Read the daily news to learn English

Trump’s lack of focus on human rights in China is big departure for US diplomacy

Asked before he departed for Beijing if he would raise with the Chinese president the case of Jimmy Lai, the pro-democracy activist jailed in Hong Kong, Donald Trump said: “I’ll bring him up.” But, the US president added: “It’s like saying to me, ‘If Comey ever went to jail, would you let him out?’ It might be a hard one for me.” Trump was referring to James B Comey, a former FBI director and a frequent target of Trump’s ire. Trump’s flippant attitude towards human rights comes as no surprise. Since he took office, his administration has launched widespread attacks on civil liberties, from immigration raids to attacks on gender-based healthcare to cutting funding for civil rights groups. But the near-total absence of human rights from current US-China dialogue is a marked departure from the diplomacy of previous generations – reflecting both the transformation of the US in the Trump era and China’s increasing confidence on the world stage. The Chinese Communist party now “seems immune to so-called condemnations and the international community”, said Ren Quanniu, a disbarred human rights lawyer. When George W Bush visited Beijing in 2008, he insisted on attending a Sunday church service to press his case for religious freedom in China. When Barack Obama made his state visit the following year, he urged China’s then president Hu Jintao to reopen talks with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet. Both Bush and Obama have themselves been accused of war crimes and human rights abuses related to the US’s “war on terror”. But their public support for minorities and activists in China was welcomed by the country’s nascent civil society movement. One of the most high-profile cases of US intervention came in 2012 when the Obama administration helped to evacuate a blind human rights lawyer, Chen Guangcheng after he escaped from house arrest. (Chen later urged US voters to elect Trump, claiming he would “stand up to tyranny”.) Even for less famous civil rights figures, support from the US can boost morale and lead to partial improvements in their conditions. “I have been told directly by any number of Chinese activists that raising their case has made a difference,” said Thomas Kellogg, executive director of the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University in Washington. The difference might be an improvement in prison conditions or an easing of harassment outside prison. The US’s retreat from its claimed position – even if it was always a somewhat false one – as global human rights defender comes at a time when activists say the situation in China has worsened. Since Xi Jinping took power in 2012, he has cracked down on civil society, punished feminist activists, narrowed the space for religious and ethnic expression and made crushing dissent a priority. Under his rule, China implemented a network of re-education camps in the north-west region of Xinjiang, which imprisoned up to 1 million Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities in the name of combating extremism. The UN said China’s policies in Xinjiang could constitute crimes against humanity, although Beijing strenuously denies those claims. “These are very, very difficult times for human rights defenders,” said Sophie Richardson, the co-executive director of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, an NGO. “I don’t think any democratic government has really kept pace in its interventions with Beijing.” During Trump’s first term, he took a more aggressive stance on China. His top team included many China hawks, such as former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former deputy national security advisor Matt Pottinger. That administration sanctioned several officials accused of being connected to human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Trump’s current secretary of state Marco Rubio was himself sanctioned by China for his fierce criticism of the country’s human rights record when he was a senator (China nonetheless allowed him to accompany Trump to Beijing this week). But those hawks have been sidelined and Trump, a leader who has displayed many autocratic tendencies himself, has expressed admiration for Xi. On Thursday he told the Chinese leader: “You’re a great leader. Sometimes people don’t like me saying it, but I say it anyway, because it’s true … it’s an honour to be your friend.” China, whose economy and military strength has increased rapidly in the past decades, has also grown more impervious to western criticism, which it long interpreted as lecturing and hypocritical. In 2021, China’s State Council released a 28-page report about human rights violations in the US that opened with the quote: “I can’t breathe,” the final words of George Floyd, an African American man whose murder by a police officer sparked the Black Lives Matter movement. Ren said Chinese propaganda had also persuaded many ordinary people that criticisms from the US were driven by “hostile foreign forces” rather than genuine humanitarian concern. “Many people don’t care what the Americans say any more,” Ren said. According to Trump, human rights did get a mention at this week’s summit. Although it did not feature in either side’s readout of the two-hour talks on Thursday, Trump told Fox News on his way home that he had discussed both Jimmy Lai and the case of several detained pastors with Xi. He said that Xi was “seriously considering” releasing the detained religious leaders, many of whom were targeted during a recent crackdown on Christians. That was welcomed by their relatives. Grace Jin Drexel, whose father, Ezra Jin, was detained last year, said: “It’s a major answer to our prayers and we’re also so grateful to everyone who has walked alongside us at the most difficult time.” But when it came to Lai, a 78-year-old former media mogul with broad bipartisan support in the US, Trump said it was a “tough one”.

Where is Dela Rosa? Philippine senator outmanoeuvres president in evading arrest

The wanted man outran security agents, rallied protesters and even serenaded the media with a military hymn. Then, after a sudden exchange of gunfire, the Philippines’ most controversial lawmaker slipped out of the heavily guarded senate building in the middle of the night. Senator Ronald dela Rosa, who is wanted by the international criminal court for crimes against humanity, is now nowhere to be seen. The week’s shambolic events have not only prompted criticism of the country’s senate, where Duterte’s allies controversially shielded Dela Rosa from arrest, but also of the president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, who appears outmanoeuvred. Dela Rosa is wanted by the international criminal court for his role as the enforcer of former president Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs”, in which thousands of people were killed. But the saga over his arrest is also underlined by a fierce power struggle between Marcos and Duterte’s daughter, the vice-president, Sara Duterte. They once campaigned together but relations quickly soured, reaching an all-time low last year when Marcos allowed her father to be arrested and transferred to the ICC. The 81-year-old leader is now imprisoned at The Hague, facing charges of crimes against humanity. Both Marcos and Dela Rosa deny wrongdoing. Dela Rosa, a tough-talking former head of the Philippine national police, had been in hiding for months after reports emerged of his looming arrest in November. He made a surprise appearance at the senate on Monday, turning up to back a successful bid by another staunch Duterte ally to become senate president. It proved a risky move for Dela Rosa, who found himself theatrically racing through hallways and clambering up senate stairways when security agents chased him through the building. He outran the agents, however. Along with his allies he has, perhaps, outmanoeuvred Marcos politically, too. When Dela Rosa reached the senate chamber he was granted protective custody by the new senate president, Alan Peter Cayetano. The concept of senate protection is deemed dubious by some experts, but paved the way for a three-day standoff with the authorities. For the first night, he hunkered down at the office of fellow senator Jinggoy Estrada, he told Super Radyo DZBB. “His room was better, it also has more food,” said Dela Rosa, who is known by the nickname Bato, which translates as “rock”. He admitted he did not have much of an appetite, however. Inside the senate, he kept himself busy – drumming up public support through Facebook live streams and media interviews. He called on his “fellow men in uniform” to oppose his arrest, bellowing out the military hymn to awaiting media in front of a media scrum, and made an appeal to Marcos not to hand him over to the ICC, with tears in his eyes. His announcement on Wednesday night that he faced imminent arrest led to a heavy security presence and protesters outside the senate. Inside the building, the media captured scenes of chaos as they tried to locate the senator. Some reporters gathered at a doorway, holding their mics up to the door to capture the sound of drilling, as passageways were apparently being sealed. Then, gunshots were fired, forcing reporters to scramble for cover. Dela Rosa fled hours later. GMA News reported he had told bodyguards he was nipping to the toilet, but instead fled through a fire exit and cruised off in an SUV with a fellow Duterte-aligned senator. Some have questioned if the shooting and commotion were staged to allow Dela Rosa an escape. Cayetano has denied this. He claimed the senate was “under attack”, blaming the national bureau of investigations, which had originally tried to arrest Dela Rosa on Monday. However, it later emerged senate security fired first. “I myself do not know what to make of it,” said the senator Vicente Sotto, who was ousted as senate president and replaced by Cayetano on Monday. “Some firearms shooting by the [senate security] at I don’t know what, when most of us should have been home. Then Bato escapes,” he said. The Marcos government has said it will respect a supreme court decision on Wednesday, which gave the government 72 hours to comment on a petition filed by Dela Rosa challenging his arrest. “I sense that Marcos Jr wants to be more careful at this point compared to when Duterte was arrested,” said Jean Encinas-Franco, a political science professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman. When Duterte was arrested, Marcos’s “approval and trust ratings suffered”, she said. He doesn’t want to risk the same happening again. “However, what is coming out is that the government is weak and incompetent, given the bungled attempts to arrest Bato,” she added. In contrast, Sara Duterte is performing well in surveys. Her allies’ grip on the senate has been tightened this week with Cayetano’s appointment – a helpful development given that she faces a looming impeachment trial. Dela Rosa will no doubt be keeping an eye on its proceedings. He is relatively young and may not be able to elude justice for ever, said Sol Iglesias, an associate professor of political science at the University of the Philippines. “However, if Sara Duterte is not convicted and wins the presidency in 2028, he can expect to be shielded for as long as his allies remain in power,” she added. For now, his whereabouts remain a mystery.

UK joins European deal to send rejected asylum seekers to third-country hubs

The UK and 45 other European countries have signed an agreement that explicitly endorses plans to send unwanted asylum seekers to third country hubs. A political declaration from the 46 members of the Council of Europe, the body that oversees the European convention on human rights (ECHR), said states had an “undeniable sovereign right” to control their borders. It is understood that the UK is now seeking a deal with an unnamed third country, similar to the Italy-Albania agreement that allowed Rome to place detention centres in Albania. In that deal, the hubs were initially intended for asylum seekers from countries considered safe while their applications were processed. Giorgia Meloni’s government has since used them to hold people to be deported whose applications have been rejected. According to the seven-page document, countries should be free “to address and potentially deter irregular migration”. It said: “Amongst the forms of new approaches that have been envisaged by several member states are processing requests for international protection in a third country, third country ‘return hubs’, and cooperation with countries of transit.” The agreement also attempts to give more scope for countries to deport people to places where they may be in danger of inhuman or degrading treatment, and to limit courts’ powers to intervene. Ministers have claimed that articles 3 and 8 of the convention – the right to live free from torture and the right to family life – have been used to prevent people with no right to be in the UK from being removed. “Caution should be exercised … when assessing whether the expulsion or extradition of an individual to a non-state party would violate a state’s obligations under article 3 of the convention,” the agreement said. The convention has become a significant point of contention between the main political parties. While Keir Starmer backs ECHR changes, the Conservatives and Reform UK have pledged to leave. One leading migration specialist said she was not convinced that a political agreement would have a significant effect on immigration cases. Madeleine Sumption, the director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, said: “It’s not clear how much impact a political declaration makes given that judges’ decisions are also driven by domestic and international case law, which this declaration does not change. How much concrete difference it will make remains to be seen.” Yvette Cooper, who finalised the agreement at the high-level meeting in Chişinău, Moldova, is expected to discuss hubs over the next two days. The foreign secretary told the Guardian: “Reform and the Conservatives have called for the ripping up of international law altogether – even though those same international laws are essential to our law enforcement cooperation against the criminal smuggler gangs, or to upholding pillars such as the Good Friday agreement. “The Greens have called instead for the ripping up of border controls – damaging our national security. Neither of their approaches delivers for our national interest. “That is why Labour is reforming the ECHR with partners from across the continent, because we know the relationships we build abroad make us stronger at home.” Alain Berset, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, said discussions about removing people who arrived in Europe by irregular routes would take place during the conference “at a multilateral level”. Starmer’s government has promoted setting up return hubs as a possible deterrent to irregular migration. Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, told MPs in November that the Home Office was in “active negotiations” with several countries, but no deals had been confirmed. The previous government’s plans to send people arriving by small boats to Rwanda, which cost £715m by 2024, was cancelled after failing to send a single person. The supreme court ruled the policy was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe country. The EU has voted to allow the possibility of return hubs, with Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands involved in talks. Discussions have reportedly centred on 11 countries – Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Libya, Mauritania, Rwanda, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda and Uzbekistan. Montenegro has denied reports that it is considering housing refused asylum seekers. Prof Eirik Bjorge KC, a legal academic at the University of Bristol, also questioned the effect of the declaration, but “deplored” attempts to modify human rights protections. “Article 3 is an embodiment of the very object and purpose of the convention and as such cannot be modified through political declarations,” he said. “In that regard, I deplore the attempt to relativise the notion of inhuman and degrading treatment.” Human rights organisations said they were concerned by the declaration. Akiko Hart, the director of Liberty, said: “The Chişinău political declaration on the ECHR is a hugely significant moment. “We are deeply concerned that changing how the ECHR is used by UK courts will open the door to a gradual weakening of human rights protections.”

Harvey Weinstein’s New York retrial ends in mistrial with jury deadlocked

Harvey Weinstein’s retrial in New York on a rape charge ended in a mistrial on Friday after the jury deadlocked in the closely watched criminal case that another jury had already failed to decide last year. The disgraced former Hollywood mogul has been convicted of other sex crimes on the US east and west coasts and is already in jail. But Friday’s declaration of another mistrial leaves the New York rape charge in limbo after three trials. A majority-male jury in Manhattan had been weighing whether Weinstein raped Jessica Mann, a hairstylist and actor. Weinstein’s lawyers argued that sexual encounter between them was consensual. It happened in 2013 during a fraught relationship between Weinstein, who was married at the time, and Mann, decades his junior. The signs of stalemate emerged on Friday a few hours into the third day of deliberations. Jurors sent a note saying they “have concluded that they cannot reach” a unanimous verdict. Judge Curtis Farber initially instructed the group to continue deliberating. An appeals court overturned his 2020 New York conviction on charges that involved Mann and another accuser. At a retrial last year, jury deliberations broke down amid infighting on Mann’s portion of the case, leading to this current retrial. Weinstein is charged with one count of rape in the third degree. Mann, 40, has testified that she willingly had some sexual interludes with the movie producer, but that he subjected her to unwanted sex that day, after she repeatedly said no. Weinstein’s lawyers have emphasized that Mann subsequently continued seeing Weinstein after the encounter and expressing warmth toward him. Mann has said she was mired in complicated feelings about him, herself and what had happened. Her viewpoint changed in 2017, when a series of allegations against Weinstein propelled the #MeToo movement. Some of those accusations generated criminal convictions against Weinstein in New York and California. Weinstein, 74, has said he “acted wrongly” but never assaulted anyone. The current jury heard nearly three weeks of testimony, five days of it from Mann. Weinstein did not testify. The Associated Press generally does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted. Mann, however, has agreed to be named. The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, issued a statement saying his prosecution team was disappointed with the outcome but said “we deeply respect the jury system and sincerely thank all of the jurors for their time and dedication.” Bragg added: “For nearly a decade, Jessica Mann has fought for justice. Over the course of many weeks during three separate trials, she relived unthinkably painful experiences in front of complete strangers. Her perseverance and bravery are inspiring to the members of my office, and more importantly, to survivors everywhere.” He said his office would consider its next steps in consultation with Mann “and in consideration of Harvey Weinstein’s pending sentencing following last year’s trial conviction for forcibly sexually assaulting Miriam Haley”. Weinstein was convicted on one count, concerning Haley, and acquitted on a charge involving another woman, after a three-week trial that revived accusations from a successful 2020 prosecution that was overturned on appeal. Weinstein reported chest pains in court on Wednesday during jury deliberations. He is generally transported to court in a wheelchair and returned to court on Thursday as deliberations continued. He is incarcerated at the Rikers Island jail complex in New York City and has been in and out of hospital in the city with heart trouble and other health conditions since his original conviction. Bragg’s statement concluded: “As always, we will continue to prosecute crimes of sexual violence – no matter who the defendant is – in a survivor-centered manner that uplifts their voices in the pursuit of justice.” The Associated Press contributed reporting

Threatened indictment of Raúl Castro ratchets up US pressure on Cuba

Tensions between Cuba and US seem set to rise further amid reports that Raúl Castro, the country’s 94-year-old former president, may soon face the type of indictment that led to the US abduction of the Venezuelan leader, Nicolás Maduro, in January. Although Raúl is officially retired, he remains the most potent figure in Cuban politics following the death of his brother Fidel in 2016, and by targeting him Washington appears to be heaping pressure on Cuba’s communist leadership at the end of an already extraordinarily intense week. The indictment, which has not been officially confirmed and would require confirmation by a grand jury, appears to be linked to the 1996 downing of two small planes belonging to a Cuban exile group called Brothers to the Rescue. The aircraft, which had been searching for rafters fleeing across the Florida straits, had flown over Havana to drop leaflets when they were intercepted by a Cuban jet. “You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich,” said Pedro Freyre, a leading Cuban American lawyer in Miami. Reports of the possible indictment came the day after the CIA director, John Ratcliffe flew into Havana for a meeting with the Cuban ex-president’s grandson Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro and senior government figures. Ratcliffe’s arrival in turn occurred after a night in which protests spread across the island’s capital, as people struggled with 22-hour blackouts. Vicente de la O Levy, Cuba’s energy minister, had earlier admitted the island was out of fuel oil. “We have absolutely nothing,” he told state television. Since the abduction of Maduro, and Washington’s assuming control of Venezuela’s oil industry, the US has been pushing for change in Havana: either the fall of the current regime or, at least, the opening up of the economy to US interests. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to change the trajectory of Cuba as long as these people are in charge,” the US’s Cuban American secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said as he flew to China this week. Meanwhile Donald Trump has made it clear he wants to “take over” the country. For the last four months the US has imposed a strict oil blockade on Cuba, allowing only one Russian crude carrier, the Anatoly Kolodkin, in for what Trump claimed were humanitarian reasons. The US has also held bilateral talks with Rodríguez Castro, a decision that has caused widespread disquiet among many Cubans who complained that Raúl’s grandson holds no official role in government. Amid speculation that the US was trying to force a split in the government, Miguel Díaz-Canel, the island’s current president, held a press conference to confirm the talks, and Raúl Castro’s involvement, while Rodríguez Castro sat watching on. Until this week, it had been assumed the discussions were foundering as the Cuban government dragged its feet, hoping Washington was too distracted by its difficulties in Iran to push its case. Yet Trump’s growing impatience has been clear. He himself told a conference in Florida at the start of May, that he might have the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln “stop roughly 100 yards off the [Cuban] shore”. In the last few weeks, US surveillance aircraft, both drones and manned, have been tracked circling the island. “I still can’t imagine the US actually conducting a military operation with Iran still a mess,” said Michael Bustamante, chair of Cuban and Cuban American studies at the University of Miami. “But I also don’t think Cuba can afford that bet with no oil in the tank.” The result of the meeting between the senior Cuban officials and CIA director Ratcliffe remains unclear. Each side restated their positions, the Cubans clarifying that the island “does not constitute a threat to US national security” and the US saying it was prepared to “seriously engage on economic and security issues, but only if Cuba makes fundamental changes”. The US State department had earlier said they would offer $100m in aid, so long as it was matched by “meaningful reforms”. In an unprecedented move, Bruno Rodríguez, the Cuban foreign minister, said the Cuban side would be accept the aid, so long as no strings were attached. Meanwhile, Cuba’s 9.5 million population faces an uncertain future. What is certain, though, is that the lack of fuel on the island is creating a desperate present. Temperatures are rising into the 30s (high 80 fahrenheit) as summer approaches and people are struggling to sleep without fans, or keep food refrigerated. The Cuban economy has been collapsing for five years now, and many are destitute, struggling to find enough to eat. On Wednesday, as people came on to the streets to complain, one told Reuters it wasn’t political: “We started banging pots to see if they would give us just three hours of electricity. That’s all we want.”

German leader Merz says he ‘would not advise my children to go’ to US

Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, already embroiled in a row with Donald Trump over the Iran war, has said he would not advise his children to study or work in the US in the current climate. Speaking to a conference of young Catholics in Würzburg, the conservative leader, viewed by many as a transatlanticist, said he no longer saw the US as the land of opportunity. “I am a great admirer of America. At the moment my admiration is not growing,” he said during a podium discussion, citing the quickly changing “social climate” in the deeply polarised country. “I would not advise my children today to go to the US, get educated there or work there, simply because a certain social climate has suddenly developed there.” The 70-year-old father of three continued: “Today, even the best-educated people in America are finding it very hard to get a job.” Speaking about his own country, Merz urged Germans not to fall into a “disaster mode” about the state of the world and encouraged them to feel more optimistic about their homeland’s potential. “I firmly believe that there are few countries in the world that offer such great opportunities, especially for young people, as Germany,” he said. The remarks about the US immediately drew a furious response from Trump’s camp. Richard Grenell, a longtime Republican foreign policy adviser who served as ambassador to Germany during Trump’s first term, posted on X: “@_FriedrichMerz has become the European President of the TDS Society,” referring to so-called Trump derangement syndrome. He said that when Merz met Trump at the White House, most recently in March, he was “completely soft and complimentary”, and said Friday’s comments contradicted that conciliatory approach. “Germans have a leader who has no strategy – and is completely controlled by the German woke media,” Grenell said. The German far-right leader Alice Weidel, whose anti-immigration, pro-Kremlin Alternative für Deutschland party has been supported by members of Trump’s Maga movement, also commented on the chancellor’s remarks. “Merz advises against travelling to the US due to the ‘political climate’. Ironically, it is a chancellor who is deliberately leading his own country towards social and economic ruin who is now pointing the finger in warning,” she wrote on social media. “This is not in Germany’s interests.” Disputes over trade and military aid for Ukraine have fuelled tensions between the US and its European allies and tested the Nato alliance. Merz is struggling to revive an anaemic German economy and has said the impact of the US-Israeli military action in Iran and the ensuing closure of the strait of Hormuz has been severely damaging to European interests. Late last month he stunned listeners in Germany as well as the US with blunt comments stating that the Americans were being “humiliated” by Iran’s leadership in the current conflict, angering Trump. Days later, Washington announced a partial troop withdrawal from Germany, where it has about 36,000 military service members, and tariff hikes on cars imported from the EU, a sector crucial to the German economy. Merz, whose popularity ratings are plumbing record depths in German polls, has since then said he was “not giving up on working on the transatlantic relationship”, while declining opportunities to retract his criticism of Trump. On Friday he posted on X that he had spoken with Trump by telephone while the US president was travelling home from China and that they had discussed Iran, Ukraine and the upcoming Nato summit in Ankara. “The US and Germany are strong partners in a strong Nato,” Merz said.

Ukraine ‘entirely justified’ to plan strikes against Russian energy and military targets after Kyiv attacks, Zelenskyy says – as it happpened

… and on that note, it’s a wrap for today! Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Ukraine will “not allow any of the aggressor’s strikes … go unpunished,” and would be “entirely justified” to hit Russia’s oil industry, military production in retaliation for the recent Russian attacks on the country (16:30). His comments come after 24 people were reported killed, including three children, in a Russian cruise missile attack on an apartment block in Kyiv (10:45, 13:11). US president Donald Trump responded to the Russian attack saying the Ukrainians “took a big hit,” and suggesting the strikes could set back efforts to end the war (16:37). Ukraine has already launched a large-scale long-range drone attack targeting several regions in Russia including the huge Ryazan oil refinery (12:51). Zelenskyy also warned about intercepted Russian plans to hit Ukraine’s “decision-making centres,” including key political and military offices. Elsewhere, The US army has confirmed the cancellation of the planned deployment of 4,000 US troops to Poland as part of a broader reorganisation of force posture in Europe (13:41, 17:24). Senior US diplomat said the changes “should not surprise anyone” as they are part of a broader US realignment, even if early adjustments “can be a little bit shocking,” but he insisted the US would still be a reliable ally for Europe (17:11). But Polish officials insisted they received assurances from the US that there would be no substantial change to security guarantees for Poland, as they hinted that more US troops coming to Poland could be reassigned from elsewhere (13:41, 17:50). If you have any tips, comments or suggestions, email me at jakub.krupa@theguardian.com. I am also on Bluesky at @jakubkrupa.bsky.social and on X at @jakubkrupa.

Oman caught between US and Iran after Tehran’s claims of joint strait of Hormuz plan

Oman has been caught in geopolitical crossfire after Iran said it was coordinating with the Gulf state over the future management of the strait of Hormuz, including Tehran’s plans to impose fees on commercial shipping. The Omani exclave of Musandam lies to the south of the contested waterway, which normally carries a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil traffic but has been blockaded for 10 weeks since the US-Israeli attack on Iran in February. The US has said repeatedly there can be no permanent solution to the blockade that involves the payment of a toll to Iran, and claims that Oman holds a similar view. Speaking in India on Friday, the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, defined the strait of Hormuz as an exclusively Omani-Iranian waterway. “The strait is located in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman,” he said. “There is no international waters in between.” Araghchi added that Iran was coordinating with Oman about the future management of the strait. Oman has so far been silent about Iran’s plans to charge a fee and to demand details on the nationality of all ships passing through the waterway. Western diplomats say Iranian proposals for the future permanent management of the strait are unlawful since they impose tolls on commercial shipping and would give Iran an arbitrary right to select the ships that are allowed passage, possibly based on the nationality of ownership. A requirement that every ship set up a rial account to pay for services would also probably fall foul of UN sanctions prohibiting money being sent to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). A rival plan based on freedom of navigation being prepared by France and the UK has also been put to Oman, and has the support of most Gulf states. British officials including the Foreign Office’s political director, Lord Llewellyn, have recently been in Muscat, as has the secretary general of the International Maritime Organization, Arsenio Dominguez. The legal rights of coastal states to impose tolls lies at the heart of the deadlock on how to reopen the strait and whether Iran’s proposed move, by restricting freedom of navigation, is illegal and sets a precedent for other similar waterways. Iran became a signatory to the UN convention on the law of the sea (Unclos) in 1982, very soon after the 1979 revolution, but never ratified the treaty. This means that from Iran’s perspective it is not bound by the treaty’s transit passage rules that underpin freedom of navigation, but instead by customary international law, including a more restrictive right of innocent passage. Iran claims that even if it is bound by Unclos, the enhanced right of transit passage to ships of nations is conditional and passage specifically can be restricted in the event of any threat or use of force against “sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal states”. Tehran said at the outset of the conflict that the southern shore of the strait including the United Arab Emirates was used by the the US to arm American bases to attack Iran. Iran hopes the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), a government agency it established on 5 May, will become a profitable revenue-generating stream. A grey area is whether Iran can only charge fees in return for providing services to ships, or whether in reality it would be compulsory to use those services, so in effect turning the service fee into a toll. The PGSA says ships now have to register by email with its office to receive routing information and permission to pass the strait. Payment would be required in Iran’s national currency. The fee is being set at roughly a dollar a barrel. Donald Trump at his summit in Beijing claimed that China – which imports almost 45% of Iran’s oil production through the strait – agreed with the US that there could be no tolls and no restrictions. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has also said China does not favour tolls. The Chinese foreign ministry said it simply wanted the blockades to end and that the cause of the closure was the US-Israel war on Iran. However, the IRGC briefed on Thursday that after talks with China’s ambassador to Iran, a large group of Chinese oil tankers were being let through the strait by Tehran and that these ships had agreed to be subject to the Iranian regime. The wording did not reveal whether a fee was paid by China. At the time the US imposed its blockade of Iranian ports, as a countermeasure to Iran’s effective closure of the strait, Trump said: “No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.” That implied the US navy might feel entitled to block Chinese oil tankers if they paid a toll to Iran. However, it would be hard to gain evidence at the relevant moment whether a toll, or fee had been paid. Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates said all actions it had taken came within its framework of defensive measures aimed at protecting its sovereignty, civilians and vital infrastructure, according to a statement from its foreign ministry. The statement on Saturday came after the Wall Street Journal published a story on Monday saying the UAE carried out military operations on Iran in early April. That news is likely to make the UAE an even clearer target for Iran if the ceasefire is abandoned and the US and Iran restart the conflict. The UAE ministry’s statement did not explicitly refer to the reported strikes on Iran.