue communiqués about shared values. It must reconcile its internal divisions, offer credible alternatives to China's Belt and Road, and set enforceable standards for technology, trade, and climate. The US, for its part, must decide whether it wants to lead a coalition or simply bully a bloc. The G7's future indeed, the future of western leadership may hinge on whether this summit is remembered as a turning point or a missed opportunity. The stakes could not be higher. The choices made at Kananaskis will reverberate far beyond the summit, shaping not only the trajectory of US-China relations but the architecture of global governance itself. If the G7 can rise above its divisions and articulate a compelling vision for the future, it may yet reclaim its role as a steward of stability and progress. If not, the world may look elsewhere for leadership perhaps to new coalitions, or to the very rivals it once sought to contain. Finally, the 2025 G7 summit is not just another diplomatic gathering; it is a stress test for the post-war order. The US and China may not sit at the same table, but their rivalry shapes every conversation, every alliance, every policy. The question for Kananaskis is not whether the G7 can contain China, but whether it can contain its own centrifugal forces long enough to matter. In the end, the G7's fate may rest less on who is in the room, and more on whether those present can agree on what kind of world they want to defend. In this pivotal moment, the G7's ability to adapt, innovate, and demonstrate unity will be watched not only by its adversaries but by a world searching for credible leadership. The summit's legacy will be determined by its willingness to face uncomfortable truths and make hard choices that will define the contours of global power for years to come. This article is authored by Maj Gen Dilawar Singh, senior vice president, Global Economist Forum, AO, ECOSOC, United Nations.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Crude oil prices rise sharply on second day amid escalating US-Iran tensions
CHENNAI: Crude oil prices rose sharply in the second day amid escalating US-Iran tensions, increasing concerns for India's trade deficit and inflation outlook, which remains sensitive to energy imports. The crude prices experienced a surge of ₹57 to ₹5,788 per barrel in futures trading on Thursday, as traders increased their positions due to strong demand in the physical market. On the Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX), crude oil for July delivery was up ₹57, or 0.99%, trading at ₹5,788 per barrel across 11,222 contracts. Key developments contributing to the price increase include US military movements, diplomatic tensions and market volatility. The US initiated a partial evacuation of its embassy in Iraq and authorized voluntary departures from Bahrain and Kuwait due to heightened security concerns. President Donald Trump expressed diminished confidence in reaching a nuclear deal with Iran, emphasizing that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. Intelligence reports suggest Israel may be preparing for a potential strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, further escalating unrest . These developments have caused significant volatility in energy markets, with analysts noting that the oil price rally might be an overreaction but still reflects the market's anxiety .
