Japan Complains After Chinese Fighter Jet Buzzes Patrol Plane
Tokyo has complained to Beijing after a Chinese fighter jet tailed a Japanese patrol aircraft over the weekend, flying as close as 45 meters from the aircraft, according to Japan's Defense Ministry.
The Chinese J-15 fighter jet tailed a Japanese P-3C patrol aircraft for about 40 minutes last Saturday over international waters of the Pacific Ocean, a Defense Ministry statement said. A Chinese jet also tailed a patrol craft for over 80 minutes the following day, it added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Climate Lawsuits Are Weakening America And Strengthening China
A Chinese flag flies in front of a coal fired power plant in Tianjin. China has been building new ... More coal-fired power plants, with construction starts reaching a ten-year high in 2024. (Photo by) Sen. Ted Cruz deserves credit for saying what too many in Washington are unwilling to admit. American energy security is under coordinated attack, and it is not just coming from progressive environmental activists. It's being encouraged and in some cases funded by our top geopolitical rival. On Wednesday, Sen. Cruz's Judiciary oversight subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine how China and America's climate litigation movement are working in parallel to undermine U.S. energy dominance. These efforts are being carried out under the banner of environmental protection and the clean energy transition, but the real goal is to weaken America's energy sector and give the advantage to China in global energy and manufacturing markets. Climate cases brought by plaintiff firms like Sher Edling are supported by a network of well-funded foundations and nonprofits that are unwittingly advancing the strategic interests of America's adversaries by weakening domestic energy production and increasing our dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains—particularly those dominated by China. There is growing recognition that this is a national security problem. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has warned that the Chinese Communist Party is actively working to 'directly and malignly influence state and local leaders to promote China's global agenda.' A recent report by national security nonprofit State Armor outlines how China has co-opted elements of the U.S. climate lobby to drive a transition away from fossil fuels. The result is greater U.S. reliance on Chinese-controlled technologies, minerals, and supply chains. China dominates the global markets for lithium, cobalt, solar panels, and battery components. It stands to gain enormously from U.S. policies that force a premature shift away from traditional energy sources. The report spotlights Energy Foundation China (EFC) which claims to be a nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco. In reality, its staff are mostly based in Beijing, and its operations align closely with the Chinese Communist Party's interests. EFC has spent millions supporting anti-fossil fuel groups in the United States, including the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC was the subject of a 2018 congressional inquiry over whether it should register as a foreign agent due to its ties to China. House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders last year warned that 'China has already attempted to influence United States policy and opinion through covert influence and by exploiting perceived societal divisions.' Their letter raised concerns about China-affiliated organizations influencing U.S. energy policy. A number of foundations have played a role in financing climate litigation efforts nationwide. A decade of litigation that most likely would not have happened without their financial backing. Major donors to this network include some of the largest philanthropic institutions in the country, including the Children's Investment Fund, MacArthur, Rockefeller, and Hewlett foundations. Yet few of these donors have accounted for the risk of foreign manipulation embedded in the organizations they fund. The influence campaign also extends into U.S. academic institutions. The National Natural Science Foundation of China, a government-run research entity, has published articles in American journals criticizing fossil fuels and accusing U.S. companies of deceptive practices. One of EFC's top communications directors previously held a position at that same Chinese foundation. At the same time, the revolving door between activist nonprofits and government agencies is raising serious ethical and legal questions. Ann Carlson, a senior official in the Biden administration, previously sat on the board of the Environmental Law Institute while also consulting for Sher Edling. This institute has hosted multiple educational events with Chinese organizations on 'climate litigation capacity building' aimed at influencing judges and shaping the legal landscape in both countries. Sen. Cruz is right to shine a spotlight on these connections. There is no shortage of outside forces fueling this wave of litigation, and his subcommittee is well positioned to expose them. The American people deserve transparency about who is bankrolling the litigation assault on domestic energy and to what end. This is not simply the work of environmentalists who believe they are saving the planet. It includes adversarial foreign actors with a vested interest in weakening U.S. energy leadership and shifting global influence away from the United States. President Trump's energy dominance agenda is helping restore American strength by unleashing domestic production and lowering energy prices. But the progress made is at risk. Foreign interference, opaque litigation funding, and activist-driven policy by lawsuit are undermining U.S. energy security. Prior administrations allowed this framework to take hold by ceding policymaking authority to the courts. China is more than happy to watch us tie our economy in regulatory knots while it builds new coal-fired power plants, locks in oil and gas contracts with OPEC+ members, and consolidates control over clean energy technologies. If we let this trend continue, we are handing Beijing exactly what it wants. We need stronger congressional oversight, new transparency requirements for nonprofits that receive foreign-linked funding, and a renewed national focus on producing energy here at home. That starts by recognizing that this is not just a political disagreement. It's a strategic threat to our country's future.
News24
2 hours ago
- News24
China's new trade offer looks generous. But SA must learn from the past
Chinese authorities may lower import tariffs for various goods from African countries. But SA needs to draw appropriate lessons from experience, says Wandile Sihlobo. South Africa's agricultural export focus means the country must always keep an open eye for any potential new market expansion. One country that has consistently been on our radar is China. The country's dominance in global agricultural imports, stable economy, large population, and current low penetration by South Africa's agriculture make it an ideal area for expansion. However, the nonexistence of a preferential trade agreement in agricultural products has disadvantaged South Africa relative to its competitors, such as Australia, Peru, and Chile, among others, which access the Chinese market at a tariff-free rate or with low tariffs. It is against this backdrop that we found the official announcement by the Chinese authorities that they would consider lowering import tariffs for various goods from African countries encouraging. While no official details have been released yet, we view the message as consistent with what the official representatives of the People's Republic of China have been communicating, particularly regarding agriculture. For example, in April, Wu Peng, current Chinese Ambassador to South Africa, stated that '…China and South Africa need to strengthen our bilateral trade and economic cooperation. Chinese government welcomes more South African agricultural and industrial products to enter the huge Chinese market.' China's signalling the willingness to absorb more South African agricultural products is only the first step in what will likely be a long journey, as trade matters generally take time. Ideally, the following steps should be a clear and pragmatic plan for reducing import tariffs and removing phytosanitary barriers that certain agricultural products continue to encounter in the Chinese market. Indeed, the work must be led by South Africa's Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition, as well as the Department of Agriculture, and at specific points, also the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. This will help ensure that China proceeds beyond statements to actual business collaboration. South Africa remains a small share in the Chinese list of agricultural suppliers, at about 0.4%. However, this current access in China is vital for the wool and red meat industry. China accounts for roughly 70% of South Africa's wool exports. There is a progressive increase in red meat exports, even though animal diseases currently cause glitches. The focus should be on expanding this access by lowering duties and other non-tariff barriers to encourage more fruit, grain, and other product exports to China. Still, it is essential to emphasise that the focus on China is not at the expense of existing agricultural export markets and relationships. Instead, China offers an opportunity to continue with export diversification. As we stated recently, the Trade Map data show that China is among the world's leading agricultural importers, accounting for 9% of global agricultural imports in 2024 (before 2024, China had been a leading importer for many years). The US was the world's leading agricultural importer in the same year, accounting for 10% of global imports. Germany accounted for 7%, followed by the UK (4%), the Netherlands (4%), France (4%), Italy (3%), Japan (3%), Belgium (3%) and Canada (2%). It is this diversity of agricultural demand in global markets that convinces us that South Africa's agricultural trade interests cannot be limited to one country but should be spread across all major agricultural importers. Importantly, the approach of promoting diversity and maintaining access to various regions has been a key component of South Africa's agricultural trade policy since the dawn of democracy. For example, in 2024, South Africa exported a record $13.7 billion of agricultural products, up 3% from the previous year. These exports were spread across the diverse regions. The African continent accounted for the lion's share of South Africa's agricultural exports, with a 44% share of the total value. As a collective, Asia and the Middle East were the second-largest agricultural markets, accounting for 21% of the share of overall farm exports. The EU was South Africa's third-largest agricultural market, accounting for a 19% share of the market. The Americas region accounted for 6% of South Africa's agricultural exports in 2024. The rest of the world, including the United Kingdom, accounted for 10% of the exports. In a nutshell, China's signalling the willingness to lower import tariffs is a welcome development. However, it will only become more substantial once more information becomes available. From a South African side, the relevant government departments should consider, through the local Embassy, sending an enquiry about unlocking this process. Ultimately, China is one of the focus areas in South Africa's long-term agricultural export diversification strategy, and any opportunity to further this plan should be pursued vigorously. Importantly, while China's offer looks generous, a country like South Africa needs to draw appropriate lessons from experience. Unilateral duty-free, quota-free market access is a double-edged sword: in the short to medium term, they can help a country increase the share of its exports in a significant market, but since these are not anchored in reciprocity, the largesse can disappear if there are frictions between the two parties, for example, over geopolitics. In short, non-reciprocal arrangements can lead to dependence and can easily be exploited by the benefactor as a means of political leverage to achieve strategic ends. While South Africa—and indeed African countries—should take advantage of this opportunity, we must aim to conclude a bilateral trade agreement with China that guarantees predictability and certainty and is durable. Wandile Sihlobo is chief economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (Agbiz).
Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Japan's Ishiba Calls for De-Escalation in Middle East
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba comments on the conflict in the Middle East after American bombers struck Iran's three main nuclear sites. "De-escalating the situation as soon as possible is what we think is the most important thing," Ishiba said on Sunday. (Source: Japan Pool via Associated Press)
