China denied US accusations that it tested nuclear explosives in secret, calling the claims false and labeling them as “absolutely untrue.” They accused Washington of creating false pretenses to resume its own nuclear tests. During a UN Disarmament Conference in Geneva last Friday, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Thomas DiNanno, alleged that China had carried out tests, including one on June 22, 2020, and was preparing for additional high-yield tests.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded on Monday, stating, “US claims are completely baseless and outright falsehoods. China strongly opposes the US efforts to justify its own nuclear testing resumption.” They urged the US to halt these “irresponsible actions” immediately.
In October, President Donald Trump announced that the US would restart nuclear testing “on an equivalent basis” with Russia and China, though he provided no details on the type or scope of testing envisioned.
DiNanno’s remarks coincided with the unveiling of a new US proposal calling for trilateral negotiations with Russia and China to establish new nuclear limitations. This proposal emerges after the expiration last Thursday of the last remaining nuclear arms treaty, New START, between Washington and Moscow. China has already declined to participate in disarmament negotiations “at this time.”
On Saturday, G20 leaders approved a joint declaration to tackle climate change and other global issues, despite opposition from the U.S. The White House accused South Africa of manipulating its leadership role to push a biased agenda. The declaration, drafted without U.S. input, is considered final and cannot be renegotiated, according to South Africa’s spokesperson, reflecting disagreements between Pretoria and the Trump administration, which chose to boycott the summit.
Vincent Magwenya, a spokesperson for President Cyril Ramaphosa, explained, “We worked on this throughout the year, and the last week has been quite intense.” Later, the White House responded, claiming Ramaphosa was “resisting a smooth G20 transition” after initially planning to transfer the presidency to “an empty chair.” Anna Kelly, White House spokeswoman, stated, “South Africa has weaponized its G20 presidency to undermine the group’s founding principles.” The U.S. is set to resume its leadership role next year.
Ramaphosa had earlier declared there was “overwhelming consensus” for the summit’s final statement. However, Argentina, whose far-right President Javier Milei is an ally of Trump, withdrew from negotiations just before the draft was adopted. Argentine officials explained that their concerns were about how the document addressed geopolitical conflicts, especially the Middle East, describing the reference as insufficiently nuanced. Argentina remains committed to G20 cooperation despite not endorsing the final declaration.
Drafting the final G20 leaders’ statement on Friday, without U.S. participation, the envoys emphasized climate change, renewable energy, debt burdens of poor countries, and global cooperation. The language in the declaration on climate issues, which underscores the importance of addressing global warming and adapting to its impacts, was a pointed snub to the U.S., particularly since Trump questions the scientific consensus on climate change.
Opening the summit, Ramaphosa highlighted Africa’s role, saying, “We should not allow anything to diminish the value and impact of South Africa’s first G20 presidency.” His tone contrasted sharply with his White House visit in May, where Trump repeatedly made false claims about South Africa’s farm killings, ignoring Ramaphosa’s corrections. Trump announced that the U.S. would not send delegates to the summit, citing discredited allegations of government persecution of white farmers.
The summit coincides with ongoing global tensions, notably over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and climate negotiations at COP30 in Brazil. Maki Kobayashi, a Japanese government spokesperson, noted that while diversity among G20 members can pose challenges, it underscores the need for consensus. Meanwhile, Magwenya confirmed that Argentina’s absence from final deliberations didn’t derail the process, emphasizing that there was “sufficient consensus.”
Further disagreements surfaced over U.S. proposals for the G20 agenda, which South Africa and other member states rejected, emphasizing equal partnership and decision-making. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned of “the weaponization of dependencies,” likely alluding to China’s restrictions on rare earths crucial for energy and tech sectors. China’s Premier Li Qiang urged unity, stressing that differences and shortcomings in cooperation are obstacles to global progress.
South Africa refused a U.S. request to transfer the G20 presidency to a junior diplomat, citing protocol breaches. Instead, the Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola, announced that a diplomat of equal rank would perform the handover, reaffirming South Africa’s stance on the importance of proper diplomatic procedures.
Saudi Arabia is in negotiations with the United States over a defense agreement, aiming to finalize the deal during Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s upcoming visit to the White House next month, according to reports from the Financial Times. Sources familiar with the matter indicated that discussions are ongoing regarding a potential pact, with some comparing it to the recent US-Qatar security agreement, which commits to treating any armed attack on Qatar as a threat to US national security.
A senior official from the Trump administration mentioned that there are talks about signing something during the crown prince’s visit, but the specifics are still being worked out. The FT highlighted that the proposed deal might mirror the US-Qatar arrangement, especially in the context of recent regional tensions, including Israel’s attempt last month to target Hamas leaders with an airstrike on Doha.
The U.S. State Department emphasized that security cooperation with Saudi Arabia forms a core part of its regional strategy, though it declined to comment further on the potential agreement. Neither the State Department, the White House, nor the Saudi government responded to requests for comment regarding the Financial Times report.
Last month, Saudi Arabia entered into a mutual defense pact with nuclear-armed Pakistan. Signed on September 17 in Riyadh, the pact signifies a notable deepening of their security relationship, following Israel’s strikes on Qatar which shifted regional diplomatic dynamics. The agreement states that any aggression against one country will be considered an attack on both, aimed at enhancing defense cooperation and strengthening mutual deterrence.
The deal was signed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in a ceremony that was marked by a warm welcome for Pakistan’s top officials.
Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump committed to treating any armed attack on Qatar as a threat to U.S. security, explicitly stating that the U.S. forces could intervene if necessary. Qatar responded positively, viewing this as a significant step in fortifying defense ties and bilateral relations. This executive order, which solidifies America’s commitment to Qatar, follows Israel’s attempt last month to eliminate Hamas leaders via airstrike on Doha—a move that caused concern in Washington due to the close U.S.-Qatar relationship, especially since Qatar hosts the largest U.S. military base in the region.
The order affirms that any armed assault on Qatar’s territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure will be seen as a threat to U.S. peace and security, with the U.S. prepared to respond using diplomatic, economic, or military measures to defend U.S. and Qatari interests and restore stability. Top U.S. defense and intelligence officials will continue contingency planning with Qatar to ensure readiness for any potential attacks.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee in Oslo will finally reveal the winner on Friday at 11:00 a.m. (9:00 GMT), ending the suspense. The backdrop for this year’s announcement is grim: 2024 has seen the highest number of armed conflicts involving at least one state since Sweden’s Uppsala University began its global conflict database in 1946.
Donald Trump has consistently claimed he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for resolving “eight conflicts,” but experts believe he probably won’t be the committee’s selection this year. Swedish international affairs expert Peter Wallensteen told AFP, “No, it won’t be Trump this year. Maybe next year? By then, the dust will have settled around his various initiatives, including the Gaza crisis.”
Many analysts criticize Trump’s “peacemaker” assertions as overblown and worry about the broader implications of his “America First” policies. Trump maintains he should be honored for resolving multiple conflicts, but experts remain skeptical. Nina Graeger, head of the Peace Research Institute Oslo, pointed out, “Apart from efforts in Gaza, we’ve seen policies contradicting Nobel’s original intent to promote international cooperation, solidarity among nations, and disarmament.”
Graeger emphasized that Trump’s actions often diverge from the ideals symbolized by the Nobel Peace Prize. His tenure included withdrawing the U.S. from international organizations and multilateral treaties, initiating trade wars with allies and adversaries, threatening to seize Greenland from Denmark by force, deploying the National Guard into U.S. cities, and attacking academic freedoms and free expression.
Jorgen Watne Frydnes, chair of the five-member Nobel Peace Prize committee, explained, “We consider the full picture—including personality and character—but primarily, we assess actual achievements toward peace.”
This year, a total of 338 individuals and organizations were nominated, with the list remaining secret for the past 50 years. Anyone eligible to suggest candidates includes lawmakers, cabinet members, past laureates, university professors, and Nobel committee members.
The committee’s chair stated that all factors will be taken into account when choosing the prize. In 2024, the award went to Nihon Hidankyo, a Japanese group of atomic bomb survivors, for their efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.
With no clear frontrunner in 2024, several names have circulated in Oslo ahead of Friday’s announcement. These include Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms—volunteers risking their lives to aid war and famine victims—the widow of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, Yulia Navalnaya, and the OSCE election watchdog.
Recent Nobel selections suggest a shift toward more narrowly focused, traditional notions of peace—highlighting human rights, democracy, press freedom, and gender equality—according to Halvard Leira, director of the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs. He speculates that this year’s award might go to a less controversial candidate.
The prize could also reinforce support for the existing world order challenged by Trump. Options include honoring UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, agencies like UNHCR or UNRWA, international courts such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, or organizations advocating press freedom, like the Committee to Protect Journalists or Reporters Without Borders.
Yet, the committee also has a history of surprising everyone with an unexpected choice, leaving the door open for an unconventional recipient.
US President-elect Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shake hands inside the Notre-Dame de Paris Cathedral before a ceremony marking its reopening after the 2019 fire, in Paris, France, December 7, 2024. — Reuters
Trump indicates the upcoming meeting with Zelensky will be more significant.
Trump minimizes discussions of a ceasefire stemming from the Alaska summit.
Putin commends Trump’s “sincere efforts” to bring an end to the Ukraine conflict.
WASHINGTON/MOSCOW/KYIV: U.S. President-elect Donald Trump expressed his belief that Russian President Vladimir Putin is now open to ending the Ukraine war.
Just a day before his highly anticipated meeting with Putin in Alaska, Trump told reporters that peace might require another encounter, this time including Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.
This comes as Ukraine and its European allies are ramping up efforts this week to ensure no agreement between the U.S. and Russia during Friday’s Alaska summit leaves Ukraine susceptible to future aggression.
“I think President Putin wants peace, and I believe President Zelensky does too,” Trump stated at the White House. “We’ll see if they can work it out.”
He dismissed early rumors of a ceasefire coming out of the summit and hinted at a second, more comprehensive meeting with additional leaders.
“I believe this initial meeting will set the stage for a second one. I’ll be meeting with Putin, Zelensky, and perhaps some European leaders—though I’m not certain about that yet.”
Meanwhile, Putin has been consulting with top officials as he prepares for his meeting with Trump in Anchorage, which could influence the course of Europe’s most significant war since World War II.
In televised remarks, Putin said the U.S. is actively and genuinely working to halt the fighting, resolve the crisis, and reach mutually beneficial agreements.
“This effort aims to establish long-lasting peace between our nations, across Europe, and worldwide—especially regarding strategic arms control,” Putin added.
These comments suggest Russia intends to press nuclear arms control issues during the talks. An official close to the Kremlin mentioned that discussions will also explore expanding economic ties between Russia and the U.S.
One Eastern European official, speaking anonymously, warned that Putin may try to divert Trump’s focus from Ukraine during negotiations by advancing possible progress on nuclear arms or other business interests.
“We hope Trump isn’t duped,” the official said. “Russia’s main goal remains avoiding new sanctions and removing existing ones.”
‘Like a chess game’
Trump indicated there would be a press conference after the talks, though he wasn’t certain if it would be joint. He also mentioned during an earlier interview with Fox News that negotiations might involve bargaining over borders and territory.
“This meeting is like a chess game,” Trump explained. “It sets the foundation for a subsequent meeting, though there’s about a 25% chance it might not go well.”
He added that the success of the negotiations would depend on Putin and Zelensky, emphasizing he wouldn’t be negotiating their deal directly.
Russia controls around 20% of Ukraine, and Zelensky along with European leaders worry that any agreement might legitimize Russia’s territorial gains, rewarding Putin after years of land grabs and potentially encouraging further expansion into Europe.
An EU diplomat, requesting anonymity, expressed concern about the unfolding developments, noting that Trump’s dealings with Europe yesterday were promising but not guaranteed to continue.
Trump had previously shown openness to providing security guarantees for Ukraine during a virtual meeting with European leaders and Zelensky on Wednesday, though he did not publicly commit to specific measures.
The summit, the first U.S.-Russia meeting since June 2021, comes at a difficult time for Ukraine, which has suffered heavy casualties and displacement amid the ongoing conflict sparked by Russia’s full invasion in February 2022.
After Wednesday’s talks, French President Emmanuel Macron reported that Trump had said NATO should not be part of any security assurances for Ukraine after the war.
Nevertheless, Trump also advocated for the U.S. and allies to be part of any security guarantees, Macron added.
Expanding on that, a European official told Reuters that Trump indicated a willingness to offer some security assurances to Europe without detailing what those might involve.
“It felt like a big step forward,” the official said, preferring to remain unnamed.
It remains unclear what practical implications such guarantees could have.
On Wednesday, Trump threatened “severe consequences” if Putin refused peace in Ukraine and warned of sanctions if Friday’s meeting did not produce results.
Russia is expected to resist Ukraine’s and Europe’s demands and has maintained its stance since Putin first outlined it in June 2024.
India is set to restart issuing tourist visas to Chinese nationals starting July 24, 2025, according to an announcement from its embassy in China on Wednesday. This marks the first step in nearly five years toward repairing strained relations between the two countries.
The relationship has been tense since a military clash along their disputed Himalayan border in 2020. Following that conflict, India implemented restrictions on Chinese investments, banned hundreds of popular Chinese apps, and cut passenger flight services. Meanwhile, China had temporarily halted visas for Indian citizens and other foreigners due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These restrictions were lifted in 2022, allowing visas for students and business travelers to be reissued, but tourist visas for Indians only resumed in March this year after both nations agreed to restart direct air routes.
Over the past year, diplomatic ties have been gradually warming with several high-level meetings, including a noteworthy discussion between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Russia last October.
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, responded positively to India’s move, saying, “China is prepared to stay engaged in open communication and consultation with India, working toward increased personal exchanges between our nations.”
India and China share a long and contentious 3,800-kilometer border, a dispute that has persisted since the 1950s. The two nations engaged in a brief but fierce border war in 1962, and efforts to resolve the border issues have seen slow progress over the decades. Recently, India’s foreign minister emphasized to his Chinese counterpart the need to de-escalate border tensions, withdraw troops, and avoid restrictive trade measures to normalize their relationship.
The easing of travel restrictions and diplomatic engagements signal a cautious thawing of relations, although significant challenges remain in fully resolving their longstanding border disputes.
