World | WPN World People News

As Europe's security environment continues to deteriorate and the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) struggle with persistent recruitment shortages, calls to reinstate compulsory military service are gaining momentum in Germany. Thomas Röwekamp, chairman of the German Bundestag's Defense Committee, recently said that if the current voluntary recruitment system fails to meet personnel targets, the government must decide by the end of July 2027 whether to restore mandatory conscription.

According to reports by AFP, Reuters, The Associated Press, and The Daily Telegraph, Germany has significantly overhauled its defense policy in response to the Russia-Ukraine war. Berlin has sharply increased defense spending and aims to expand the active-duty Bundeswehr from its current strength of about 180,000 troops to 260,000, while also building a reserve force of around 200,000 personnel to fulfill its commitments to NATO.

However, voluntary recruitment has fallen well short of expectations. Under a new voluntary military service program introduced in 2026, all 18-year-old men are required to register their military information and complete a questionnaire in an effort to attract more recruits. Initial results, however, have been disappointing. Media reports indicate that although approximately 300,000 young people received recruitment notices between January and May this year, only about 530 ultimately enlisted in voluntary military service—far below the government's target.
Röwekamp said the current policy follows a "voluntary service first, conscription if necessary" approach. If recruitment continues to fall short, the government will have to make a political decision by the end of July next year on whether to reactivate compulsory military service. He stressed that, given the ongoing security threat posed by Russia, Germany cannot afford to risk inadequate military manpower.

Germany officially suspended compulsory military service in 2011, transitioning to an all-volunteer force. However, the country's Basic Law (Constitution) still provides the legal basis for reinstating conscription. If Parliament passes the necessary legislation, compulsory military service could be restored. Under the current framework, conscription would apply primarily to men, while military service for women would remain voluntary. Extending compulsory service to women would require a constitutional amendment.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has previously said that the government prefers to strengthen the armed forces by improving pay and benefits, enhancing training, and increasing incentives for voluntary service. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that if the voluntary recruitment model ultimately proves insufficient to meet Germany's defense needs, reinstating conscription would become an option that could no longer be ruled out.

Analysts say Germany is facing its most significant military transformation since the end of the Cold War as Russia continues to pose a security challenge to Europe and the United States urges its European allies to shoulder a greater share of the continent's defense burden. Whether Germany chooses to restore compulsory military service will not only shape its future defense policy but could also become a key indicator of Europe's evolving security strategy.

img src="/sites/en.worldpeoplenews.com/files/news/l%E6%8B%B7%E8%B2%9D_9.jpg" width="300" height="200" alt="l拷貝_9.jpg" />
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of two immigration policies advanced by the Trump administration. The first allows the government to deny asylum applications at the U.S.–Mexico border, requiring foreign nationals to be fully admitted into the United States before they can apply for asylum. The second permits the administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants from 13 countries, including Haiti and Syria. Following the ruling, TPS beneficiaries may lose their legal right to remain and work in the United States and could face deportation.

Because TPS is a temporary humanitarian program designed to provide lawful residence and work authorization to foreign nationals who have fled armed conflict, natural disasters, or other emergencies in their home countries, the policy change is expected to have significant implications for both U.S. immigration policy and the labor market.

Among the communities most directly affected are Springfield, Ohio, which is home to approximately 350,000 Haitian immigrants, and around 6,000 Syrian immigrants. The executive director of a Haitian advocacy organization stated that although the Supreme Court's decision was not unexpected, many Haitian families have lived in the United States for years and have established stable social networks and employment. Many no longer have relatives or support systems in Haiti. If forced to return, they would have nowhere to turn. The loss of legal work authorization for a large number of immigrants could also have a serious impact on the local economy.

Haitian immigrants argued that ending TPS amounted to discrimination, but the Supreme Court rejected that claim. The Trump administration maintained that TPS is a temporary humanitarian protection rather than a pathway to permanent residency, and that the government has the authority to end the program once conditions such as war or natural disasters in recipients' home countries have improved. Meanwhile, faith-based advocacy groups expressed concern that the administration may launch enforcement operations involving arrests and deportations. They said they would provide affected families with legal assistance and emergency support services.

In response to the rapidly shrinking number of members of Japan’s Imperial Family and growing concerns over the line of succession, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s cabinet is expected to formally approve a draft amendment to the Imperial House Law on June 26. While the proposed legislation aims to secure the number of imperial family members, it deliberately avoids addressing the possibility of a female emperor. This has reignited debate between public opinion and long-standing tradition, leaving Princess Aiko—the only child of Emperor Naruhito and one of the most popular members of the Imperial Family—legally excluded from the line of succession.

The key provisions of the amendment are intended to increase the number of imperial family members. Female members of the Imperial Family would be allowed to retain their imperial status after marrying commoners, should they choose to do so. The bill would also permit the Imperial Family to adopt male-line descendants aged 15 or older from one of the eleven former collateral branches that lost their imperial status following postwar reforms in 1947, thereby restoring them to imperial membership.

Although Takaichi is Japan’s first female prime minister, she has taken a highly conservative stance on imperial succession. She firmly upholds the tradition of patrilineal succession, arguing that the Japanese Imperial Family’s uninterrupted male-line inheritance across 126 generations is a historically unparalleled legacy and the foundation of the Emperor’s legitimacy and authority.

Notably, the draft legislation makes no provision for allowing a female emperor. As a result, the future of the Imperial succession currently rests solely on 19-year-old Prince Hisahito. However, public opinion sharply contrasts with the government’s position: recent polls show that 93.1% of Japanese support allowing a female emperor, while 88.9% also support the possibility of a matrilineal emperor—one who inherits the throne through the female line. This significant gap between the cabinet’s position and public sentiment reflects broader expectations for gender equality and the modernization of the Imperial Household, and critics warn that it could worsen the succession crisis in the future.

Emperor Naruhito also made a rare public comment on the issue, emphasizing that the fundamental principle of the Imperial Family is to "share the people's joys and sorrows." His remarks have been widely interpreted as a subtle expression of concern that the cabinet’s reform proposal fails to reflect public opinion.

The government aims to pass the legislation before the current Diet session concludes on July 17. However, key questions remain unresolved, including the details of the bill and how the government will strike a balance between preserving the Imperial Family’s centuries-old hereditary tradition and responding to the expectations of modern Japanese society.

It has now been ten years since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 Brexit referendum, which passed by a narrow margin of 51.9% to 48.1%. However, the economic vision painted by Brexit supporters at the time has failed to materialize. Since separating from the EU, the UK economy has continued to struggle.

According to a recent poll released by the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), a majority of Britons are deeply disappointed with the current situation. As many as two-thirds of voters across the political spectrum believe that Brexit has had a negative impact on the country's economy and has significantly increased the cost of living.

The survey, which questioned more than 2,000 voters, found that 57% of respondents believe Brexit was a "mistake" and that it has reduced opportunities for younger generations. In addition, immigration control—once a central pillar of the Brexit campaign—is now widely viewed as unsuccessful. Some 56% of respondents said the new immigration policies have failed, and many now support restoring freedom of movement with the EU in exchange for closer trade relations.

ECFR Director Mark Leonard noted that, after a decade, Britons have come to realize that the promise of a better life outside the EU has not been fulfilled. Today, as many as three-quarters of those surveyed want the UK to build closer ties with the EU, and they increasingly view Europe rather than the United States as their preferred security partner.

ECFR polling conducted in 15 other EU member states found a similar trend: around two-thirds of European respondents support the idea of the UK rejoining the EU in the future.

A powerful explosion and fire struck Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City on June 21 during the restart of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, leaving 54 people injured and 18 missing. The incident occurred at a key LNG processing facility. Qatari authorities attributed the blast to a “technical accident” and emphasized that there was no threat to public safety. The fire has since been brought under control, while search and rescue operations remain ongoing.

According to QatarEnergy, the explosion occurred during the startup of the Barzan Gas Project facilities. The complex has a production capacity of 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, supplying domestic electricity generation and industrial demand while also producing ethane, condensates, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and sulfur. Ras Laffan Industrial City is Qatar’s main LNG production and export hub, with an annual capacity of 77 million metric tons, making it one of the world’s most important energy centers. The accident has raised concerns over the pace of restoring production capacity.

Analysts say the incident highlights the challenges Qatar faces in restarting energy infrastructure after the conflict. During the earlier U.S.-Iran confrontation, parts of the country’s production facilities were damaged, affecting roughly 17 percent of export capacity. Repairs are expected to take years to complete. Global energy markets are closely monitoring Qatar’s recovery efforts, given the country’s critical role in worldwide natural gas supply and pricing.

Following the signing of a memorandum aimed at ending the Middle East conflict, the United States and Iran are set to hold talks in Switzerland on June 21. U.S. Vice President JD Vance arrived in Switzerland on June 20 and told reporters before departure that he expected to stay for one or two days. He said Washington hoped to make progress on two key issues: Iran’s nuclear program and a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Under the memorandum signed by Washington and Tehran, the United States agreed to lift its blockade of Iranian ports, while Iran pledged to guarantee freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. The agreement also temporarily suspends U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports and allows Iran immediate access to previously frozen assets.

The latest round of talks had originally been scheduled for June 19 in Switzerland but was postponed after both sides delayed their departures. The two countries signed a framework agreement last week and are now engaged in an intensive 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching consensus on technical details that could have significant implications for global economic stability and international security.

However, the two-month negotiation period has only just begun, and the situation has been complicated by escalating clashes in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah. The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has emerged as one of the major obstacles to the negotiations. Iran’s military subsequently announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a claim rejected by U.S. Central Command, which said American forces continue to monitor the situation and ensure that the vital shipping route remains open.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on June 20 that the purpose of the delegation’s trip was to assess whether the United States was fulfilling its commitments under the agreement. He stated that formal negotiations would only proceed once Iran was satisfied that Washington was honoring its obligations.

The most sensitive issue—the future of Iran’s nuclear program and its stockpile of enriched uranium—will be addressed during this round of talks. So far, Iran has reiterated its long-standing position that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons and has pledged to dilute its stockpile of near weapons-grade enriched uranium as part of a final agreement.

The United States and Iran are set to formally sign a ceasefire framework agreement on the 19th, potentially ushering in at least 60 days of an official truce and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The most eye-catching element of the deal is a massive $300 billion Reconstruction and Development Fund. Financed entirely by private-sector capital, the fund aims not only to attract global investment back into Iran but also to serve as a key lever for Middle East peace and global energy market stability.

The $300 billion fund is intended for private investment in Iran, with 100% of the financing coming from the private sector and no government budget funds involved. The investment will cover sectors such as energy, logistics, manufacturing, and transportation. In addition to the United States, companies from Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America, and Africa have already pledged to participate.

The concept behind the Reconstruction and Development Fund is for regional countries to support the rebuilding of war-damaged infrastructure through loan guarantees, lines of credit, or direct investment. However, this initiative is entirely separate from negotiations over U.S. sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian assets, as the two processes have different objectives and timelines. The fund will only be established and become operational after a final agreement is signed. During the 60-day negotiation period, the management team will work with Iran and prospective investors to plan and define eligible projects.

Iran is one of the Middle East's major economies. It possesses the world's second-largest natural gas reserves and fourth-largest oil reserves, along with a population of more than 92 million, many of whom are young and well educated. The country also has a diversified industrial base and significant potential in petrochemicals, mining, tourism, and agriculture. However, due to U.S. and international sanctions over the past four decades, Iran has largely been excluded from global capital markets and has attracted very little large-scale foreign investment.

On the 11th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled to lift an injunction previously issued by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), allowing the government to continue collecting the 10% global tariff while litigation remains ongoing. The appeals court found that suspending the tariff at this stage would cause irreparable harm to the federal government and indicated that the CIT may have erred in its interpretation of the law.

Looking back to February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, held that the government could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. In response, President Trump immediately invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act, a provision addressing international balance-of-payments deficits, to reimpose a 10% tariff on imports from around the world. Earlier, on May 7, the CIT had ruled that the 10% global surcharge imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 exceeded the president’s statutory authority.

In its latest decision, the appeals court accepted the Trump administration’s argument that the United States’ large and persistent trade deficit constitutes a “balance-of-payments problem” as described in the statute. The court concluded that the government had sufficiently demonstrated the legal merits of its position. The ruling is widely viewed as a significant victory for the executive branch in its ongoing legal battles over trade policy. The administration also emphasized that the decision reinforces executive authority to manage trade during national emergencies.

As a result, importers—including the State of Washington and private companies such as Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun—must resume paying the surcharge. Under Section 122, the emergency tariff may remain in effect for up to 150 days unless Congress approves an extension. Without such approval, it is expected to expire on July 24.

In response to growing concerns over internet addiction among young people, exposure to harmful content, and worsening mental health issues, the UK government has announced plans to introduce new legislation that would prohibit children and teenagers under the age of 16 from using major social media platforms. The legislative process is expected to be completed by the end of 2026, with the policy potentially taking effect as early as spring 2027. The move is widely regarded as one of the strictest digital protection measures for children and adolescents in the world, following similar efforts in Australia.

According to the framework outlined by the UK government, the proposed ban would apply to several major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, X, and Snapchat. Platform operators would be required to implement stricter age-verification systems to prevent users under 16 from registering for or accessing their services. Companies that fail to comply could face substantial fines and legal penalties.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that the government aims to reduce young people's exposure to cyberbullying, inappropriate content, algorithm-driven addiction, and risks associated with contact from strangers. He emphasized that technology companies have not done enough to protect minors, making government intervention necessary to create a healthier and safer environment for children.

In addition to the social media ban, the UK is also considering restrictions on minors' access to livestreaming features, prohibiting unsolicited contact from strangers, and regulating platform designs that may encourage addictive behavior, such as late-night usage and infinite scrolling. However, messaging-focused applications such as WhatsApp and Signal are not currently included in the proposed restrictions.

The policy has sparked considerable debate. Supporters argue that it could help reduce anxiety, addiction, and social pressure among teenagers. Critics, however, question the practicality of enforcement, raise concerns about privacy implications related to age verification, and suggest that young people may simply migrate to less regulated platforms or use technological methods to bypass the restrictions. Further details of the legislation and accompanying measures remain subject to parliamentary review and future announcement.

Russia launched a massive wave of airstrikes across Ukraine in the early hours of June 15, hitting multiple districts of the capital, Kyiv. The attacks killed at least four people and injured more than 20 others, leaving parts of the city engulfed in flames and suffering widespread power outages. In the northeastern city of Kharkiv, five emergency responders were killed during the bombardment, underscoring the continuing intensity of the war.

According to international media reports, the assault damaged 16 locations across Kyiv, including residential buildings, a market, and a supermarket. Several high-rise apartment blocks were directly struck, while approximately 140,000 households in northern Kyiv were left without electricity. The attacks came just one day after U.S. President Donald Trump held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and discussed ceasefire proposals with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, highlighting the rapid escalation despite ongoing diplomatic efforts.

Among the sites hit was the historic Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The 11th-century monastery, regarded as one of Ukraine’s most important religious and cultural landmarks, caught fire after being struck during the attack. Ukrainian religious leaders condemned the strike as “a crime against humanity, history, and the Christian faith.” The incident has drawn international concern over the destruction of cultural heritage sites, further illustrating the devastating humanitarian and cultural consequences of the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war.