South Africa has clarified that its High Commissioner to India, Anil Sooklal, has not been recalledfrom his diplomatic post following controversy over his presence at a religious event attended by former President Jacob Zuma and Indian-origin businessman Ajay Gupta.

Instead, the envoy has been asked to travel to Pretoria for consultations and clarifications with senior officials of the country's Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), according to South African diplomatic sources.

Consultations, Not Recall

The clarification follows reports suggesting that Sooklal had been recalled after his participation in the event sparked political attention in South Africa.

Diplomatic sources said Sooklal will meet DIRCO Director-General Zane Dangor to explain the circumstances surrounding his attendance at the religious gathering held in India.

Officials emphasized that the meeting is intended for consultations and that Sooklal continues to serve as South Africa's High Commissioner to India.

Minister's Earlier Remarks Triggered Confusion

The clarification came after South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola earlier stated that Sooklal had been called back to headquarters for further consultations following his association with Zuma and Gupta during the India visit.

Lamola also announced that the government is reviewing the diplomatic support framework applicable to former presidents and deputy presidents during overseas visits.

The proposed review aims to ensure that former leaders do not unintentionally create the impression of representing South Africa's official foreign policy without authorization.

New Rules Proposed for Former Leaders

Under the proposed framework, former presidents and deputy presidents seeking diplomatic assistance for international travel may be required to disclose details such as:

• Purpose of the visit.

• Travel programme and engagements.

• Funding sources.

• Principal hosts.

• Capacity in which they are travelling.

According to South African authorities, the proposed mechanism is intended to help assess diplomatic, political, reputational and security risks before official support is extended.

Religious Event Sparked Debate

The controversy stems from a visit to Haridwar in June, where former President Jacob Zuma attended a religious programme and met Indian-origin businessman Ajay Gupta.

During the visit, Zuma and Sooklal reportedly visited Siddhpeeth Shri Dakshin Kali Mandir and met Niranjani Akhara Mahamandaleshwar Swami Kailashanand Giri.

The event drew attention because Ajay Gupta is one of the members of the Gupta family, which has remained at the centre of South Africa's long-running "state capture" investigations.

Background of Gupta Controversy

The Gupta family has faced allegations of using its close relationship with Jacob Zuma during his presidency to influence government appointments and secure state contracts.

Following the launch of judicial investigations into alleged corruption, the Gupta brothers left South Africa in 2018.

The controversy surrounding the Haridwar event has renewed debate in South Africa over the official role of diplomats accompanying former political leaders during private or religious engagements abroad.

Envoy Continues in Office

South African officials have reiterated that no decision has been taken to remove Anil Sooklal from his diplomatic assignment in India.

The consultations in Pretoria are expected to clarify the circumstances surrounding the event, while the government continues reviewing broader diplomatic protocols for former heads of state.

India and China held a fresh round of border discussions under the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC) on Thursday, with both sides engaging in what the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) described as "frank" exchanges on the Line of Actual Control (LAC), boundary management and broader bilateral issues.

The talks come ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping's proposed visit to India, a development being closely watched amid ongoing efforts by both countries to stabilise ties following years of military tensions along the disputed border.

Focus on Border Stability

According to the MEA, the two delegations reviewed the prevailing situation along the LAC and exchanged views on boundary delimitation, border management, institutional mechanisms and trans-border cooperation.

Both sides reiterated that maintaining peace and tranquillity in border areas remains essential for the overall development of India-China relations.

The Indian delegation was led by Sujit Ghosh, Joint Secretary (East Asia), Ministry of External Affairs, while the Chinese side was headed by Hou Yanqi, Director General of the Boundary and Oceanic Affairs Department of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

India Raises River Data Sharing

During the discussions, India stressed the need for the early convening of the next meeting of the Expert Level Mechanism on trans-border rivers.

New Delhi also emphasised the importance of timely sharing of technical information related to upstream infrastructure projects, an issue that has remained sensitive due to concerns over Chinese projects on rivers flowing into India.

Existing Military Channels to Continue

The two countries agreed to continue using existing diplomatic and military communication channels to prevent misunderstandings and reduce the risk of escalation along the LAC.

These include the WMCC framework, local commander-level meetings and other established mechanisms aimed at addressing unresolved issues through dialogue.

Officials said sustained communication remains critical to maintaining stability in border areas.

Follow-up to Earlier Agreements

The latest WMCC meeting follows the 24th round of Special Representatives' (SR) talks, led by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

During those discussions, both countries agreed to establish multiple working groups to address long-pending boundary-related issues. These include an expert group for boundary delimitation, another group focusing on border management, and additional General-level mechanisms for the eastern and middle sectors of the border.

These initiatives are intended to institutionalise dialogue and reduce the possibility of future military confrontations.

Relations Improving, Challenges Remain

India-China relations deteriorated sharply after the military standoff that began in eastern Ladakh in 2020, including the deadly Galwan Valley clash, which claimed the lives of 20 Indian soldiers.

Following several rounds of diplomatic and military negotiations, both countries reached an understanding in October 2024 to partially disengage in eastern Ladakh, leading to renewed high-level political engagement.

However, several contentious issues continue to affect bilateral ties, including the unresolved boundary dispute, China's claims over parts of Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, its continued presence in Aksai Chin, and broader strategic concerns related to regional security.

Diplomatic observers believe the latest WMCC discussions indicate continued engagement between the two sides, although a comprehensive resolution of the decades-old boundary dispute is expected to remain a long-term process.

Diplomatic Push Gains Momentum

Fresh diplomatic efforts to restore shipping through the strategically important Strait of Hormuz gathered pace on Wednesday, with both the United States and Iran signalling progress in Oman-mediated negotiations. However, Tehran made it clear that any agreement with Oman alone would not immediately lead to the reopening of the vital maritime route. (Reuters)

The latest developments come as global markets closely monitor the conflict, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining one of the world's most critical oil transit chokepoints.

Iran Rules Out Immediate Reopening

According to Iranian state media, discussions between Tehran and Muscat are focused exclusively on future navigation arrangements and are "completely unrelated" to direct negotiations with the United States.

Iranian officials said the Strait would remain closed even if an understanding is reached with Oman, arguing that broader issues, including what Tehran describes as US actions in the region, must first be resolved before commercial shipping can resume normally. (Al Jazeera)

US Optimistic About Breakthrough

The United States has projected greater optimism over the ongoing talks.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said negotiations have made progress, although no final agreement has yet been reached. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested an interim deal could be finalised "today or tomorrow," while President Donald Trump said discussions with Iran were moving in a positive direction and expressed hope that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen soon. (Reuters)

Washington has maintained that restoring freedom of navigation through the Strait remains an immediate priority, alongside longer-term discussions concerning Iran's nuclear programme.

Shipping Activity Remains Limited

Despite diplomatic progress, commercial shipping through both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb continues to operate below normal levels.

Shipping data showed only limited vessel movements, reflecting continued security concerns among global maritime operators as negotiations continue. The disruption has affected international energy markets and global supply chains over recent months. (Al Jazeera)

Regional Tensions Continue

The negotiations come amid continued instability across the region.

On Tuesday, Yemen's Houthi movement claimed responsibility for a missile attack on a Saudi oil tanker in the northern Red Sea, underscoring the broader security risks facing commercial shipping beyond the Strait of Hormuz. Separately, diplomatic talks between Israel and Lebanon continue over troop withdrawals and regional security arrangements. (Al Jazeera)

Markets Await Final Agreement

Financial markets have reacted cautiously to the diplomatic developments. Oil prices steadied after recent declines as investors weighed the possibility of a breakthrough that could restore one of the world's busiest maritime trade routes.

While both Washington and Tehran have acknowledged progress, officials on both sides stressed that no final agreement has been concluded, leaving uncertainty over when commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will fully resume. (Reuters)

Israel Rejects US Proposal

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly rejected US President Donald Trump's proposal calling for Hamas' disarmament and a phased Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, marking the sharpest public disagreement between the two leaders over the ongoing Gaza conflict.

In a video statement shared on Facebook, Netanyahu said Israel had not accepted the draft proposal presented by the United States, insisting that it did not reflect Israel's position.

"We did not agree to it. It was not our draft," Netanyahu said, adding that Israel had submitted its own comments and amendments to the proposal.

No Withdrawal From Gaza

Netanyahu also made it clear that Israel has no plans to withdraw from Gaza at this stage.

According to the Israeli prime minister, the US administration believes Hamas can be persuaded to disarm and demilitarise the Gaza Strip through negotiations. While Israel is reviewing the proposal, Netanyahu stressed that his government has not endorsed the framework presented by Washington.

His remarks represent the first public confirmation that Israel has formally objected to key elements of the American initiative.

Trump's Peace Proposal

The proposal is part of President Trump's broader Board of Peace initiative aimed at ending the Gaza conflict.

Last week, Trump announced what he described as an in-principle understanding under which Hamas would gradually surrender its weapons in exchange for a phased Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza.

The US president said the arrangement would pave the way for Gaza to be administered by a new Palestinian authority working alongside the Board of Peace, while ensuring Israel's long-term security by preventing the territory from being used for future attacks.

Growing Rift Between Allies

Netanyahu's rejection highlights an emerging policy divide between Washington and Jerusalem over the future of Gaza.

According to US officials, the proposed disarmament-and-withdrawal framework is an extension of Trump's earlier 20-point Gaza peace plan, which Israel had previously accepted in principle.

A senior US official warned last week that President Trump would be "very disappointed" if Israel blocked the latest proposal, arguing that rejecting the framework would undermine commitments already made by the Israeli government.

The disagreement is widely seen as the most significant diplomatic rupture between Trump and Netanyahu since the current conflict began.

Board of Peace Efforts Continue

Following Trump's announcement, Board of Peace Director General Nikolay Mladenov held talks with Netanyahu, urging Israel to suspend military operations in Gaza for two weeks to facilitate negotiations with Hamas.

The Board of Peace later clarified that Israel would only be required to complete its withdrawal after Hamas had fully disarmed.

It also stated that Hamas would be expected to surrender all categories of weapons, including heavy arms, tunnel infrastructure and light firearms, before any final withdrawal took place.

Despite those assurances, Netanyahu's latest remarks indicate that Israel remains unconvinced by the proposed sequence of events and is unwilling to commit to a withdrawal under the current framework.

Negotiations Face Fresh Uncertainty

The public disagreement has cast fresh uncertainty over diplomatic efforts to end the Gaza conflict.

While the United States continues to push for a negotiated settlement combining Hamas' disarmament with a phased Israeli withdrawal, Israel's leadership maintains that its security concerns remain paramount.

With both sides holding differing interpretations of the proposed agreement, negotiations are expected to continue in the coming days as international mediators seek to bridge the divide.

Uzbekistan's Foreign Minister Saidov Bakhtiyor Odilovich has arrived in India on a four-day official visit aimed at strengthening the strategic partnership between the two countries. The visit, scheduled from August 2 to August 5, will focus on expanding cooperation in trade, connectivity, investment, technology and regional security under India's Connect Central Asia policy.

The high-level visit comes as New Delhi and Tashkent seek to deepen economic and strategic engagement across multiple sectors.

High-Level Meetings Scheduled

According to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the visiting foreign minister reached New Delhi on Sunday.

During the visit, he will call on President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan and hold delegation-level talks with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar at Hyderabad House.

The discussions are expected to review the full spectrum of bilateral relations and identify new areas for collaboration.

Trade and Investment in Focus

A key highlight of the visit will be participation in a business forum in New Delhi, where the Uzbek foreign minister will interact with Indian industry leaders.

The forum is expected to promote greater investment and private-sector partnerships in sectors including:

• Pharmaceuticals

• Information Technology

• Manufacturing

• Emerging technologies

Both countries are looking to expand economic cooperation by encouraging greater business-to-business engagement.

Connectivity to Top Agenda

Improving connectivity between India and Central Asia is expected to be a major focus of the bilateral discussions.

The two sides are likely to explore ways to enhance regional trade through strategic connectivity projects such as:

• International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC)

• Chabahar Port in Iran

Strengthening these transport links is expected to improve access between India and Central Asian markets while boosting regional trade.

Strategic Cooperation

Apart from economic ties, India and Uzbekistan are expected to discuss cooperation in several strategic sectors, including:

• Critical minerals

• Digital public infrastructure

• Defence collaboration

• Counter-terrorism

• Regional security

The discussions reflect growing strategic convergence between the two countries amid evolving geopolitical and economic developments in the region.

Growing Bilateral Engagement

The visit follows a series of high-level interactions between New Delhi and Tashkent over the past year.

The two foreign ministers have already met on the sidelines of several international forums earlier in 2026, underlining the growing momentum in bilateral relations.

The latest visit is expected to further strengthen cooperation under India's broader engagement with Central Asia.

US President Donald Trump has announced that he has cancelled a planned military strike on Iran, saying the decision is conditional on the possibility of reaching a rapid agreement that includes the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The announcement came amid heightened tensions in West Asia, where Iran has warned that any military action by the United States or Israel would trigger a "decisive and proportionate" response.

Trump Signals Preference for Diplomacy

In a statement posted on social media, Trump said the planned attack had been called off after what he described as an agreement on the "parameters" of a possible deal.

He indicated that Washington would pursue negotiations, provided progress could be made quickly, particularly on restoring unrestricted navigation through the strategically important Strait of Hormuz.

The decision follows several days of escalating rhetoric, during which Trump had warned Iran of severe military action.

Iran Warns Against Any Aggression

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated Tehran's position that any military aggression by the United States or Israel would receive a firm response.

During separate telephone conversations with the foreign ministers of Türkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Araghchi said Iran was prepared to respond proportionately to any attack against its territory.

Iranian officials have also maintained that any assault launched from US military bases in the region would invite retaliation against those facilities.

US Embassies Issue Advisory

Amid continuing regional tensions, US embassies across the Middle East have advised American citizens to remain prepared for possible security deterioration and unforeseen escalation.

The advisory was issued a day after President Trump warned Iran that Washington was prepared to act forcefully if necessary.

Shipping Through Hormuz Declines Sharply

The geopolitical uncertainty has significantly affected maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's busiest energy shipping routes.

According to shipping intelligence firm Kpler, vessel traffic through the strait declined by nearly 77% in a single day, reflecting growing concerns over regional security and commercial shipping.

Fighting Continues in Gaza

Despite diplomatic developments surrounding Iran, fighting continued in the Gaza Strip.

According to reports cited in the live updates, Israeli military operations killed several Palestinians across Gaza, while airstrikes reportedly damaged infrastructure, including a medical warehouse in Deir el-Balah.

Israeli authorities also announced the killing of two Hamas commanders in separate operations, while Palestinian officials reported civilian casualties, including children.

Saudi Arabia Reportedly Urged De-escalation

Media reports said Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke with President Trump before the decision to cancel the planned strike.

According to the reports, Saudi Arabia expressed concern that attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure could trigger retaliatory strikes against Gulf energy facilities and further destabilise the region.

The developments have raised cautious optimism about the possibility of renewed diplomatic engagement, although tensions between the United States, Iran and Israel remain high, and no formal agreement has yet been announced.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to visit India in September to attend the 18th BRICS Leaders' Summit, marking what would be his first visit to the country since the 2019 informal summit in Mamallapuram and the first after India-China relations deteriorated following the Galwan Valley clash in 2020.

The summit is scheduled to be held in New Delhi on September 12–13, 2026, with India hosting the expanded BRICS grouping at a time of growing geopolitical and economic realignments.

If the visit goes ahead as planned, it will be Xi's first trip to India in nearly seven years and one of the most closely watched diplomatic engagements between the two Asian neighbours since tensions escalated along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Invitation Extended During SCO Summit

According to government officials, Prime Minister Narendra Modi extended the invitation to Xi Jinping during the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit held in Tianjin in August 2025.

Chinese officials later conveyed that Xi had accepted the invitation and expressed support for India's BRICS presidency.

The summit is expected to bring together leaders from the expanded BRICS bloc, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and heads of state from other member countries.

Relations Showing Signs of Recovery

The expected visit comes amid gradual efforts by New Delhi and Beijing to stabilise bilateral relations after years of diplomatic and military tensions.

Several confidence-building measures have been implemented over the past two years, including:

• A military disengagement understanding reached in October 2024 to reduce tensions along the Line of Actual Control.

• Gradual restoration of direct commercial flight services.

• Easing of visa restrictions for citizens of both countries.

• China's participation in India's AI Impact Summit earlier this year.

Despite these developments, both countries continue to maintain significant military deployments along disputed border areas.

BRICS Summit Gains Strategic Importance

The upcoming BRICS summit is expected to take place against the backdrop of heightened global geopolitical uncertainty, including trade disputes, conflicts in West Asia, supply chain disruptions and efforts by emerging economies to strengthen cooperation through multilateral platforms.

Analysts believe the summit could provide an important opportunity for India and China to continue diplomatic engagement while managing unresolved issues related to border security and bilateral relations.

Apart from economic cooperation, discussions are expected to focus on global financial reforms, trade, technology, energy security, artificial intelligence, climate action and strengthening collaboration among emerging economies.

Significant Diplomatic Engagement

Xi Jinping's proposed visit is likely to attract considerable international attention because it would represent the highest-level bilateral engagement between India and China since relations were strained following the Galwan Valley clash in June 2020.

Diplomatic observers say the visit could serve as an opportunity for both governments to review progress made in restoring communication channels while exploring areas of cooperation despite continuing strategic differences.

Although officials from both sides are yet to announce the final schedule, preparations for the BRICS Summit are expected to intensify in the coming weeks as India readies to host leaders from one of the world's most influential emerging economy groupings.

 New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has come under intense criticism after telling a Chinese-born opposition lawmaker to "go back to your own country" during a heated parliamentary debate, triggering accusations of racism and prompting a rare diplomatic response from the Chinese Embassy.

The controversy erupted during a discussion on New Zealand's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, when Green Party MP Lawrence Xu-Nan, who was born in Tianjin, China, and raised in Auckland, questioned Peters by asking whether he had been vaccinated.

Instead of responding directly, Peters launched a personal attack on the opposition legislator, questioning his background and nationality.

Heated Exchange in Parliament

During the debate, Peters told Xu-Nan that he had "come here five minutes ago" before saying:

"Go back to your own country... This is called a democracy, unlike what you're used to. Go back to where you've come from, you loudmouth."

The remarks immediately drew criticism from opposition lawmakers, social media users and political commentators, who described them as racially insensitive and inappropriate for parliamentary debate.

Xu-Nan later accused Peters of using migrant communities as political targets instead of addressing substantive policy questions.

Chinese Embassy Responds

The controversy escalated after Chinese Ambassador to New Zealand Wang Xiaolong issued an unusual public statement on social media.

Although stating that China generally avoids involvement in New Zealand's domestic politics, the ambassador remarked that "sometimes a statement says more about the person that makes it than anything or anybody else."

The response marked a rare diplomatic intervention by the Chinese Embassy in an internal political dispute.

Peters Defends His Remarks

Rather than apologising, Peters defended his comments and criticised the Chinese ambassador's intervention.

Posting on social media, he argued that the ambassador's response reinforced his position and contrasted New Zealand's democratic values with what he described as authoritarian political systems.

Peters said New Zealand values free speech and democracy, adding that people should compare those freedoms with conditions in countries governed by communist or authoritarian systems.

Political and Public Backlash

The incident has generated widespread debate within New Zealand.

Critics argue that telling an elected lawmaker to "go back" to another country amounts to a racial or ethnic attack, regardless of political disagreement.

Several commentators noted that such language would likely attract disciplinary action in most professional workplaces.

Political analysts also suggested the remarks reflect identity-based politics increasingly used in election campaigns, particularly on issues relating to immigration and national identity.

Not the First Controversy

This is not the first time Winston Peters and his New Zealand First Party have faced criticism over controversial remarks.

Earlier this year, Deputy Prime Minister Shane Jones attracted backlash after describing a potential India-New Zealand trade agreement as a "butter chicken tsunami."

In another parliamentary exchange last year, Jones shouted "Send the Mexicans home" at a Mexican-born opposition MP, comments that also generated widespread criticism before party leaders later distanced themselves from the remarks.

Peters himself has previously faced criticism over comments directed at lawmakers from Pacific Island backgrounds.

Growing Strains with China

The latest controversy comes at a time when relations between New Zealand and China have become increasingly strained.

In recent months, Wellington has expressed concerns over China's military activities in the Pacific region, including a ballistic missile test.

Tensions also increased after Beijing imposed travel restrictions on several New Zealand lawmakers following a parliamentary visit to Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory.

Despite these disagreements, China remains one of New Zealand's largest trading partners, making diplomatic relations strategically important for both countries.

Debate Continues

The parliamentary exchange has reignited discussion in New Zealand over race, immigration, political rhetoric and the standards expected from senior public officials.

While supporters of Peters have defended his comments as an exercise of free speech and robust political debate, critics argue that such language risks deepening social divisions and undermining inclusive democratic values.

The controversy is expected to remain a significant political issue as Parliament continues its current session.

 The Indian Embassy in the United States has strongly objected to The New York Times for referring to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) as "Pakistani Kashmir" in a recent report, calling the description "misleading and incorrect." The diplomatic response has once again brought international media coverage of India's territorial issues under scrutiny.

The controversy arose after the US-based newspaper published a report on protests and violence during local body elections in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. In its headline and report, the publication referred to the region as "Pakistani Kashmir" or "Pakistan-administered Kashmir," terminology that drew immediate objections from Indian officials.

Embassy Rejects Terminology

Responding through an official post on X, the Indian Embassy stated that the description used by the newspaper did not accurately reflect India's position on the territory.

"There is no Pakistani Kashmir, only Pakistan-occupied Kashmir," the embassy said, adding that the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh "have been, are, and will always remain an integral and inalienable part of India."

The embassy further alleged that Pakistan continues to illegally occupy parts of Indian territory and accused Islamabad of using force against civilians in the region.

Report Focused on PoK Protests

The New York Times report highlighted violent clashes in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir during local elections, where protesters and security forces reportedly confronted each other in several areas.

According to the report, demonstrations were led by the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), which has been demanding political and economic reforms in the region. Media reports indicated that the unrest resulted in casualties and injuries, while security forces launched operations to control the situation.

The newspaper described the region using terminology commonly adopted by several international media organisations, which often refer to the territory based on its current administrative control while acknowledging that it remains disputed.

Fresh Debate Over International Coverage

The embassy's response has revived a broader discussion on how international media outlets describe Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

Indian officials have consistently maintained that the entire erstwhile princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, including territories under Pakistan's control, forms an integral part of India. Consequently, the Government of India officially uses the term "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" or "PoK."

Several international publications, however, use expressions such as "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" or "Pakistan-controlled Kashmir" to describe the territory while reporting on developments there.

Previous Controversies

The latest disagreement also renewed attention on earlier instances in which The New York Times faced criticism from sections of Indian policymakers, commentators and readers over its reporting on India-related issues.

Over the years, the publication has attracted criticism over the terminology used in reports on Kashmir, editorial cartoons, and coverage of Indian domestic and foreign policy. Supporters of the newspaper argue that its editorial decisions follow international journalistic conventions, while critics contend that certain descriptions fail to adequately reflect India's official position.

Diplomatic Sensitivity

The disagreement underscores the continuing diplomatic sensitivity surrounding Kashmir, which remains one of the most contentious issues between India and Pakistan.

India maintains that Pakistan occupies parts of Jammu & Kashmir illegally, while Pakistan disputes India's claim over the territory. International media organisations often adopt terminology that differs from the official position of either country, occasionally leading to diplomatic objections.

The latest response from the Indian Embassy highlights New Delhi's continued emphasis on ensuring that references to Jammu & Kashmir align with India's constitutional and territorial position.

As the debate over terminology continues, the incident also illustrates the broader challenges international news organisations face while reporting on long-standing geopolitical disputes where competing national narratives remain deeply entrenched.

US President Donald Trump has announced that artificial intelligence (AI) will be one of the central topics of discussion when Chinese President Xi Jinping visits the United States on September 24.

The meeting follows Trump's visit to Beijing earlier this year, where the two leaders held talks and Trump extended an invitation for Xi to visit the White House.

Speaking on Thursday, Trump said the issue of AI had already been discussed during his China visit and would remain high on the agenda.

"President Xi is coming over on September 24, and we talked about it when I was over in Beijing, and we'll be talking about it again," Trump said.

AI Expected to Be a Major Agenda Item

Artificial intelligence has emerged as one of the most strategically important areas in US-China relations, with both countries competing for global leadership in advanced technologies.

The upcoming summit is expected to cover issues related to AI development, technological cooperation, security concerns, and regulatory frameworks, although neither side has released a detailed agenda.

The announcement came a day after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held discussions aimed at preparing for what officials described as a "very positive visit."

According to statements from both governments, the two diplomats emphasized the importance of identifying areas of cooperation while managing ongoing differences.

Fresh Tariffs Ahead of the Summit

Trump's announcement also came shortly after his administration imposed an additional 12.5% tariff on Chinese imports as part of a broader trade action affecting several countries.

The new tariffs, introduced over concerns related to forced labour, raise the effective US tariff burden on many Chinese goods, adding another layer of complexity to bilateral economic ties.

Despite the latest trade measures, both Washington and Beijing have continued diplomatic engagement, signaling a willingness to prevent trade disputes from escalating further.

Trade Relations Showing Signs of Improvement

The planned summit takes place amid gradual improvement in US-China relations following last year's intense tariff confrontation.

At one stage, US tariffs on Chinese products had climbed to as high as 145%, significantly disrupting trade between the world's two largest economies.

However, a one-year trade understanding, reached after a previous Trump-Xi meeting in South Korea, helped ease tensions by suspending some tariffs, relaxing restrictions on rare-earth exports, and pausing certain investigations involving Chinese industries.

That agreement is scheduled to expire in November 2026, making the September summit particularly significant for both governments.

Xi Likely to Push for Tariff Relief

Analysts believe President Xi is expected to seek further easing of US trade restrictions during his visit.

China has consistently called for greater stability in bilateral economic relations, while the United States continues to press Beijing on trade practices, technology, market access, and national security concerns.

Whether the two sides can reach new agreements remains uncertain, but the meeting is expected to shape the future direction of US-China relations.

Why the Meeting Matters

The Trump-Xi summit is likely to be one of the most closely watched diplomatic events of the year, given the importance of the US-China relationship to the global economy.

Beyond trade, discussions are expected to cover:

• Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies
• Bilateral trade and tariffs
• Supply chain resilience
• National security concerns
• Global economic stability
• Areas of future cooperation

The outcome of the meeting could influence international technology policies, global trade flows, and strategic competition between the world's two largest economies.

India has delivered a sharp response to Pakistan at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), asserting that continued cross-border terrorism has fundamentally eroded the trust required for cooperation under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). New Delhi also firmly rejected Pakistan's remarks on Jammu and Kashmir, reiterating its long-standing position that the Union Territory is an inseparable part of India.

Speaking during the UNSC High-Level Open Debate on "Natural Resources Governance: the Foundation of Peace, Security and Prosperity", India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, accused Pakistan of misusing the international platform to promote what he described as a false narrative on bilateral issues.

Addressing the Indus Waters Treaty, the Indian envoy said the agreement was built on mutual trust and goodwill, conditions that, according to India, cannot exist while cross-border terrorism continues to be used as an instrument of state policy.

"Our position on the Indus Waters Treaty remains clear and consistent. Cooperation based on mutual trust and goodwill cannot be expected when cross-border terrorism is regularly deployed as an instrument of State policy," the ambassador said during the debate.

India also used the opportunity to reiterate its position on Jammu and Kashmir, dismissing Pakistan's claims over the region. Ambassador Parvathaneni stated that Jammu and Kashmir "has always been, is, and will remain an integral and inalienable part of India."

He further asserted that the only unresolved issue relating to Jammu and Kashmir concerns what India describes as Pakistan's illegal occupation of parts of Indian territory.

The diplomatic exchange comes months after India placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance following the April 22, 2025 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed. After the attack, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) announced that the six-decade-old treaty would remain suspended until Pakistan takes what India describes as credible and irreversible steps to end support for cross-border terrorism.

According to government sources, New Delhi believes the circumstances under which the treaty was signed in 1960 have changed significantly due to persistent security concerns, changing developmental priorities, population growth and climate-related challenges.

India has also accused Pakistan of bypassing the treaty's dispute resolution framework. Officials said the agreement provides for a sequential process beginning with bilateral discussions, followed by reference to a Neutral Expert and, only if necessary, a Court of Arbitration. However, India maintains that Pakistan directly approached the Court of Arbitration, making those proceedings unacceptable from New Delhi's perspective.

Government sources further alleged that Pakistan has repeatedly objected to Indian hydropower projects on the eastern rivers despite those projects falling within India's rights under the treaty. At the same time, officials argued that Pakistan has not adequately developed its own water storage and river management infrastructure.

Officials also disclosed that India formally approached Pakistan in 2023 seeking discussions on modernising the treaty to reflect present-day realities, including advances in engineering, climate change, increasing water demand and population growth. According to the government, those proposals did not lead to meaningful progress.

Meanwhile, India is preparing to accelerate several strategic hydropower projects in the Chenab river basin to utilise the water resources allocated to it under the treaty framework. Key projects include the 1,856 MW Sawalkote Hydroelectric Project, 1,000 MW Pakal Dul Project, 850 MW Ratle Project, 624 MW Kiru Project, and the 540 MW Kwar Project.

The government also plans to undertake sediment flushing and reservoir management at the Salal and Baglihar hydroelectric projects to improve storage capacity, enhance operational efficiency and strengthen dam safety.

India's latest remarks at the United Nations underline the widening diplomatic divide between New Delhi and Islamabad over terrorism, water-sharing arrangements and Jammu and Kashmir. With the Indus Waters Treaty remaining in abeyance, future engagement on the agreement is expected to depend on broader political and security developments between the two neighbouring countries.

Terror Funding Priority

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Thursday called for coordinated international action to choke terror funding and protect global shipping routes from attacks and disruption. He delivered the message at the 33rd ASEAN Regional Forum Ministerial Meeting in Manila, where ministers discussed political and security challenges facing the Indo-Pacific.

Jaishankar said countries must deny terrorist groups access to financial resources, networks and institutional support. He also argued that the international community must impose consequences for acts of terrorism rather than limit its response to statements of condemnation.

Zero Tolerance Message

“There must be zero tolerance for terrorism,” Jaishankar said, while stressing that terrorist attacks must carry consequences. He identified terror funding as a priority area for regional and global cooperation.

India and Malaysia currently co-chair the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus Experts’ Working Group on Counter-Terrorism. Jaishankar said India was leading work on a compendium of global best practices to strengthen counter-terrorism coordination among participating countries.

Shipping Routes Must Stay Open

The minister also condemned attacks on merchant vessels and civilian infrastructure. He said international waterways must remain safe, secure and open so that trade can move without interruption.

His remarks came as conflict in West Asia, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks involving oil tankers created fresh risks for energy supplies and commercial shipping. ASEAN economies depend heavily on imported energy, making disruption along major sea routes a central concern at the Manila meetings.

India Details Maritime Role

Jaishankar highlighted India’s contribution to maritime security through the Information Fusion Centre–Indian Ocean Region and the Indo-Pacific Maritime Domain Awareness initiative. He also referred to Indian deployments stretching from the North Arabian Sea to the Western Pacific.

According to the minister, these efforts help countries counter piracy, trafficking and narcotics smuggling while protecting maritime commerce. India’s emphasis on safe shipping reflects its wider objective of maintaining a free, open, inclusive and rules-based Indo-Pacific with ASEAN at its centre.

South China Sea Code

Jaishankar backed a substantive, effective and legally binding Code of Conduct for the South China Sea. He said the proposed framework must comply fully with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and protect the legitimate rights of all users.

The issue carried added urgency after fresh confrontations between China and the Philippines in disputed waters. The South China Sea remains a major commercial route as well as a strategic flashpoint involving overlapping territorial and maritime claims.

Wider Security Agenda

The External Affairs Minister welcomed the Manila Plan of Action and said its five pillars aligned with India’s Indo-Pacific approach. He sought closer cooperation on disaster relief, common operating procedures, field exercises and the sharing of best practices.

Jaishankar also urged countries to remain alert to efforts that weaken non-proliferation and disarmament frameworks. On technology, he supported a responsible, human-centric approach to artificial intelligence and stronger cross-border cooperation against cybercrime.

The address featured prominently in Latest News Today, India News Update and National and International News coverage because it connected terrorism, maritime trade and regional stability. It also emerged as an important Public Interest Story in Trending News India coverage.

What Comes Next

The forum’s discussions could shape cooperation on counter-terrorism, shipping security, disaster response and regional maritime rules. However, participating countries will need stronger intelligence-sharing, financial tracking and coordinated enforcement to translate political commitments into measurable action. This assessment follows from the priorities outlined by India at the meeting.