内容摘要：He steered talks back to trade, saying South Africa needed economic investment from its allies, and mostly sat expressionless while the video was played, occasionally stretching his neck to look at it.

He steered talks back to trade, saying South Africa needed economic investment from its allies, and mostly sat expressionless while the video was played, occasionally stretching his neck to look at it.

What does the law say?Anyone — individual or organisation, local or foreign — who acts in the interest of a foreign entity or receives foreign funding to operate in El Salvador is required to register under the law.

Every payment, whether in cash, goods or services, made to such groups will be subject to a 30-percent tax. The final law passed does not specify how the money from the tax will be used.While the United States also has a law that requires individuals working on behalf of foreign entities and governments to register, Bukele’s is far broader in scope and grants him greater powers. It is fairly common in poorer countries in Latin America to depend on international aid dollars, as it is often difficult to raise money in their own countries.Analysts say a broad definition of a “foreign agent” in the law could cover:

New rules governing NGOsThe law creates a new government body called RAEX, or Registry of Foreign Agents, which will have wide powers, including setting requirements for registration, approving or denying applications, revoking or refusing to renew registrations and demanding documents or information at any time.

Some NGOs can apply for exceptions, but RAEX will decide who can operate in the country. About 8,000 NGOs operate in El Salvador and often depend on foreign donations due to a lack of funds available in the Central American nation.

Some of those groups have long been at odds with Bukele and have criticised some of his actions, including his decision to waive key constitutional rights to crack down on the country’s gangs and seeking re-election despite clear constitutional prohibitions.But if you think what happened earlier this month was merely a military exchange, you’ve missed the real story.

This was a war, yes, but not just of missiles. It was a war of narratives, orchestrated in headlines, hashtags, and nightly newsrooms. The battlefield was the media. The ammunition was discourse. And the casualties were nuance, complexity, and truth.What we witnessed was the culmination of what scholars call discursive warfare — the deliberate construction of identity, legitimacy, and power through language. In the hands of Indian and Pakistani media, every act of violence was scripted, every image curated, every casualty politicised. This wasn’t coverage. It was choreography.

Scene one: The righteous strikeOn May 6, India struck first. Or, as Indian media framed it, India defended first.