ICC members dismiss prosecutor Khan over sexual misconduct allegation

SUVA: A Chinese ballistic-missile test in the Pacific has exposed a growing dilemma for the region’s small island nations: how can they preserve their vision of an “Ocean of Peace” while increasingly finding themselves caught between the military ambitions of major powers? China’s July missile launch, its first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, has intensified concerns about the region’s rapid militarisation. The test came just hours after Fiji signed a major defence agreement with Australia, its first-ever military alliance. The timing highlighted the competing security interests shaping the Pacific, where the United States and China are increasingly contesting influence. Yet despite widespread concern among Pacific leaders, the region failed to agree on a joint statement condemning the Chinese missile test during a meeting of foreign ministers in Suva last week. Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko described the launch as “totally inappropriate”, saying that while China remained a close friend and partner of Papua New Guinea, the missile test was not helpful. Beijing had informed Papua New Guinea about the launch beforehand, Tkatchenko said, but did not provide details about where the missile would land. China defended the exercise at the time. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said the test had been conducted safely and urged other countries not to “over-interpret” the event. Pacific caught between major powers The missile launch was the latest in a series of military developments that have transformed the Pacific into an increasingly contested strategic space. Chinese naval deployments and live-fire exercises, including drills in the Tasman Sea, have become more visible. At the same time, US allies have expanded military exercises around Guam and Hawaii, while Washington maintains major military facilities and forces across Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands. For Pacific island governments, the growing military activity creates an uncomfortable contradiction. Many have repeatedly insisted that their region should not become another battleground for global power competition. In September 2025, Pacific leaders endorsed the Ocean of Peace Declaration, pledging to protect the region and strengthen international peace and security. The initiative was intended to put Pacific countries themselves at the centre of discussions about their security rather than allowing outside powers to define the region’s strategic priorities. David Peebles of the Australian National University’s Pacific Security College said Pacific nations had historically resisted security agendas imposed by larger countries. But the growing number of defence agreements is now testing that principle. Defence deals bring benefits — and fears For some Pacific governments, security partnerships offer practical advantages. They can provide surveillance against illegal fishing, disaster-response capabilities, policing assistance, military equipment and training. Australia’s new defence agreement with Fiji, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance, reflects that approach. But critics fear that a growing network of bilateral security arrangements could gradually draw Pacific nations deeper into the strategic competition between China and the United States. Tuvalu’s permanent foreign secretary, Pasuna Tuaga, speaking in a personal capacity, expressed concern over increasing militarisation, including security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, Britain and the United States. The concern is not simply about military exercises or missiles. Pacific governments also worry that agreements could eventually influence how their territory, waters and critical infrastructure are used. Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela, who chaired the Suva talks, stressed that the region’s security agenda must remain “conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific”. Yet achieving that unity is becoming increasingly difficult. China divides Pacific consensus The failure to produce a common statement on China’s missile test revealed just how sharply interests differ among Pacific nations. Officials familiar with the discussions said Kiribati and Nauru did not support the wording of a proposed statement. Both countries have strengthened relations with Beijing after switching diplomatic recognition away from Taiwan. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters attributed the failure to reach consensus to foreign influence, although he did not identify any country. The disagreement reflects a broader challenge. Some Pacific governments, particularly those closer to longstanding US military facilities, favour stronger security ties with Washington and its allies. Others remain cautious about becoming involved in military competition between major powers and maintain close economic or diplomatic relations with Beijing. Fiji faces a difficult balancing act Fiji is now at the centre of this debate. The country signed its defence agreement with Australia and participated for the first time in the US-led RIMPAC military exercises last month. At the same time, Fiji has publicly supported the vision of a peaceful Pacific free from major-power confrontation. Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka acknowledged the tension, saying Pacific nations wanted to be free from “all these war-making paraphernalia” while recognising that some security capabilities were necessary to protect them. For Pacific leaders, the challenge is increasingly about finding the right balance. The region does not want to choose sides in a rivalry between Washington and Beijing. But as military exercises expand, defence agreements multiply and missiles are tested in Pacific waters, remaining completely outside that rivalry is becoming harder. The issue is expected to return to the spotlight when Pacific leaders gather in Palau in three weeks for the Pacific Islands Forum summit. The missile test may have lasted only moments, but its political impact could linger far longer — forcing Pacific nations to confront whether their dream of an “Ocean of Peace” can survive amid an increasingly militarised region.

Daniel Siad, a modelling scout whose name appeared nearly 2,000 times in the Epstein files released by the US Department of Justice, was found dead at his home outside Paris on Wednesday, prosecutors said. His body was reportedly discovered in the kitchen by a woman staying with him, and a neighbor reportedly attempted CPR without success. Siad’s death comes amid a wide-ranging probe into human trafficking and tax fraud opened in February following the release of the Epstein files. Since the investigation began, 24 women have come forward as victims or witnesses of alleged acts committed by Siad or others, Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau said in a statement. As part of the probe, Siad had been subjected to special scrutiny, though he had repeatedly proclaimed his innocence. Siad’s lawyer, Arab-Tigrine, told Reuters that Siad had asked on several occasions to be heard by French judicial authorities, but that no action was taken. She confirmed that Siad had died of a heart attack. Siad is the second man publicly linked to Epstein who has died in France. In 2020, French authorities arrested modelling agent Jean-Luc Brunel after allegations he procured women for Epstein. Brunel was found hanged in his prison cell in 2022, having spent 14 months in custody awaiting trial on charges of rape of minors and sexual harassment. He denied the charges, along with any participation in Epstein’s sex trafficking. The Epstein files, released by the US Department of Justice, have revealed extensive connections between the late financier and individuals in the modelling and entertainment industries. Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, had a long history of exploiting young women and maintaining a network of powerful associates. The release of these documents has reignited debates about accountability and the extent of Epstein’s influence. Siad’s death raises questions about the circumstances surrounding his passing and the ongoing investigation into his activities. His lawyer’s statement that he had sought to be heard by authorities suggests a desire to clear his name, but his sudden death has left many unanswered questions. The French authorities have not yet released further details about the investigation into Siad’s activities, but the probe continues as more victims and witnesses come forward. The deaths of Brunel and Siad have drawn attention to the high-profile individuals connected to Epstein who have died under unusual circumstances. While both men denied the allegations against them, their deaths have fueled speculation about the extent of Epstein’s network and the pressure faced by those connected to him. As the investigation continues, the public will be watching closely for any further developments in the case. Siad’s death marks another chapter in the ongoing saga of the Epstein scandal, which has exposed the dark underbelly of the modelling and entertainment industries and raised questions about the accountability of those who enabled Epstein’s crimes. The investigation into Siad’s activities and the broader network of individuals connected to Epstein is likely to continue, with the hope of bringing justice to the victims and shedding further light on the extent of Epstein’s influence.