WELLINGTON, New Zealand: A security alliance between China and the Solomon Islands has sent shudders throughout the South Pacific, with many worried it could set off a large-scale military buildup or that Western animosity to the deal could play into China’s hands.
What remains most unclear is the extent of China’s ambitions.
A Chinese military presence in the Solomons would put it not only on the doorstep of Australia and New Zealand but also in close proximity to Guam, with its massive US military bases.
China so far operates just one acknowledged foreign military base, in the impoverished but strategically important Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti. Many believe that China’s People’s Liberation Army is busy establishing an overseas military network, even if they don’t use the term “base.”
The Solomon Islands government says a draft of its agreement with China was initialed last week and will be “cleaned up” and signed soon.
The draft, which was leaked online, says that Chinese warships could stop in the Solomons for “logistical replenishment” and that China could send police, military personnel and other armed forces to the Solomons “to assist in maintaining social order.”
The draft agreement specifies China must approve what information is disclosed about joint security arrangements, including at media briefings.
The Solomon Islands, home to about 700,000 people, switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to Beijing in 2019 — a move rejected by the most populous province and a contributing factor to riots last November.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken responded in February by saying that Washington would reopen its embassy in the capital, Honiara, which has been closed since 1993, to increase its influence in the Solomons before China becomes “strongly embedded.”
Both China and the Solomons have strongly denied the new pact will lead to the establishment of a Chinese military base. The Solomon Islands government said the pact is necessary because of its limited ability to deal with violent uprisings like the one in November.
“The country has been ruined by recurring internal violence for years,” the government said this week.
But Australia, New Zealand and the US have all expressed alarm about the deal, with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern describing it as “gravely concerning.”
David Panuelo, the president of nearby Micronesia, which has close ties to the US, wrote an impassioned letter to Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare asking him to rethink the agreement.
He noted that both Micronesia and the Solomon Islands were battlegrounds during World War II, caught up in the clash of great powers.
“I am confident that neither of us wishes to see a conflict of that scope or scale ever again, and most particularly in our own backyards,” Panuelo wrote.
But the Solomon Islands police minister mocked Panuelo’s concerns on social media, saying he should be more worried about his own atoll being swallowed by the ocean due to climate change.
Sogavare has likewise dismissed foreign criticism of the security agreement as insulting, while labeling those who leaked the draft as “lunatics.”
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said the agreement aims to maintain the safety of people’s lives and property, and “does not have any military overtones,” saying media speculation on the potential development of a base was groundless.
Euan Graham, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies based in Singapore, said China has been pursuing such a port facility for some five years as it aims to expand its naval presence in the South Pacific as part of Beijing’s long-game of seeking to become the dominant regional power.
“If they want to break out into the Pacific, at some point they will need the logistics capability to support that presence,” Graham said. “We’re not talking about war plans here; this is really about extending their presence and influence.”
Unlike the base built in Djibouti, where China has commercial interests in the region to protect, Graham said any operation in the Solomon Islands would likely be less substantial.
“It’s quite a subtle and interesting geopolitical game that’s emerged in the South Pacific,” he added. “And I think the Chinese have been very successful, if you like, in outflanking the United States and Australia in an influence competition, not a military competition.”
China’s base in Djibouti was opened in 2017. China doesn’t call it a base, but rather a support facility for its naval operations fending off piracy in the Gulf of Aden and for its African peacekeeping operations. It boasts a 400-meter (1,300-foot) runway and a pier big enough to dock either of China’s two operating aircraft carriers.
The base, with 2,000 personnel, allows China to position supplies, troops and equipment in a strategically crucial region, while also keeping an eye on US forces that are stationed nearby.
Chief among other potential base candidates is Cambodia, whose authoritarian leader Hun Sen has long been a trusted Chinese ally and which reportedly signed a secret 2019 agreement permitting the establishment of a Chinese base.
China is dredging the harbor at Ream Naval Base to allow ships larger than any Cambodia possesses to dock, and is building new infrastructure to replace a US-built naval tactical headquarters. A Chinese base in Cambodia would establish a chokepoint in the Gulf of Thailand close to the crucial Malacca Strait.
China has also funded projects at Gwadar in Pakistan, another close ally, and in Sri Lanka, where Chinese infrastructure lending has forced the government to hand over control of the southern port of Hambantota.
Especially intriguing has been an alleged Chinese push to establish a base in the West African nation of Equatorial Guinea. That would give China a presence on the Atlantic opposite the east coast of the continental United States as well as in an important African oil-producing region.
“China has seized opportunities to expand its influence at a time when the US and other countries have not been as engaged economically in the Pacific islands,” said Elizabeth Wishnick, an expert on Chinese foreign policy at Montclair State University in New Jersey.
About 80 years ago in the Solomon Islands, the US military began its famous “island hopping” campaign of World War II to take back Pacific islands from Imperial Japanese forces one-by-one. It successfully won back the main island of Guadalcanal in February 1943 after some six months of fierce fighting.
Today, the Solomon Islands would give China the potential ability to interfere with US naval operations in the region that could be crucial in the event of a conflict over Taiwan or in the South and East China seas.
Lt. Gen. Greg Bilton, Australia’s chief of joint operations, said that if Chinese naval ships were able to operate from the Solomon Islands it would “change the calculus.”
“They’re in much closer proximity to the Australian mainland, obviously, and that would change the way that we would undertake day-to-day operations, particularly in the air and at sea,” he told reporters.
But Jonathan Pryke, the director of the Pacific Islands Program at the Lowy Institute, an Australian think tank, said he thinks that leaders have overreacted to the agreement, perhaps in Australia’s case because there is an election looming.
“It’s clearly getting everyone very animated in the West and very alarmed,” Pryke said. “But I don’t think it markedly changes things on the ground.”
He said the pact could be seen as the first step toward China establishing a base, but there would need to be many more steps taken before that could happen.
“I think the alarmism has strengthened China’s hand by pushing the Solomon Islands into a corner,” Pryke said. “And they’ve reacted the way I imagine many countries would react from getting this outside pressure — by pushing back, and digging their heels in.”
China’s security deal with Solomons raises alarm in Pacific
https://arab.news/cxraj
China’s security deal with Solomons raises alarm in Pacific
- A Chinese military presence in the Solomons would put it on the doorstep of Australia and New Zealand
- It will also be in close proximity to Guam, with its massive US military bases
US troops make first detentions in Trump border military zones
- US presidents have long used active-duty and reservist troops on the international boundary in support roles to US Border Patrol such as surveillance and construction
US troops have made their first detentions inside military areas set up on the US-Mexico border as part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, the US Army said.
The unprecedented military areas along 260 miles (418 km) of border in New Mexico and Texas were declared extensions of US Army bases by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, allowing troops to temporarily detain migrants and other civilian trespassers.
Three “illegal aliens” were detained by troops in the New Mexico area near Santa Teresa on June 3, before being handed to US Border Patrol, Army spokesperson Major Geoffrey Carmichael said in an email.
“This marks the first time Department of Defense personnel have recorded a temporary detainment within either National Defense Area,” Carmichael said.
US presidents have long used active-duty and reservist troops on the international boundary in support roles to US Border Patrol such as surveillance and construction.
President Donald Trump took military use a step further by giving troops the right to hold trespassers they catch in the zones until civilian law enforcement assumes custody.
Federal troops can also search people and conduct crowd control measures within the areas, according to the Army.
Designation of the zones as military bases allowed troops to detain migrants without the need for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. The 1807 law lets a US president deploy federal troops domestically to suppress events like civil disorder.
Prosecution of dozens of migrants caught in the zones has faced setbacks in court after judges in New Mexico and Texas dismissed trespassing charges, and acquitted a Peruvian woman, ruling they did not know they were entering restricted areas.
The primary role of troops in the zones is to detect and track illegal border crossers, with around 390 such detections so far, the Army said.
News of the detentions inside military areas came as Trump deployed state-based National Guard troops to Los Angeles during protests over immigration raids.
US Speaker Mike Johnson downplays Musk’s influence, says Republicans will pass Trump’s tax and budget bill
- “I didn’t go out to craft a piece of legislation to please the richest man in the world,” Johnson said on ABC’s “This Week”
- Musk had called the budget bill an “abomination” that would add to US debts and threaten economic stability
With an uncharacteristically feistiness, Speaker Mike Johnson took clear sides Sunday in President Donald Trump’s breakup with mega-billionaire Elon Musk.
The Republican House leader and staunch Trump ally said Musk’s criticism of the GOP’s massive tax and budget policy bill will not derail the measure, and he downplayed Musk’s influence over the GOP-controlled Congress.
“I didn’t go out to craft a piece of legislation to please the richest man in the world,” Johnson said on ABC’s “This Week.” “What we’re trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,” Johnson insisted.
Johnson said he has exchanged text messages with Musk since the former chief of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency came out against the GOP bill.
Musk called it an “abomination” that would add to US debts and threaten economic stability. He urged voters to flood Capitol Hill with calls to vote against the measure, which is pending in the Senate after clearing the House. His criticism sparked an angry social media back-and-forth with Trump, who told reporters over the weekend that he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk.
The speaker was dismissive of Musk’s threats to finance opponents — even Democrats — of Republican members who back Trump’s bill.
“We’ve got almost no calls to the offices, any Republican member of Congress,” Johnson said. “And I think that indicates that people are taking a wait and see attitude. Some who may be convinced by some of his arguments, but the rest understand: this is a very exciting piece of legislation.”
Johnson argued that Musk still believes “that our policies are better for human flourishing. They’re better for the US economy. They’re better for everything that he’s involved in with his innovation and job creation and entrepreneurship.”
The speaker and other Republicans, including Trump’s White House budget chief, continued their push back Sunday against forecasts that their tax and budget plans will add to annual deficits and thus balloon a national debt already climbing toward $40 trillion.
Johnson insisted that Musk has bad information, and the speaker disputed the forecasts of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that scores budget legislation. The bill would extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, cut spending and reduce some other levies but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over the decade, according to the CBO’s analysis.
The speaker countered with arguments Republicans have made for decades: That lower taxes and spending cuts would spur economic growth that ensure deficits fall. Annual deficits and the overall debt actually climbed during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and during Trump’s first presidency, even after sweeping tax cuts.
Russell Vought, who leads the White House Office of Budget and Management, said on Fox News Sunday that CBO analysts base their models of “artificial baselines.” Because the 2017 tax law set the lower rates to expire, CBO’s cost estimates, Vought argued, presuming a return to the higher rates before that law went into effect.
Vought acknowledged CBO’s charge from Congress is to analyze legislation and current law as it is written. But he said the office could issue additional analyzes, implying it would be friendlier to GOP goals. Asked whether the White House would ask for alternative estimates, Vought again put the burden on CBO, repeating that congressional rules allow the office to publish more analysis.
Other Republicans, meanwhile, approached the Trump-Musk battle cautiously.
“As a former professional fighter, I learned a long time ago, don’t get between two fighters,” said Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
He even compared the two billionaire businessmen to a married couple.
“President Trump is a friend of mine but I don’t need to get, I can have friends that have disagreements,” Mullin said. “My wife and I dearly love each other and every now and then, well actually quite often, sometimes she disagrees with me, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t stay focused on what’s best for our family. Right now, there may be a disagreement but we’re laser focused on what is best for the American people.”
Trump banned citizens of 12 countries from entering the US. Here’s what to know
- The aim is to “protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology
DAKAR, Senegal: President Donald Trump has banned citizens of 12 countries from entering the United States and restricted access for those from seven others, citing national security concerns in resurrecting and expanding a hallmark policy from his first term that will mostly affect people from Africa and the Middle East.
The ban announced Wednesday applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The heightened restrictions apply to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the US and don’t hold a valid visa.
The policy takes effect Monday at 12:01 a.m. and does not have an end date.
Here’s what to know about the new rules:
How Trump justified the ban
Since returning to the White House, Trump has launched an unprecedented campaign of immigration enforcement that has pushed the limits of executive power and clashed with federal judges trying to restrain him.
The travel ban stems from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to compile a report on “hostile attitudes” toward the US
The aim is to “protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes,” the administration said.
In a video posted on social media, Trump tied the new ban to a terrorist attack Sunday in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The man charged in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump’s restricted list. US officials say he overstayed a tourist visa.
Who is exempt from the ban, Which countries are affected
Trump said nationals of countries included in the ban pose “terrorism-related” and “public-safety” risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. He also said some of these countries had “deficient” screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their citizens.
His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report about tourists, businesspeople and students who overstay US visas and arrive by air or sea, singling out countries with high percentages of nationals who remain after their visas expired.
“We don’t want them,” Trump said.
The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on special immigrant visas, who were generally the people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade war there.
The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make “material improvements” to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added “as threats emerge around the world.”
State Department guidance
The State Department instructed US embassies and consulates on Friday not to revoke visas previously issued to people from the 12 countries listed in the ban.
In a cable sent to all US diplomatic missions, the department said “no action should be taken for issued visas which have already left the consular section” and that “no visas issued prior to the effective date should be revoked pursuant to this proclamation.”
However, visa applicants from affected countries whose applications have been approved but have not yet received their visas will be denied, according to the cable, which was signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
And, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting on Monday.
How the ban differs from 2017’s
Early in Trump’s first term, he issued an executive order banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travelers from those nations were either barred from getting on flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed. They included students and faculty, as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family.
The order, often referred to as the “Muslim ban” or the “travel ban,” was retooled amid legal challenges until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.
That ban affected various categories of travelers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.
Reactions to Trump’s order
Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro’s government condemned the travel ban, characterizing it in a statement as a “stigmatization and criminalization campaign” against Venezuelans.
Chad President Mahamat Deby Itno said his country would suspend visas for US citizens in response to the ban.
Aid and refugee resettlement groups also denounced it.
“This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,” said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America.
But reactions to the ban ran the gamut from anger to guarded relief and support.
In Haiti, radio stations received a flurry of calls Thursday from angry listeners, including many who said they were Haitians living in the US and who accused Trump of being racist, noting that the people of many of the targeted countries are Black.
Haitian-American Elvanize Louis-Juste, who was at the airport Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the US are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest in their country.
“I have family in Haiti, so it’s pretty upsetting to see and hear,” Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. “I don’t think it’s a good thing. I think it’s very upsetting.”
William Lopez, a 75-year-old property investor who arrived from Cuba in 1967, supports the travel ban.
“These are people that come but don’t want to work, they support the Cuban government, they support communism,” Lopez said at a restaurant near Little Havana in Miami. “What the Trump administration is doing is perfectly good.”
National Guard faces off with protesters hours after arriving in Los Angeles on Trump’s orders
- California governor accuses Trump of a “complete overreaction” designed to create a spectacle of force
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also threatened to deploy active-duty Marines “if violence continues” in the region
LOS ANGELES: Tear gas was fired at protesters in Los Angeles on Sunday when some demonstrators moved close to National Guard troops and shouted insults at them, hours after President Donald Trump’s extraordinary deployment of the military over the objections of the governor and mayor.
The confrontation broke out as hundreds of people protested in front of the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles, where several of the newly-arrived National Guard troops stood shoulder to shoulder behind plastic riot shields.
Video showed uniformed officers shooting off the smoke-filled canisters as they advanced into the street, forcing protesters to retreat. It was not immediately clear what prompted the use of chemical irritants or which law enforcement agency fired them.
Minutes later, loud popping sounds erupted again, as some protesters chanted “go home” and “shame.” One person was taken to the ground by uniformed officers. Another appeared to be bleeding from their head.
Around 300 National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles early Sunday on orders from Trump, who accused Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats of failing to stanch recent protests targeting immigration agents.
The move appeared to be the first time in decades that a state’s national guard was activated without a request from its governor, a significant escalation against those who have sought to hinder the administration’s mass deportation efforts.
Deployment follows days of protest
The deployment followed two days of protests that began Friday in downtown Los Angeles before spreading on Saturday to Paramount, a heavily Latino city south of the city, and neighboring Compton.
As federal agents set up a staging area Saturday near a Home Depot in Paramount, demonstrators attempted to block Border Patrol vehicles, with some hurling rocks and chunks of cement. In response, agents in riot gear unleashed tear gas, flash-bang explosives and pepper balls.
Tensions were high after a series of sweeps by immigration authorities the previous day, as the weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the city climbed above 100. A prominent union leader was arrested while protesting and accused of impeding law enforcement.
The deployment of the National Guard came over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who accused Trump of a “complete overreaction” designed to create a spectacle of force.
The recent protests remain far smaller than past events that have brought the National Guard to Los Angeles, including the Watts and Rodney King riots, and the 2020 protests against police violence, in which Newsom requested the assistance of federal troops.
The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor’s permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
Trump says there will be ‘very strong law and order’
In a directive Saturday, Trump invoked a legal provision allowing him to deploy federal service members when there is ”a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
He said he had authorized the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard.
Trump told reporters as he prepared to board Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, Sunday that there were “violent people” in Los Angeles “and they’re not gonna get away with it.”
Asked if he planned to send US troops to Los Angeles, Trump replied: “We’re gonna have troops everywhere. We’re not going to let this happen to our country. We’re not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden.” He didn’t elaborate.
Trump also said that California officials who stand in the way of the deportations could face charges. A Wisconsin judge was arrested last month on accusations she helped a man evade immigration authorities.
“If officials stay in the way of law and order, yeah, they will face charges,” Trump said.
Newsom called Trump on Friday night and they spoke for about 40 minutes, according to the governor’s office. It was not clear if they spoke Saturday or Sunday.
There was some confusion surrounding the exact timing of the guard’s arrival. Shortly before midnight local time, Trump congratulated the National Guard on a “job well done.” But less than an hour later, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said troops had yet to arrive in the city.
Defense secretary threatens to deploy active-duty Marines ‘if violence continues’
In a statement Sunday, Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin accused California’s politicians and protesters of “defending heinous illegal alien criminals at the expense of Americans’ safety.”
“Instead of rioting, they should be thanking ICE officers every single day who wake up and make our communities safer,” McLaughlin added.
The troops included members of the California Army National Guard’s 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, according to a social media post from the Department of Defense.
In a signal of the administration’s aggressive approach, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also threatened to deploy active-duty Marines “if violence continues” in the region.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said the order by Trump reflected “a president moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism” and “usurping the powers of the United States Congress.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, endorsed the president’s move, doubling down on Republicans’ criticisms of California Democrats.
“Gavin Newsom has shown an inability or an unwillingness to do what is necessary, so the president stepped in,” Johnson said.
Who is Colombian Sen. Miguel Uribe Turbay who was shot during a campaign rally in Bogota?
- Uribe Turbay, 39, who has announced he intends to run for president next year, was in serious condition following surgery, a day after the shooting
- He launched his presidential bid in March and has become a prominent opposition voice against the government of President Gustavo Petro
Conservative Colombian Sen. Miguel Uribe Turbay was shot and seriously injured during a campaign rally in the capital, Bogota. The brazen attack captured on video shook a nation that decades ago regularly saw kidnappings and killings of politicians and high profile people.
Uribe Turbay, 39, who has announced he intends to run for president next year, was in serious condition following surgery Sunday, a day after the shooting, and doctors said he was going through “critical hours.”
Here’s what to know about the conservative politician:
Presidential contender
A member of the right-wing Democratic Center party, Uribe Turbay has become a prominent opposition voice against the government of President Gustavo Petro, the first leftist politician to become the leader of Colombia. Petro cannot seek reelection in 2026.
Uribe Turbay, whose family had also suffered political violence, launched his presidential bid in March. In October last year, he had posted a video on social media announcing his intention to run, choosing the mountains of Copacabana in the department of Antioquia as a backdrop.
The country will hold a presidential election on May 31, 2026.
“A place with deep meaning for me,” he said in the video. “It was here that my mother was kidnapped by Pablo Escobar and was killed when I was about to turn five.”
His mother, journalist Diana Turbay, was abducted by the Medellin Cartel and killed in 1991, one of Colombia’s most violent periods.
The attack on Uribe Turbay on Saturday shocked the nation and revived memories of an era when political violence affected Colombian public life.
Prominent political family
Uribe Turbay entered politics early, being elected to Bogota’s City Council at age 25 in 2012. In 2016, he was appointed the city’s secretary of government by then-Mayor Enrique Peñalosa.
In 2022, he became senator after being invited to run by former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez, no relation.
Uribe Turbay was born into a prominent political family. He is the grandson of former President Julio César Turbay Ayala, who served from 1978 to 1982, and the paternal grandson of Rodrigo Uribe Echavarría, a former director of the Liberal Party.
He was not considered a front-runner in next year’s race, according to recent polls, and was still facing competition within his political coalition. In his pre-campaign messaging, Uribe Turbay focused heavily on security, seeking to inspire investments and promote economic stability.
‘Reserved prognosis’
The senator is going through what authorities have described as “critical hours” after undergoing surgery at a private clinic in Bogotá.
“He survived the procedure; these are critical moments and hours for his survival,” said Bogotá Mayor Carlos Galán early Sunday after receiving information from the medical staff at the Fundación Santa Fe clinic.
“His condition is extremely serious and the prognosis is reserved,” the clinic added hours later in a new medical report.
Police arrested a 15-year-old boy for the shooting, whom they considered the perpetrator. Authorities have not disclosed a motive.
Colombia’s Ombudsman’s Office condemned the attack, saying the country “cannot allow a return to dark times when violence sought to silence ideas, candidacies or political leadership.”
