Reading view
十二日战争后的中东谍影,以色列如何穿透伊朗防线?
在本轮冲突中,以色列充分把信息科技、情报实力、空中打击能力相结合,实现了比出动地面部队还有效的结果。
在伊朗相关的多起渗透、窃取、暗杀等“大案”中,摩萨德的出镜率颇高。而且,从案件细节可见,摩萨德很早就深入伊朗境内,建立了一套线人、特工和后勤网络。
以色列“不是朋友就是敌人,是敌人就要打击”的策略,也成为中东地区一大动荡因素。如果以色列对周边国家动辄使用武力,未来也会招来反噬。
南方周末记者 毛淑杰
责任编辑:姚忆江
当地时间2025年7月2日,伊朗德黑兰,德黑兰莫萨拉伊玛目霍梅尼清真寺举行仪式,悼念在与以色列的12天战争中阵亡的军事指挥官和科学家。图/视觉中国
随着以色列-伊朗停火协议生效,令人瞩目的十二日中东热战摁下暂停键。但另一条隐蔽战线的清算,并未结束。
据以色列罕见解密的一段影像,冲突之初,多名摩萨德特工提前潜入德黑兰,通过走私入境的武器,秘密破坏了伊朗的部分防空体系。伊朗议会议长卡利巴夫直言,战争之初的损失,“主要是内部渗透者,而非外部敌人实施”。
摩萨德作为“世界四大情报机构”之一,素来以大胆、激进、诡秘、残酷而知名。伊朗多起暗杀事件矛头均指向摩萨德。伊朗发起反击后,轰炸重点之一就是摩萨德位于特拉维夫的总部。
冲突发生以来,伊朗警方在国内调查、搜捕潜在通敌者。据央视新闻报道,伊朗情报和安全部队已逮捕了“七百多名与该网络相关的人员”,其指控罪名包括“暗杀核科学家以及从事旨在破坏伊朗核计划的活动”。
以色列情报专栏作家约西·梅尔曼 (Yossi Melman)认为,摩萨德对伊朗的强力渗透,助力以色列占据了本轮冲突主动权。“摩萨德是在向对手传递信息——我们对你了如指掌,我们可以随时闯入,我们无所不能。”
近年来,以色列-伊朗一直通过多种形式暗中较量。一方面,伊朗指责以色列特工开展跨国渗透与暗杀,系国际恐怖主义;另一方面,以色列指责伊朗支持地区武装组织、寻求发展核武器,危害以色列国家安全。两股力量一度形成了军事威慑的平衡。
数十年来,以色列如何经营起一条“谍报”隐蔽战线?又如何在本轮冲突中突破伊朗安全封锁?这场骤然爆发的罕见热战之后,曾经的威慑平衡又会出现哪些倾斜?
暗战,从内部攻击
当地时间2025年7月1日,伊朗德黑兰北部,一辆汽车驶过埃文监狱的一栋办公楼,该建筑在以色列的袭击中被摧毁。图/视觉中国
6月13日凌晨,以色列军方代号为“崛起的雄狮”的军事行动正式打响。大多数人的目光集中在以色列的空中战斗机群,而在暗处,一项更为大胆的任务正在秘密展开。
在行动数小时后,以色列方面解密了一段不起眼的录像。
录像为黑白色,长约三十余秒,画面模糊且晃动,关键人物还打了重重的马赛克。以媒援引匿名官员消息称,画中人正是提前渗透进德黑兰的摩萨德特工。
摩萨德是以色列“情报和特别行动研究所”的缩写,有近80年历史。它与美国中央情报局、俄罗斯联邦安全局和英国军情六处等,并称为“世界四大情报机构”。20世纪80年代,先后担任以色列总理的贝京和沙米尔,均系特工出身。
登录后获取更多权限
校对:星歌
摆摊不误追极光:摆摊青年的现实与远方
“辞职不会重启人生 ,摆摊也不会获得自由”
(本文首发于南方人物周刊)
南方人物周刊实习记者 王梦源 南方人物周刊记者 韩茹雪
发自:西安 北京
责任编辑:陈雅峰
重庆的后备箱集市(视觉中国/图)
“我在腾讯楼下卖盒饭”“用老头乐卖盘锦小卷饼,一天能赚多少钱?”“上海人摆摊丢脸吗?”……年轻人摆摊的话题屡屡登上热搜。区别于“只能摆摊”的传统小商贩,这批年轻人有的来自大学、大厂,主动选择“脱下长衫”加入摆摊大军。
过去三年间,“摆摊”正成为一批年轻人的第二职业。智联招聘在2022年发布的《青年求职行为洞察报告》显示,76%的00后愿意或正在从事新兴职业;88.1%的00后正在灵活就业或愿意尝试灵活就业。
作为小成本创业的方式,这批年轻人赚到钱了吗?他们是为了赚钱吗?他们的追求通过摆摊能实现吗?《南方人物周刊》记者实地走访摆摊年轻人群,选择与其中5位各有特点的年轻人对话,发现在自由、执念、独特、远离pua等词汇之外,他们的摆摊也有着改善经济、尝试人生、家庭理解等更现实的底色。
2025年4月底,石头在西安某大学城附近摆摊(受访者提供/图)
石头碰一碰
一辆白色电动车停在夜市的街边,年轻的小伙子下车动作麻利,一头玫瑰金的发色让他很容易成为人群的焦点。凑近看,脸上有层薄薄的粉,透过眼镜片能瞧见眼角细粉卡出的纹路,那是熬夜的痕迹。
他是来夜市摆摊的石头,28岁,陕西西安人,2019年从西安一间民办本科院校毕业,2025年4月底开始在西安某大学城附近的茅坡路夜市摆摊。
石头的摆摊车车头贴着这样一行字:三年考公,国企工地,一场梦,终提桶。这是28岁的他对自己的人生总结。2019年从土木工程专业毕业后,石头去了青海西宁一家国企的工地,一年后又踏入考公考编的行列。
根据公务员招考相关规定,石头只能报考一些“三不限”的岗位,即不限专业、不限学历(大专及以上)、不限户籍的职位。由于报考门槛相对低,这类岗位往往竞争激烈。从2020年开始,石头花费三年时间奔波于考公考编,却没考上。
后来,石头到西安一家企业做制片工作。他戏称自己是公司的“三无人员”——无房、无车、无贷,这在如今的职场被戏称为“牛马三件套”。没有被套住的石头,抗“打压”的能力不如别人,他自称为了自由,工作9个月后决定辞职。
石头的摆摊车,他取名为“自由舰”(受访者提供/图)
那时,他刚过完28岁的生日。2月初的西安还未褪去寒冬的冷意,石头把床上的电褥子打开,一个人瘫在被窝里听着大学四年常听的歌——《老男孩》。他很喜欢里面的一句歌词:未来在哪里平凡,谁给我答案。
回顾几年奔波、屡战屡败的路上,父母催促的声音不时响起,石头形容为:北方人对编制有着天然的执念。
他想起一次考试前,为了通过面试前的体能测试,他下决心减脂提升成绩。那段时间,他每天只吃水煮菜和少量蛋白粉,每天到家附近的操场,先热身跑5公里,接着训练下肢力量,最后再跑上几圈。体力逼近极限,石头的感受被激发:“真的太痛苦了,我
登录后获取更多权限
校对:赵立宇
A Law School’s Award for a Racist Paper
How Europe Got Stuck Between Xi’s China and Trump’s America
摩擦不断 中国对欧盟医疗器械出台对等反制
2025-07-06T11:49:36.506Z

(德国之声中文网)根据中国财政部的通知,政府采购预算金额4500万元人民币以上的医疗器械时,“确需采购进口产品的,在履行法定程序后,应当排除欧盟企业(不包括在华欧资企业)参与。”通知还进一步指出,对于参与的非欧盟企业,其提供的自欧盟进口的医疗器械占比不得超过项目合同总金额的50%。在7月6日之前发布中标或者达成交易的政府采购则不受此通知影响。
欧盟方面在6月20日刚刚出台了针对中国产医疗器械的类似措施。欧盟委员会表示,由于欧盟企业在中国没有获得公平准入,将禁止中国企业参与欧盟每年价值超过600亿欧元的医疗器械公开招标。这也是欧盟首次按照《国际采购协议》(International Procurement Instrument)采取此类措施。2022年生效的该法案旨在确保对等的市场准入。
中国此次出台反制措施在意料之中:商务部在今年6月就表示会采取“必要措施”。中国商务部一发言人也在7月6日表示,“中方多次通过双边对话表示,愿与欧方通过对话磋商和双边政府采购安排等方式妥处分歧。令人遗憾的是,欧方不顾中国释放的善意和诚意,仍一意孤行,采取限制措施,构筑新的保护主义壁垒。因此,中方不得不采取对等限制措施。”商务部同时也强调,中方措施只针对自欧盟进口医疗器械产品,在华欧资企业生产产品不受影响。

欧中峰会蒙阴影
就在两天前,中国商务部刚刚宣布对产自欧盟的白兰地征收最高达34.9%的反倾销税,但主动做出价格承诺的企业可免于被加税。路透社上周还援引知情人士报道,中国官员一直将就白兰地问题达成协议与电动汽车关税谈判挂钩。此前还有消息人士披露称,北京希望欧盟在电动汽车案上接受类似于针对干邑白兰地的最低价格承诺方案,取代对中国电动汽车征收惩罚性关税。
中国与欧盟定于本月底在北京举行领导人峰会,然而,贸易摩擦、在俄乌战争问题上的巨大分歧让此次峰会蒙上了阴影。据彭博社报道,在这一背景下,中方有意将原定为期两天的峰会压缩为一天。中国外交部发言人毛宁7月4日对此含糊地表示,“中欧关系发展面临新的机遇,双方一致同意要筹备好新一次中欧领导人会晤,就具体安排保持着沟通。”
(路透社等)
DW中文有Instagram!欢迎搜寻dw.chinese,看更多深入浅出的图文与影音报道。
© 2025年德国之声版权声明:本文所有内容受到著作权法保护,如无德国之声特别授权,不得擅自使用。任何不当行为都将导致追偿,并受到刑事追究。
Deadly Floods in Texas
© Jordan Vonderhaar for The New York Times
US deports eight men to South Sudan after legal battle


The US has deported eight people to South Sudan following a legal battle that saw them diverted to Djibouti for several weeks.
The men - convicted of crimes including murder, sexual assault and robbery - had either completed or were near the end of their prison sentences.
Only one of the eight is from South Sudan. The rest are nationals of Myanmar, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and Mexico. US officials said most of their home countries had refused to accept them.
The Trump administration is working to expand its deportations to third countries.
It has deported people to El Salvador and Costa Rica. Rwanda has confirmed discussions and Benin, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini and Moldova have been named in media reports as potential recipient countries.
A photo provided by the department of homeland security to CBS News, the BBC's US partner, showed the men on the plane, their hands and feet shackled.
Officials did not say whether the South Sudanese government had detained them or what their fate would be. The country remains unstable and is on the brink of civil war, with the US State Department warning against travel because of "crime, kidnapping and armed conflict".
The eight had initially been flown out of the US in May, but their plane was diverted to Djibouti after US district judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts blocked the deportation. He had ruled that migrants being deported to third countries must be given notice and a chance to speak with an asylum officer.
But last week, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration and overturned Judge Murphy's ruling. On Thursday, the Supreme Court confirmed that the judge could no longer require due process hearings, allowing the deportations to proceed.
Lawyers then asked another judge to intervene but he ultimately ruled that only Judge Murphy had jurisdiction. Judge Murphy then said he had no authority to stop the removals due to the Supreme Court's "binding" decision.
Tricia McLaughlin from the department of homeland security called the South Sudan deportation a victory over "activist judges".
Earlier this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked all visas for South Sudanese passport holders, citing the country's past refusal to accept deported nationals.
兩岸喜劇演員:如何用笑話開啟敏感對話?
來自上海的Jamie,3年前意外在台灣開啟了喜劇之路,她最受歡迎的笑話,是講在台灣遭遇到的歧視與刻板印象。而她的好朋友、來自台灣的喜劇演員Vickie,則是在上海踏入這一行,在中國經歷內容審查的她,如今移居紐約、試圖在新的舞台,替台灣「做一點外交」。帶著各自的身份到異地冒險,她們如何透過「諷刺的藝術」觸碰敏感議題? 彼此又有哪些同與不同的人生經歷?
中国民航启用台海新航线 陆委会称单方面改变现状
2025-07-06T11:25:50.249Z

(德国之声中文网)中国民航局周日(7月6日)宣布即日起启用M503航线W121衔接航线。W121航线位于台湾海峡“中线”以西,是继W122与W123后的第三条M503航线延伸线。
中国国台办发言人陈斌华以答记者问形式发布书面新闻稿称,设立和启用这一航线是中国大陆民航空域管理的一项常规工作,是为缓解有关地区航班增长压力。国台办称,这样改变目的是确保飞行安全,减少航班延误,“对两岸民众都有利”。
去年1月13日台湾总统选举结束后,中国民航局1月底就公告,自2月1日起取消位于台湾海峡中线西侧的M503航线自北向南运行的飞行偏置措施,不再西移;接着在4月19日宣布启用向西连接福建福州、厦门的W122、W123衔接航线,由西向东运行。
这意味着福州、厦门航班将不再绕至北方航路,直接由西向东飞往贴近台海中线的M503航线。但由于M503航线距离台海中线仅4.2海里(约7.8公里),这也将大幅压缩台湾空防预警时间。
“抹掉”台海中线?
中国民航周日宣布启用新航线后,台湾陆委会随即发表声明,强调中国此次“以单方面行动改变现状”,是破坏现状的行为,并可能对两岸及区域安全带来严重影响。
台湾国防安全研究院国防战略与资源研究所长苏紫云对《联合报》分析称,大陆片面启用W121支线航道,不仅将压缩台湾的空防纵深及预警时间,更试图彻底抺去台海中线,而且对飞安的影响很严重。
中国并不承认台湾海峡中线为两岸空域分界,解放军军机近期仍多次越线进入台湾一侧空域。W121航线启用时机敏感,正逢台湾即将举行年度“汉光演习”之际。该演习将于7月9日登场,为期10 天,是台湾一年一度最重要的防卫操演。
《华尔街日报》6日指出,中国透过航线调整与军机频繁跨越台海中线,正逐步改变台海空域现状,这是北京为未来可能军事行动铺路的战略布局。报导认为,这种“灰色地带”策略不仅削弱台湾空防预警时间,也旨在以非军事手段持续施压,增加台湾防卫难度。
DW中文有Instagram!欢迎搜寻dw.chinese,看更多深入浅出的图文与影音报道。
© 2025年德国之声版权声明:本文所有内容受到著作权法保护,如无德国之声特别授权,不得擅自使用。任何不当行为都将导致追偿,并受到刑事追究。
Welfare U-turn makes spending decisions harder, minister tells BBC


Spending decisions have been made "harder" by the government's U-turn on welfare changes, the education secretary has said, as she did not commit to scrapping the two-child benefit cap.
Bridget Phillipson told BBC One's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme that ministers were "looking at every lever" to lift children out of poverty.
But she said removing the cap would "come at a cost" and insisted the government was supporting families with the cost of living in other ways.
It comes after a rebellion of Labour MPs forced the government to significantly water down a package of welfare reforms that would have saved £5bn a year by 2030.
The climbdown means the savings will now be delayed or lost entirely, which puts pressure on Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of the autumn Budget.
Before its retreat on benefits, the Labour government was considering lifting the two-child benefit cap, a policy that restricts means-tested benefits to a maximum of two children per family for those born after April 2017.
When asked if the chances of getting rid of the cap had diminished, Phillipson said: "The decisions that have been taken in the last week do make decisions, future decisions harder.
"But all of that said, we will look at this collectively in terms of all of the ways that we can lift children out of poverty."
How MI5 piled falsehood on falsehood in the case of neo-Nazi spy who abused women


When the BBC revealed that MI5 had lied to three courts, the Security Service apologised for giving false evidence - vowing to investigate and explain how such a serious failure had occurred.
But on Wednesday, the High Court ruled that these inquiries were "deficient", ordering a new "robust" investigation. A panel of judges said they would consider the issue of contempt of court proceedings against individuals once that was complete.
Now we can detail how, over the past few months leading up to the judgment, MI5 continued to provide misleading evidence and tried to keep damning material secret.
The material gives an unprecedented insight into the internal chaos at MI5 as it responded to what has become a major crisis and test of its credibility.
At the heart of the case is the violent abuse of a woman by a state agent under MI5's control. After the BBC began investigating, MI5 attempted to cover its tracks - scattering a trail of false and misleading evidence.
The case started very simply: I was investigating a neo-Nazi, who I came to understand was also an abusive misogynist and MI5 agent.
After I contacted this man - known publicly as X - in 2020 to challenge him on his extremism, a senior MI5 officer called me up and tried to stop me running a story.
The officer said X had been working for MI5 and informing on extremists, and so it was wrong for me to say he was an extremist himself.
It was this disclosure, repeated in a series of phone calls, which the Security Service would later lie about to three courts as it attempted to keep X's role and identity shrouded in secrecy.
During the phone calls with me, MI5 denied information I had about X's violence, but I decided to spend more time investigating. What I learned was that X was a violent misogynist abuser with paedophilic tendencies who had used his MI5 role as a tool of coercion.
He had attacked his girlfriend - known publicly as "Beth" - with a machete, and abused an earlier partner, whose child he had threatened to kill. He even had cannibal fantasies about eating children.


When I challenged both X and MI5 with our evidence, the government took me and the BBC to court in early 2022. They failed to stop the story but did win legal anonymity for X.
Arguing for secrecy in a succession of court proceedings, the Security Service told judges it had stuck to its core policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) informants' identities, including during conversations with me. Crucially, this stance allowed it to keep evidence secret from "Beth", who had taken MI5 to court.
The service aggressively maintained its position until I produced evidence proving it was untrue - including a recording of one of the calls with a senior MI5 officer.
Finally accepting it had provided false evidence, MI5's director general Sir Ken McCallum said: "We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information very seriously, and have offered an unreserved apology to the court."
Two investigations were commissioned: an internal MI5 disciplinary inquiry, and an external review by Sir Jonathan Jones KC, who was once the government's chief lawyer. This latter review was personally commissioned by the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and MI5's director general.
Both of these concluded that the original false evidence was not due to dishonesty by MI5 or any of its officers. They effectively put it down to mistakes, both personal and systemic.
But these two inquiries quickly began to fall apart.
Not fair or accurate
The government initially refused to provide both reports in full to the court.
Like many cases involving MI5, this one was held partly in secret to allow the government to use evidence which it says is too sensitive to be discussed in open hearings.
Access to the secret, closed part of the case was only available to the government, the judge and security-cleared barristers known as special advocates who were representing the BBC - but who were not allowed to communicate directly with us.
The government said it would not be providing any closed evidence about the two inquiries to the judge or the special advocates.
Instead, it provided an "open" version of Sir Jonathan's external review, with apparently sensitive material edited out, and it purported to provide a full account of the internal inquiry in a witness statement by MI5's director general of strategy - known as Witness B.
Sir Jonathan wrote that he was "satisfied" that the open version was a "fair and accurate" account of his full review. Witness B, third-in-command at the Security Service, said in his statement: "I am satisfied that there is nothing in the closed material that has been excluded from the open report which prevents MI5 from providing the court with a frank and accurate account."


During hearings, the government argued against disclosing secret material to the court. It eventually agreed to hand over the secret version of Sir Jonathan's review, and then was ordered to disclose the internal investigation report described by Witness B, along with policy documents and notes of interviews with MI5 officers.
When the disclosure came, it was clear why MI5 was so keen to keep it secret: the summaries, including the one from MI5's third-in-command, were not fair or accurate. Key information had been withheld, which undermined their conclusions.
In short, the court was still being misled.
At the same time, in response to the inquiries, I was submitting new evidence which proved that some of the claims made by the two reviews were false.
Neither the internal investigation nor Sir Jonathan Jones contacted me, despite the fact I was the only other person who really knew what had been said in all the phone calls at the centre of the case.
'The fallibility of memory'
The two official reviews concluded that the senior officer who called me - Officer 2 - failed to recall telling me that X was an agent.
"There is nothing surprising in this narrative, which is ultimately about the fallibility of memory in the absence of a written record," as the Security Service put it in legal submissions.
The Jones review said that, because no formal record was made of the calls, by the time MI5 was preparing evidence the "only first-hand evidence available was Officer 2's personal recollection".
Sir Jonathan said the officer's recollection was "uncertain", although it had hardened over time into a position that he had not departed from NCND.
But material that MI5 and the government sought to keep secret shows that Officer 2 gave a detailed recollection of the conversation with me - until I exposed it as false.
His recollection was contained in a note of an internal MI5 meeting, arranged to discuss what to tell the special advocates and the court about the conversations with me. In it, the officer insisted he did not depart from NCND and gave a melodramatic account of my "long pauses" as I said I needed the story, before I eventually became cooperative and said I had "seen the light".
This was all untrue. He also falsely claimed I had revealed that I had spoken to X's former girlfriend, when I had done no such thing.

![Graphic showing a note of an internal MI5 meeting, titled "MI5 office gave detailed false account of call with BBC". The graphic shows a reproduction of an extract of notes about Officer 2's recollection of the call with the BBC's Daniel De Simone, which says things such as "We did focus mostly on this individual", referring to X and "I kept insisting for ns reasons [national security reasons] it would be extremely helpful to keep out. Couldn't go into detail as to why." One line is highlighted, showing the detail in his false recollection: "I recall the long pauses of him saying need the story. Me saying it would be really really unhelpful."](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/12c6/live/75e0d060-5824-11f0-9074-8989d8c97d87.png.webp)
The note also showed that Officer 2 had told colleagues that he persuaded me to drop the story by implying that agent X was being investigated by MI5 as an extremist. This was the exact opposite of what he had in fact told me, which was that X was an MI5 agent rather than a real extremist.
Sir Jonathan was aware of the full version of this elaborate false account, but it was absent from the unclassified version given to the court and the BBC.
The MI5 internal review also claimed that Officer 2 had a lapse of memory.
It said that Officer 2 had told another officer - a key figure involved in preparing the Security Service's false evidence for the court, known as Officer 3 - that he could not remember whether he had departed from NCND.
In his statement to court, Witness B - MI5's director general of strategy - said Officer 2 had said "they could not recall the details" of the conversations with me but "did not think they had departed from NCND" and believed "they would have remembered if they had done so".
But an internal note by Officer 3, written after his discussion with Officer 2, contained a very different account.
It stated unequivocally that "we did not breach NCND" and that the contact with me "was prefaced with confirmation that this conversation was not on the record".
It also stated that, "after being initially fairly bullish, De Simone said that he acknowledged the strength of the argument, and agreed to remove those references".
All three claims were false, including about the conversations being off the record, something now accepted by MI5.
The evidence showed specific false claims being presented as memories - not the absence of memory the two inquiries said they found.
The written records MI5 said did not exist
The question of memory was so important because the court was told that written records were not available.
Witness B - MI5's third-in-command - said the internal investigation established that Officer 2 had "updated colleagues within MI5" about the conversations with me, but that "there was no evidence identified of any written record being made, by Officer 2 or anyone else".


"The fact of the matter was that Officer 2 was reliant on personal recollection alone which inevitably carries a degree of inherent uncertainty," Witness B said in his statement to court.
Sir Jonathan gave the same impression in his review.
But the secret material MI5 was forced to hand over proved this was false. There were several written records consistent with what had really happened - that MI5 had chosen to depart from NCND and that several people were aware of it.


There was a decision log.
There were notes of conversations with Agent X himself.
There were emails.
The decision log showed that, just after the authorisation took place, a formal record was created saying the plan was to call the BBC and "reveal the MI5 link to X". The log then noted: "This was discussed with Officer 2 who subsequently approached the BBC to begin this conversation."
In an internal email, after I had said I would not include X in an initial story, one of X's handling team reported this development to other MI5 officers and accurately described the approach to me, namely that Officer 2 had claimed my proposed story was "incorrect" and the rationale for this was that most of the material was as a "direct result of his tasking" as an MI5 agent.
Notes of calls and meeting with Agent X show he approved the plan to reveal his MI5 role and was kept updated about the calls. In a later meeting with him, MI5 recorded that he was "happy" to meet with me, which was an offer MI5 had made and I ignored.
But it showed that MI5 and X were well aware of the NCND departure, because the Security Service would obviously only try to arrange a meeting with someone like X if they were an agent.


In a telling note, MI5 said X thought that a meeting with me would "hopefully serve to counter some of the conclusions that the journalist had reached about X". This is a violent, misogynistic neo-Nazi, a danger to women and children, yet MI5 wanted to do PR for him with a journalist.
'Back in the box'
These records and others show that the handling team for agent X understood there had been an NCND departure. This was unsurprising as the calls with me at the time made it clear that his case officers knew what was happening.
But the internal investigation report records how, as MI5 was preparing to take the BBC to court to block our story on X, one officer went around convincing colleagues that no such departure had ever taken place.
Officer 3 spoke several times to a member of the agent-handling team within MI5 - known as Officer 4 - regarding what had been said to me about X.
"We have already named him pal," said Officer 4, according to Officer 4's evidence to the investigation and Officer 3 replied: "I can categorically tell you we didn't".
After these conversations, Officer 4 said he felt the other officer had put him "back in his box". Other members of the handling team thought what Officer 3 was saying was "odd" and "weird".
MI5 has given completely contradictory explanations for how the false claim about not departing from NCND had got into its witness statement.


The claim was given to court by an officer known as Witness A, acting as a corporate witness - meaning he was representing the organisation rather than appearing as someone necessarily involved personally in the events.
When the government was trying to stop the BBC publishing its story about X in 2022, the BBC's special advocates asked how Witness A could be so sure that NCND had not been breached.
The government's lawyers said "Witness A spoke to the MI5 officer who had contact with the BBC" - meaning Officer 2 - and the officer had said he neither confirmed nor denied agent X's role. The lawyers' answers strongly appeared to suggest that the pair had even spoken at the time of the calls with me.
After we exposed Witness A's false evidence, the lawyers' answers created a problem for MI5 as it either suggested Officer 2 had lied all along - or that he and Witness A were both lying.
It has since been claimed that the men did not speak to each other at the time of the calls with me.
Despite not reconciling these contradictory accounts, the investigation concluded "the parties were collectively doing their best to prepare a witness statement that was accurate".
Five times MI5 abandoned 'neither confirm nor deny'
Officer 2 claimed that he had never departed from NCND before and said that was a key reason why he would have recalled doing so.
But new evidence I submitted to court showed he had also told me whether or not five other people I was investigating were working with the Security Service. One of them was an undercover MI5 officer - one of the most sensitive and memorable details an officer could disclose.
Officer 2 had invited me to meet this undercover officer, just as he had offered me the chance to meet Agent X. I had not pursued either offer, which I thought were a crude attempt at pulling me into MI5's orbit.
Indeed, the internal MI5 material suggests that its officers wrongly believe that the role of journalists is to be cheerleaders for the Security Service. I was variously described as "bullish", "stubborn", "awkward", and not "as on board as other journalists".


They said, before their involvement with me, the BBC was seen as "friendly" and "supportive" of MI5. In reality, journalists like me are here to scrutinise and challenge the organisation.
The five other NCND departures were not apparently uncovered by MI5's internal investigators, nor by Sir Jonathan Jones.
Disclosing agent X's role would have been memorable and unusual on its own.
But the fact there were also departures on NCND relating to five other people made the chain of events even more extraordinary, and made any claimed loss of memory by Officer 2 – and in MI5 more widely – simply unbelievable.
The missing interviews
Both inquiries failed to speak to key people who were on the calls they were supposed to be investigating. Neither of them spoke to me - but there were other omissions too.
Sir Jonathan's review wrongly claimed that "only Officer 2 had been party to the calls" with me. In fact, Officer 2 had invited another senior officer to join one of the calls. He introduced himself by saying: "I head up all counter-terrorism investigations here."
He referred to my earlier "conversations" with Officer 2 and was plainly aware of their content - he even made a specific pun about something connected to X.
While MI5's internal investigation was aware that the head of counter-terror investigations had joined one of the calls and mentioned it in their secret report, investigators never bothered interviewing him.
After I submitted new evidence, MI5 was forced to speak to him - but the internal investigators concluded there was nothing to show he knew about NCND departures.
Sir Jonathan had also failed to speak to the MI5 officer at the centre of the case, Officer 2. He had simply adopted the conclusions of the internal inquiry - in which MI5 was investigating itself.
It emerged during the court case that Sir Jonathan did speak to MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum for his investigation. But when the BBC's special advocates requested any notes of the interview, they were told that none existed.
'Maintaining trust'
"MI5's job is to keep the country safe," Sir Ken said after the High Court judgement. "Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission."
Because of this case, the courts have made plain that MI5's practices should change. The government says it is reviewing how the service prepares and gives evidence.
Because NCND has been abandoned in relation to Agent X, Beth will now have a fairer trial of her legal claim against MI5. The monolithically consistent way in which the policy has been presented, including in a string of important cases, has been shown to be untrue.
This has become a story about whether MI5 can be believed, and about how it uses its privileged position to conceal and lie.
But in the beginning - and in the end - it is a story about violence against women and girls, about the importance placed on that crucial issue by the state, and about how covering up for abusive misogynists never ends well.
Texas officials face scrutiny over response to catastrophic and deadly flooding
© Julio Cortez/AP
靠发展军工推动经济增长?经济学家有话说
2025-07-06T10:54:31.828Z

(德国之声中文网)2025年3月18日将载入德国史册。当天,德国联邦议院以三分之二的多数票,为史无前例的债务铺平了道路。未来几年,德国将通过贷款融资,投资4000亿欧元用于改善德国老旧的基础设施,并投资1000亿欧元用于气候保护。
德国在国防领域的投资更多,在该领域未来几乎没有限制。正如来自社民党的防长皮斯托里乌斯自俄罗斯入侵乌克兰以来反复呼吁的那样,一切让德国和联邦国防军“做好战备”的措施都将获得资金支持。德国总理梅尔茨(Friedrich Merz,又译“默茨”)希望将德国军队打造成欧洲最强大的常规军。
对于那些修建公路桥梁、铺设铁路、生产高速互联网光纤电缆的公司来说,这是好消息。对于国防工业而言更是如此。在长达数十年的时间里,国防工业在德国经济结构中的地位持续下降。毕竟在德国,谁还会对坦克感兴趣呢?
2020年,德国最大的国防公司莱茵金属(Rheinmetall AG)的股价为59欧元。2025年6月,其股价在1700欧元至1800欧元间波动。瑞银预测莱茵金属的股价还将进一步上涨,目前的目标价为2200欧元。
“一个巨额经济刺激计划”
国防工业正处于黄金时期,国防企业管理层表示,增加国防开支的受益者不仅仅是企业。 “国防开支是一项巨大的经济刺激计划,”亨索尔特(Hensoldt)国防公司负责人多尔(Oliver Dörre)在2025年3月法兰克福的一次活动上表示。他表示,增加国防投资会提振德国经济,而德国经济目前正处于低迷中。
政界人士也希望在实现国防工业现代化的同时,也为经济增长注入新的动力。不过早在联邦议院历史性的投票前,经济学家们就指出,不要期待过高。“国家军费开支的增加对德国经济有一些提振作用,但其经济刺激力度将很有限,”曼海姆大学经济学教授克雷布斯(Tom Krebs)在一份提交给联邦议院预算委员会的声明中写道。
经济学家警告:经济回报率很低
克雷布斯及其同事卡兹马尔奇克(Patrick Kaczmarczyk)在一项研究中对此进行了详细论述:考察额外政府支出对国内生产总值的贡献时,德国军费开支最多能带来0.5倍数的增幅。换言之,这意味着政府每支出一欧元,最多只能带来50美分的额外经济活动。
相比对于基础设施和教育的投资,或者是对日托中心、学校等儿童保育基础设施的扩建,其回报率会是两倍甚至三倍。克雷布斯表示,从经济角度来说,让经济军事化是一场风险很大的赌博,总体经济回报率很低。
国防开支就像保险
其中原因不难解释。一辆坦克造出来后,无论使用、闲置还是在战场上被摧毁,它都不会为经济创造任何附加值。国防开支就像保险,买保险是为了在紧急情况下获得保障,但是如果不需要保险,保费就打水漂了。
相反,这笔钱如果政府用来投资建设运输路线,货物可以通过这些道路、桥梁和铁路运输到企业。企业可以利用这些货物生产产品,然后再出售。如果建起幼儿园,家长们就可以有时间去上班赚钱。学校可以培养青少年长大成材。
另外,生产国防工业产品目前也只能带来有限的经济增长。德国国防工业的订单正在大幅增加。例如,莱茵金属在2025年第一季度的订单积累额接近630亿欧元。在乌克兰战争爆发前,这一数字还不到目前数字一半,约为240亿欧元。业内其他公司也同样繁忙。
如果需求增加、供应有限,通常是因为缺乏竞争,会导致价格上涨。经济学家已经对此进行了提醒。克雷布斯和卡兹马尔奇克写道:“增加国防开支对国防能力的益处,远不及其对国防公司利润率和股息的益处。”

大众工厂改生产坦克?
不过,良好的商业前景也引起了民用工业的关注,尤其是那些受到经济疲软影响的行业。例如,位于科隆的道依茨股份公司(Deutz AG)不仅生产高空作业平台的发动机,还生产农用车辆、挖掘机和其他大型机械的发动机。由于经济疲软,该公司2024年的销售额下降了12%。道依茨本来已经在生产军用车辆的发动机,如今计划大幅扩展这项业务。“对我们来说,国防是一个非常重要且有吸引力的市场,拥有巨大的增长潜力,”该公司首席执行官舒尔特(Sebastian Schulte)在3月表示。
再以大众汽车为例,这家车商目前正深陷危机,已经被迫裁员数千人,位于奥斯纳布吕克的工厂濒临关闭。国防工业的发展可能给其带来转机。莱茵金属正在研究是否也能在那里生产坦克。而生产卡车的防弹驾驶室的计划已经制定好了。
将激光技术用于防御无人机?
对于机械工程公司通快(Trumpf)来说,改变业务领域并非易事。其股东协议规定,该家族企业不会参与武器生产。通快监事会主席兼共同所有人莱宾格(Peter Leibinger)希望改变这一现状。在今年2月的慕尼黑安全会议上,他告诉《商报》:“我们经济界也要重新评估我们对建设防御性民主的必要贡献,从内部确认国防能力和必要物资的价值。”
话虽如此,但通快希望做出调整显然也有商业原因。该公司在激光技术领域拥有丰富的专业知识,但正在努力应对订单的下滑。 “即使是通快公司也无法逃脱持续近两年的全球经济衰退,”该公司在宣布裁员1000人的声明中表示。如果将激光技术用于防御无人机,其订单肯定不再是问题了。
更多阅读——德国联邦国防军:巨额资金将花在哪里?

研发可以从中受益
这些都是有利于经济的例子。增加国防开支也可能会对研发产生积极影响。曼海姆的经济学家克雷布斯和卡兹马尔奇克在他们的研究中也承认这一点。不过,他们也写道,必须确保军事研究不仅带来国防领域的技术发展,也能引发民用经济领域的技术发展。
这就需要特定的控制机制。这两位学者建议国家直接投资国防企业。这样,“公共资金的使用可以更加精准,资金的使用也可以得到更好的控制。”
DW中文有Instagram!欢迎搜寻dw.chinese,看更多深入浅出的图文与影音报道。
© 2025年德国之声版权声明:本文所有内容受到著作权法保护,如无德国之声特别授权,不得擅自使用。任何不当行为都将导致追偿,并受到刑事追究。
相关图集:德国联邦国防军亟待解决的装备“黑洞”









特朗普正在让欧洲再次伟大?
2025-07-06T10:37:01.087Z

(德国之声中文网)时间紧迫:美欧关税争端达成协议的最后期限是7月9日。美国是否会持续对欧洲征收高额关税,局势是否会升级,目前尚无定论。欧盟将采取何种措施应对,同样也不明朗。尽管近几个月来特朗普政府主动出击、四处施压,然而国际投资者对美国经济的怀疑态度日益加深,同时对欧洲的兴趣也日益浓厚,尤其是对欧洲最大经济体德国。
美股标普500指数自今年年初以来一直处于下跌状态,但德国DAX指数却上涨了超15%,创下新高。
自特朗普上任以来,美元兑欧元已贬值10%,美元兑英镑、美元兑瑞士法郎也出现下跌。
国际货币基金组织、德国央行都敲响警钟
德国央行行长纳格尔(Joachim Nagel)在5月份提出警告,如果关税问题得不到解决,金融市场将再次陷入动荡。纳格尔用尖锐的言辞描述了美国宣布对几乎所有贸易伙伴征收高额关税后,股价下跌、美元走弱,同时债券收益率上升的情况:“有时,在某些日子里,我感觉我们离金融市场崩溃不远了。”
国际货币基金组织(IMF)则指出,美国债务可能失控。国际货币基金组织副总裁戈皮纳特(Gita Gopinath)最近在接受英国《金融时报》采访时警告称,美国预算赤字过大,美国需要解决其“不断增长”的债务负担。

根据美国财政部数字,美国背负着超过36万亿美元的巨额债务。去年,美国债务总额超过国内生产总值(GDP)的120%,几乎是德国债务与GDP比率的两倍。而且,新债务每年都在增加。
投资者担忧美国市场
经济学家辛恩(Hans-Werner Sinn)也认为,当前美国债务模式的生存空间正在缩小。“美国人将不得不勒紧裤腰带。这种生活水平,这种由购物中心和少数工厂组成的世界,从长远来看是无法持续的,”这位慕尼黑Ifo经济研究所前所长在接受DW采访时表示。
经济学家奥萨(Ralph Ossa)表示能理解美国正在寻求减少其与欧盟的贸易逆差,不过,这位世贸组织首席经济学家也认同主流经济学界的观点,“从经济学角度上来看,基本上所有经济学家都认为关税不是解决贸易逆差的合适手段”,他对DW说。
奥萨将美国的做法比作一个人购买力超过其工作收入并因此负债。“如果我遇到债务问题——比如因为我买了太多车,那么当然可以考虑对汽车征税,这样我就不会再买那么多了。但这显然不是解决问题最直接的方法,”奥萨在描述美国的做法时说道。
“情绪彻底逆转”
德国复兴信贷银行行长温特尔斯(Stefan Wintels)最近在接受德国《商报》采访表示,特朗普咄咄逼人的贸易和关税政策正在吓跑投资者,迫使他们将目光转向欧洲。“我观察到,国际投资者对德国的兴趣正在增长”。他表示,许多机构的投资组合中美股权重过高,机构投资者希望能增加对欧洲、尤其是德国的投资。
温特尔斯还表示,短短几个月内,国际投资者对欧洲和德国的情绪彻底逆转了。“在我30多年的职业生涯中,我从未见过如此迅速的情绪转变。我们应该竭尽全力,让德国和欧洲能利用好这种强劲势头。”
感受到欧洲、德国的吸引力
即使黑石集团(Blackstone)这样的国际资管巨头,也正在被欧洲所吸引。黑石集团首席执行官施瓦茨曼(Steve Schwarzman)宣布,未来十年在欧洲投资最高5000亿美元。在地缘政治动荡的时代,欧洲以及德国对投资者的吸引力日益增强,这与德国高额的基础设施、国防投资计划也不无关系。

“我们认为这对我们来说是一个绝佳的机会,”施瓦茨曼在6月初接受彭博电视台采访时表示。“他们正在开始改变策略,我们相信这将带来更高的增长率。”
布鲁塞尔已经认识到,欧盟必须更好利用欧盟内部巨大的消费市场。欧盟委员会希望着手解决其中“十大弊端”,一份被媒体平台“Table Briefings”揭秘的欧盟战略文件进行了如下计算:要抵消对美出口20%的下降,欧盟内部货物贸易只要增长2.4%就够了。实现这一目标的途径包括减少官僚主义。预计这将尤其有利于中小企业,使其能够更轻松地在欧盟内部跨境运营。此外,布鲁塞尔还需要加快与伙伴国家达成自贸协定的步伐。
目前,欧洲已经从新视角中收益。在6月初 SuperReturn International(“国际超级回报大会”)投资者大会上,数千名大型投资者齐聚柏林,其资产管理规模总计约46万亿欧元,被誉为全球规模最大的私募股权和风险投资大会。很多资管机构都对欧洲作为投资目的地表现出浓厚的兴趣。总部位于纽约的阿波罗全球管理公司(Apollo Global Management)表示,其8000亿美元投资组合中,欧洲权重已达到约1000亿美元,并计划在未来十年进一步加大对德国的投资力度。
“我们认为,仅在德国这个国家,未来十年就有机会投资1000亿美元,” 阿波罗全球管理公司泽尔特(Jim Zelter)告诉《金融时报》,并补充说,“这是一个全球范围内都难以超越的数字。”
DW中文有Instagram!欢迎搜寻dw.chinese,看更多深入浅出的图文与影音报道。
© 2025年德国之声版权声明:本文所有内容受到著作权法保护,如无德国之声特别授权,不得擅自使用。任何不当行为都将导致追偿,并受到刑事追究。
相关图集:特朗普关税战2.0时间线梳理













One of the Worst Industries in the World Gets Its Comeuppance
Jeff Flake: The Republican Fever Must Break
Walt Whitman Would Have Hated DOGE
Israel Is Fast Alienating the Democratic Base
Americans Fought Off This Awful Idea in Trump’s Bill
Jeff Flake: The Republican Fever Must Break
© Aleksey Kondratyev for The New York Times
One of the Worst Industries in the World Gets Its Comeuppance
China and Russia Keep Their Distance From Iran During Crisis
© Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times
Netanyahu Heads to Washington as Trump Pushes for Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire
© Pool photo by Jack Guez
North Carolina Braces For Medicaid Cuts Because of Trump’s Bill
© Kate Medley for The New York Times
Southwest’s C.E.O. on Why Now Is the Time for Bag Fees and Assigned Seats
© Emil Lippe for The New York Times
She Wanted to Save the World From A.I. Then the Killings Started.
© Dawn Yang
The Coder ‘Village’ at the Heart of China’s A.I. Frenzy
© Qilai Shen for The New York Times
Europe’s Dilemma: Build a Military Industry or Keep Relying on the U.S.
© Davide Monteleone for The New York Times