China is significantly expanding its astronomical capabilities with the construction of two new telescopes at the Lenghu Astronomical Base in Qinghai. This region is highly regarded for its excellent astronomical observation conditions, including clear night skies, stable atmospheric conditions, and minimal light pollution.
The two new telescopes are:
A meter-level dedicated solar system astrometric telescope: This telescope, with a 4.2-meter diameter, is designed for high-precision astrometric measurements of solar system objects. Upon completion, it will be the largest specialized telescope for astrometric measurements globally, contributing significantly to high-precision positioning of solar system objects. This will enhance space safety and asteroid monitoring.
A 2.5-meter multi-channel universal telescope: While details on its specific multi-channel capabilities are still emerging, a 2.5-meter Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST), also known as “Mozi,” is already a prominent feature at Lenghu and is designed for time-domain surveys, including the detection of supernovae and near-Earth asteroids. The new 2.5-meter multi-channel universal telescope will likely complement existing or planned observational efforts at the base.
The Lenghu Astronomical Base is becoming a major hub for astronomical research in China, with multiple projects underway, including the large Jiao Tong University Spectroscopic Telescope (JUST), a 4.4-meter telescope expected to be completed in phases by 2032. These investments aim to fill gaps in China’s large-scale observational facilities, boost its independent observational capabilities, and contribute to global astronomical exploration.
A growing global interest in learning Chinese language and culture, often referred to as the “Chinese craze.”
Motivation for Learning Chinese:
– Many foreigners are drawn to Chinese due to its pleasant sound and charm, as mentioned by a student who started learning after hearing Chinese tourists speak.
– Economic opportunities are a significant driver, with a German individual stating that proficiency in Chinese can lead to a 30% salary increase in the German job market.
– Some, like the daughter of a US financial tycoon, are learning Chinese because of a belief in China’s growing economic influence in the 21st century.
Global Popularity and Integration:
Chinese language is being widely promoted, as seen in Saudi Arabia, where it’s being integrated into national education.
The number of candidates taking the Chinese Proficiency Test (HSK) is increasing by 20% annually, with over 810,000 test-takers in 2024.
As of September last year, 85 countries have incorporated Chinese into their national education systems, with over 200 million learners and users worldwide.
In Germany, Chinese language classes have become a compulsory subject from kindergarten to nursing homes, with over 30,000 students currently learning Chinese.
Challenges and Humorous Aspects of Learning:
Over 50% of German students give up learning Chinese due to the difficulty of Chinese characters.
These linguistic blunders have created a new trend on social media, where foreigners’ “out-of-context” Chinese expressions become viral content.
Economic and Cultural Exchange:
The increasing interest in Chinese is closely tied to deepening economic ties, cultural exchanges, and technological innovation.
China is the world’s second-largest economy and a major trading partner for over 150 countries and regions.
Many foreign businesspeople at Chinese trade fairs speak fluent Chinese to seek business opportunities.
The “Chinese Bridge” Chinese Proficiency Competition is popular globally, showcasing contestants’ fluency and their love for Chinese culture.
Foreigners’ Experiences in China:
Foreign students and workers experiencing the demanding pace of life and work in China, including the “996” work culture.
Many foreigners are engaging in “special forces” tourism in China, challenging themselves with intense travel itineraries.
The European Commission has decided to restrict Chinese companies from participating in tenders for medical devices valued over 5 million Euros.
In response, a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the EU’s actions constitute unfair competition under the guise of fair competition, calling it a typical double standard. China affirmed its commitment to resolutely defend the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.
The Mary River Mine on Baffin Island, Nunavut, represents a microcosm of the complex challenges and profound shifts occurring in Arctic resource development. Its recent history, particularly the rejection of its Phase 2 expansion, offers crucial insights into the future of Canada’s North.
The Mary River Mine: A Case Study in Arctic Development
The Asset: The Mary River Mine, owned by Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (jointly by The Energy and Minerals Group and ArcelorMittal), extracts one of the highest-grade iron ores in the world. Its current operations involve trucking ore to Milne Inlet and shipping it out during the ice-free season, under an approved limit (currently 6 million tonnes per annum, mtpa).
The Ambition (Phase 2): Baffinland sought to significantly expand its operations, aiming to double production to 12 mtpa (and eventually even higher, up to 30 mtpa from multiple ports) and build a 110-km railway to its port at Milne Inlet. This expansion was deemed crucial by Baffinland for the mine’s long-term financial viability.
The Rejection (November 2022): After a four-year, unprecedentedly detailed review by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), the federal government accepted NIRB’s recommendation to reject the Phase 2 expansion in its proposed form. The core reasons for rejection were:
Unmitigable Environmental Impacts: Concerns over significant adverse effects on marine mammals (especially narwhal), caribou, and overall ecosystem health due to increased shipping traffic, railway construction, and dust. The NIRB concluded Baffinland’s proposed mitigation measures were insufficient.
Profound Inuit Opposition: This was the critical factor. Inuit communities, notably those closest to the mine like Pond Inlet, and their representative organizations (Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.), strongly opposed the expansion. Their concerns centered on:
Threat to Food Security and Culture: Direct impacts on harvesting (hunting and fishing) vital to their diet and way of life. They reported observed declines in narwhal populations and changes in caribou migration since current operations began.
Erosion of Trust and Insufficient Engagement: A feeling that Baffinland had not adequately incorporated Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Traditional Knowledge) or genuinely addressed their concerns, leading to a deep lack of trust. The Nuluujaat Land Guardians’ blockade in 2021 was a powerful symbol of this frustration.
Disproportionate Benefits vs. Impacts: A perception that the economic benefits (jobs, royalties) were not flowing equitably to Inuit, especially compared to the long-term environmental and cultural costs.
What the Mary River Decision “Really Means” for the Future:
The Mary River decision is far more than just the rejection of one mine expansion; it signifies profound shifts in Arctic resource development and Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.
The Ascendancy of Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination:
– Beyond Consultation to Consent: The rejection strongly signals a move from a mere “duty to consult” towards a de facto requirement for Indigenous consent (Free, Prior, and Informed Consent – FPIC), particularly for projects on Inuit-owned lands, as recognized under the Nunavut Agreement. The Minister explicitly stated that the land is Inuit-owned, and their lack of support was salient.
– Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as Authority: The decision validates the authority and necessity of Inuit Traditional Knowledge as a legitimate and critical form of evidence in environmental assessments, on par with Western science.
New Power Dynamics: It empowers Indigenous communities, demonstrating that they have the power to shape development in their territories and that their concerns cannot be dismissed. Future resource projects in the Canadian Arctic (and likely beyond) will need to be truly Indigenous-led or Indigenous-partnered from the very outset, deeply integrating Indigenous values and knowledge.
Shifting Priorities in Northern Development:
– Sustainability Over Extraction at All Costs: The decision reinforces that economic benefits alone cannot outweigh significant and unmitigated environmental and socio-cultural impacts, especially in fragile Arctic ecosystems.
– Focus on Long-Term Well-being: It prioritizes the long-term health of the land, wildlife, and traditional livelihoods over short-to-medium-term economic gains from large-scale, externally-driven resource extraction.
– Diversification Away from Heavy Industry: While mining will remain important (especially for critical minerals), the emphasis will likely shift towards more diversified, smaller-scale, and locally-controlled economic activities like sustainable fisheries, cultural tourism, and renewable energy, that align better with Inuit values and self-sufficiency.
The Role of Federal Government and Regulatory Bodies:
– Empowered Regulators: The federal government’s acceptance of the NIRB’s strong recommendation strengthens the independence and authority of co-management bodies established under land claim agreements. This provides greater certainty that rigorous environmental assessments will be respected.
– Reconciliation in Practice: It represents a tangible (though still partial) step towards reconciliation, demonstrating a willingness by the Canadian government to side with Indigenous rights and environmental protection even when it means rejecting a major economic project. This stands in contrast to the historical pattern.
– “Transactional” vs. “Transformative” Reconciliation: While critics still argue Canada’s overall reconciliation stance can be transactional, this decision could be seen as a move towards a more transformative approach, acknowledging Indigenous self-determination as a fundamental principle rather than just a hurdle to overcome.
Implications for Future Resource Investment:
– Increased Due Diligence for Proponents: Companies looking to invest in the Canadian Arctic will need to dramatically adjust their approach. They must:
Engage deeply and genuinely with Indigenous communities from the earliest stages.
Be prepared for lengthy and robust assessment processes.
Prioritize mitigation, environmental protection, and long-term benefit-sharing.
– Accept that Indigenous priorities and knowledge will be central to project design and decision-making.
Focus on Critical Minerals (with caveats): While the Mary River Mine is iron ore, the broader Canadian Arctic has significant potential for critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, rare earths) vital for the green economy. The federal government is keen to develop these. However, the Mary River decision clearly indicates that even these “green” mines will face the same stringent environmental and Indigenous consent requirements. “Green” demand won’t automatically bypass local opposition if impacts are too great.
– Reduced Oil and Gas Prospects: If high-grade iron ore faced such hurdles, the prospects for high-cost, environmentally contentious oil and gas development in the Canadian Arctic, already constrained by the federal moratorium, become even more remote.
The Future of the Mary River Mine Itself:
Baffinland continues to operate at a lower approved limit (currently 6 mtpa, after initially having a temporary higher permit). The company is now exploring options, including:
– A “Sustaining Operations” Proposal: Aiming to continue operations at the approved rates, ensuring long-term viability without the massive expansion.
– Revisiting Steensby Inlet: Baffinland holds an older project certificate for a southern route via Steensby Inlet (which also includes a railway and port, and would allow for much higher production, up to 18 mtpa). While this route was initially deemed uneconomical due to its greater distance and a different marine environment, the rejection of Phase 2 at Milne Inlet might compel Baffinland to revisit this. However, this route would also face renewed scrutiny regarding its environmental impacts on different sensitive marine areas (Hudson Strait, Foxe Basin) and caribou habitat, and would still require Inuit support. It’s likely that a new assessment process would be triggered given the passage of time and increased understanding of impacts.
– Potential for Sale or Restructuring: The financial challenges for Baffinland are significant without expansion. This could lead to a sale of the mine or a restructuring of the ownership.
In essence, the Mary River decision is a landmark moment. It signifies a future where Indigenous communities in the Canadian Arctic are increasingly in the driver’s seat of resource development, where environmental protection is paramount, and where “business as usual” for large-scale, external resource extraction is no longer acceptable without genuine and transformative partnership. The vast mineral wealth of the North will only be unlocked if development models fundamentally shift to align with these principles.
Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently used the World War II incident in Denmark (Operation Carthage and the bombing of the French school) as an analogy to discuss “collateral damage” specifically in the context of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
He uses this historical example to illustrate that even when targeting legitimate military objectives, tragic civilian casualties can occur, and that such incidents, while regrettable, do not negate the legitimacy of the military action, especially when facing an enemy (like Hamas) that operates within civilian populations.
By the same token, it is common for Israeli news reporters and officials to highlight and imply that Iran’s missile attacks are targeting or indiscriminately hitting Israeli civilians.
Here’s how this is conveyed:
– Reporting on Civilian Casualties and Damage: Israeli media frequently report on the direct impact of Iranian missiles on residential areas, civilian infrastructure, and the resulting casualties.
For instance, The Times of Israel explicitly uses headlines like “‘Complete destruction’: Israelis describe fear, chaos as Iran’s missiles smash their homes” and reports on “three killed, dozens wounded” with a focus on “a residential building in Bat Yam was struck—killing seven people, including two children.”
FDD (Foundation for Defense of Democracies), often cited in Israeli media contexts, published an article titled “23 Wounded in Latest Iranian Missile Attacks on Israeli Civilians,” stating that missiles were launched “at civilian population centers.”
Reports mention strikes on a hospital (Soroka Medical Center), although Iran claimed a military target was intended nearby. Israeli sources, however, emphasize the civilian impact.
Describing Iran’s Intent as Indiscriminate: Israeli officials and media often characterize Iran’s attacks as “indiscriminate” or “terrorist,” which inherently implies a disregard for civilian lives or a deliberate targeting of them.
UN Watch, citing Israeli media, notes that “Israeli media reported that Khamenei personally ordered attacks against Israeli civilian population centers.” It also states, “The Islamic Republic has not declared any legitimate military aims and instead has targeted its strikes at Israeli civilians using weapons that are by nature indiscriminate.”
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has accused Iran of “war crimes of the most serious kind” after a missile hit a hospital, implying a deliberate targeting or criminal negligence that harms civilians.
Highlighting the Need for Shelters and Home Front Command Instructions: The constant reporting on air-raid sirens, the need for Israelis to run to shelters, and the damage to homes and civilian areas (even if intercepts prevent more widespread harm) all serve to emphasize the threat to the civilian population from Iranian missiles.
Not too far away from Iran, Indian Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah stated in an interview with The Times of India on the 21st that India will never resume compliance with the Indus Waters Treaty signed with Pakistan, and the water that previously flowed to Pakistan will be redirected for domestic use in India.
“No, there will be no resumption (of compliance),” Shah said. “We will construct a canal to divert the water originally flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan. Pakistan will not be able to access the water.”
Pakistan has previously stated that the treaty does not grant either party the right to unilaterally withdraw, and any Indian action to block river water flow to Pakistan would be considered an “act of war.” Regarding India’s decision to suspend the treaty, Pakistan is also studying legal actions under international law.
In 1960, the World Bank facilitated the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan, regulating the distribution of water resources from the Indus River and its tributaries between the two countries. The Indian government recently announced the suspension of the treaty in response to a gun attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir that killed over 20 people. Regarding the attack, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif stated that India’s accusations against Pakistan are baseless. On May 22, Pakistan’s National Assembly passed a resolution condemning India’s attempt to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, calling it a violation of international agreements and a threat to regional stability.
– Calls for De-escalation and Restraint: Chinese President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi have repeatedly called for all parties, especially Israel, to cease hostilities and exercise restraint to prevent a wider conflict. They emphasize that military conflict is not a solution and that dialogue and negotiation are the only way forward.
– Diplomatic Engagement: China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi has held phone calls with both his Israeli and Iranian counterparts, conveying China’s willingness to play a “constructive role” in de-escalation. China’s Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, Zhai Jun, is also involved in negotiating with various concerned parties.
– Condemnation of Actions Violating International Law: China has explicitly condemned Israeli actions that it views as violations of international law, such as attacks on Iranian diplomatic facilities. While Beijing has strong economic ties with Iran, it generally avoids directly blaming specific actors, instead focusing on the principle of upholding international law and promoting dialogue.
– Emphasis on Non-Intervention and Neutrality: China aims to position itself as a neutral mediator, distinct from Western powers. Its approach prioritizes non-interference in internal affairs and the peaceful resolution of disputes. This stance is seen as part of its broader “Global Security Initiative.”
– Protecting Citizens and Interests: Amid escalating tensions, China has also focused on evacuating its citizens from both Iran and Israel, highlighting its concern for the safety of its nationals in the region. China’s deep economic ties, particularly its reliance on oil imports from the Middle East and its Belt and Road Initiative investments, underscore its pragmatic interest in regional stability.
– Limited Leverage and Appetite for Direct Involvement: While China has successfully brokered other regional agreements (like the Saudi Arabia-Iran rapprochement), analysts suggest its direct influence over Israel, in particular, may be limited. Some experts also believe China has no appetite for direct military involvement and prefers to act as a facilitator for negotiations that originate within the region.
A proposed undersea tunnel connecting Africa and Europe.
Historical Context: The idea of linking Africa and Europe across the Strait of Gibraltar dates back to the 19th century, with formal plans taking shape in 1979.
Project Details: The tunnel would be 38.7 to 42 km long, with over 27 km submerged beneath the Strait of Gibraltar. It would reach a depth of 475 meters below sea level and feature a twin-tube railway for high-speed passenger and freight trains, along with a service gallery.
Connection Points: The tunnel is planned to connect Ponta Paloma in Spain to Ponta Malabata near Tangier, Morocco.
Timeline and Cost: Construction is projected to start in 2030 and take 10 to 15 years, with completion estimated between 2040 and 2045. The estimated cost is €9.4 billion.
Funding and Leadership: Funding is expected from Spanish and Moroccan government funds, EU support, and potentially private investors. A Spanish-Moroccan consortium is driving the project.
Benefits: The tunnel is anticipated to significantly reduce travel time, boost trade, foster cultural exchange and tourism, and unlock economic synergies between Africa and Europe. It also holds geopolitical importance for European supply chains.
Challenges and Skepticism: Concerns include environmental risks and seismic activity, although technological advancements are expected to offer solutions.
47 years ago I stared at Mt. Tangier from Cadiz, couldn’t go any farther and had to turn left.
Reasons for Potentially Avoiding Direct Strikes on Jerusalem:
Religious and Political Sensitivity:
Holy Sites: Jerusalem holds immense religious significance for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is home to the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque (third holiest site in Islam) on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, as well as the Western Wall and numerous Christian holy sites. A direct, intentional strike on Jerusalem, especially its holy sites, would likely be seen as a grave provocation by Muslims worldwide, including those who are otherwise sympathetic to the Palestinian cause or critical of Israel. This could backfire on Iran, alienating potential allies and drawing widespread condemnation from the international community, including from other Muslim-majority nations.
International Status: Jerusalem’s status is highly contested internationally. Many countries do not recognize it as Israel’s capital. A direct attack could be perceived as further destabilizing a deeply sensitive political landscape and complicating any future diplomatic efforts or the city’s eventual status.
Strategic Restraint and De-escalation Management:
Controlled Escalation: Iran’s declared intention in its retaliatory strikes has often been framed as a “proportionate” response to Israeli actions. While the current escalation in June 2025 is more severe than previous exchanges, Iran may still be trying to manage the level of escalation. Striking Jerusalem, particularly civilian areas or holy sites, would be a massive escalation that could trigger an even more devastating Israeli response, potentially leading to a full-blown regional war that Iran may not desire or be fully prepared for.
Avoidance of Unnecessary Provocation: Iran’s primary targets during these recent attacks have been military installations, intelligence sites, and economic infrastructure (like the Haifa oil refinery). While civilian areas in Tel Aviv and other cities were hit, these were often near military or strategic targets, or were a consequence of missile defense penetration. Directly targeting Jerusalem, especially without a clear military objective that could not be achieved elsewhere, would carry a disproportionately high political and symbolic cost.
Military Effectiveness and Risk Calculation:
Air Defense Concentration: As Israel’s capital and a major population center, Jerusalem is likely to have very robust air defense systems, including layers of Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow interceptors. Attempting a direct strike on Jerusalem might be seen as militarily less effective and risk wasting valuable munitions compared to striking targets with clearer military relevance or those potentially less defended.
Accuracy Concerns: While Iran claims its missiles have high accuracy, the range and complexity of a strike on Jerusalem (especially if attempting to avoid holy sites) might be too challenging to guarantee precision, increasing the risk of unintended and highly provocative impacts.
Significance of Not Hitting Jerusalem:
The decision (or failure) to directly hit Jerusalem carries significant implications:
Signals Intent to Control Escalation (to a degree): It suggests that Iran, despite its strong rhetoric and the severity of its recent attacks, still seeks to avoid an uncontrolled, all-out war with potentially catastrophic consequences. It indicates a degree of strategic calculation and an attempt to limit the religious dimension of the conflict.
Maintains a Path for Future Diplomacy: By avoiding Jerusalem, Iran keeps open a door for potential de-escalation or future negotiations, preventing a red line that might make any diplomatic off-ramp almost impossible.
Focus on Retaliation vs. Annihilation: The targeting of military and economic infrastructure, and even civilian areas in other cities, aligns more with a strategy of retaliation and demonstrating capability rather than aiming for complete destruction or the triggering of an irreversible religious war.
Religious and Political Leverage: Not attacking Jerusalem allows Iran to continue presenting itself as a defender of Palestinian rights and Islamic holy sites, without being seen as a desecrator of those sites or alienating a broader Muslim population.
In summary, while the current conflict is highly volatile and has seen unprecedented direct attacks, the apparent avoidance of Jerusalem as a primary target by Iran reflects a complex interplay of strategic calculation, religious and political sensitivity, and an attempt to manage the escalation within certain perceived boundaries.
Watch for it, if Jerusalem gets hit, it is the final red line.
