NEWS

After two years of a grinding war, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are observing the holy month of Ramadan during an unabating economic catastrophe as Israel continues to impose restrictions on the entry of food and other supplies despite a “ceasefire” reached in October.

For most families, the daily struggle to secure a mere loaf of bread has replaced the traditional festive atmosphere before the war. An analysis by Al Jazeera, based on official data, reveals that skyrocketing prices for basic commodities have made a complete iftar meal to break the daily fast a distant dream for the vast majority of the population.

Skyrocketing costs

During periods when Israel tightened its siege or completely closed the crossings into Gaza, food prices spiked by more than 700 percent. While prices have retreated slightly since the “ceasefire” began in October, they remain significantly higher than pre-war levels.

According to Mohammed Barbakh, director general of policy and planning at the Ministry of Economy in Gaza, official data tracking prices from before the war began on October 7, 2023, to the first days of this Ramadan show staggering increases.

Al Jazeera’s analysis of the ministry’s price data reveals the following hikes:

• Chicken: Prices rose from 14 shekels ($4.49) to 25 shekels ($8.01) per kilogramme (2.2lb), an 80 percent increase.
• Frozen fish: Prices jumped from 8 shekels ($2.56) to 23 shekels ($7.37) per kilo, a 190 percent increase.
• Frozen red meat: Prices rose from 23 shekels ($7.37) to 40 shekels ($12.82) per kilo, a 75 percent difference.
• Eggs: A tray of 30 eggs now costs 35 shekels ($11.22) compared with 13 shekels ($4.17), a 170 percent increase.

Vegetables, a staple of the Palestinian diet, have also seen dramatic surges. Tomatoes have doubled in price while cucumbers have jumped by 300 percent, rising from 3 shekels ($0.96) per kilo to 12 shekels ($3.85). Cheese prices have increased by up to 110 percent, directly impacting the cost of suhoor, the predawn meal before the daily fasting during Ramadan begins.

The cost of a meal

Based on data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Al Jazeera estimated the cost of a basic iftar for a family of six. The meal includes two chickens, rice, salad, appetisers, a soft drink, cooking gas and oil.

The price of the meal has risen to about 150 shekels ($48), up from 79 shekels ($25.32) before the war, an increase of 90 percent.

For suhoor, a simple meal of cheese, hummus, falafel and bread now costs 31.5 shekels ($10.10), compared with 18.6 shekels ($5.96) previously.

The combined daily cost to feed a medium-sized family now stands at 181.5 shekels ($58.17), an 88 percent jump from pre-war figures.

Economic obliteration

These price hikes coincide with a collapse in purchasing power. A United Nations report released in late 2025 indicated that the annual per capita income in Gaza plummeted to $161 (503 shekels) in 2024, down from $1,250 (3,900 shekels) in 2022.

The labour market has essentially vanished. In a statement issued in October, Sami al-Amsi, head of the General Federation of Palestinian Trade Unions, said unemployment stood then at more than 95 percent as workshops, farmland and fishing fleets were destroyed.

“The worker is no longer looking for a job because there is no work at all,” al-Amsi said. “Today, the Palestinian worker is looking for a food parcel to survive.”

Blockade and monopoly

Economic researcher Ahmed Abu Qamar attributed the inflation to Israel’s restrictive entry policies and “coordination fees” imposed on trucks.

“The humanitarian protocol stipulates the entry of 600 trucks daily, yet the Israeli occupation effectively allows only between 200 and 250 trucks,” Abu Qamar told Al Jazeera, noting that the Strip actually requires 1,000 trucks daily to meet minimum demand.

He also highlighted a monopoly system under which only about 10 merchants are authorised to import goods through four Israeli companies, restricting competition and keeping prices artificially high. He called for a return to a free market system and the full opening of crossings to alleviate the burden on a population already crushed by conflict.

U.S. trade policy uncertainty has sent shockwaves through global markets, as President Donald Trump moved to impose a 15% tariff following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling invalidating his emergency trade levies. Investors reacted quickly, rotating out of risk assets and the dollar, while seeking shelter in gold, silver, and safe-haven currencies. The turbulence highlights the fragility of global investor confidence when policy reversals collide with high-stakes geopolitical and economic risks.

Wall Street and Currency Volatility

U.S. stock futures fell sharply, with S&P 500 futures down 0.5% and Nasdaq futures slipping 0.6%. The dollar weakened across major pairs, losing 0.21% versus the yen and 0.34% against the Swiss franc, while the euro gained 0.23%. European equities also reflected caution: the STOXX 600 fell 0.19%, Germany’s DAX slid 0.36%, and Britain’s FTSE 100 edged down 0.1%.

Asian markets, however, were mixed. The MSCI Asia index excluding Japan rose 0.83%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng surged 2.53% on expectations of lower tariffs for China. Japan’s Nikkei futures fell 0.4% ahead of a holiday, highlighting regional divergence driven by perceived winners and losers in U.S. tariff policy.

Safe-Haven Assets Rally

Amid the uncertainty, investors sought protection in gold and silver, which climbed 0.6% and 2% respectively. Safe-haven currencies, including the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, appreciated as risk-off sentiment grew. Government bonds saw slight gains, with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dipping to 4.077%, reflecting flight-to-quality buying. Brent crude prices fell 1.1% to $70.97 a barrel, reversing gains from earlier geopolitical risk sentiment linked to U.S.-Iran tensions.

Tariff Confusion and Its Economic Implications

Trump’s latest tariffs add layers of ambiguity. While the Supreme Court struck down his emergency powers, the new 15% levy relies on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, an untested statute. Questions remain over timing, exclusions, and applicability by country. Some nations, including the UK and Australia, had lower tariffs under prior rules, while many Asian exporters faced higher duties. The Yale Budget Lab estimates the average effective tariff rate at 13.7% following the announcement, down from 16% pre-ruling, with the 15% rate potentially dropping to 9.1% after 150 days.

“This circular process of tariff announcements, legal challenges, and revisions is creating profound uncertainty for markets,” said Rodrigo Catril, senior FX strategist at NAB.

Market Sentiment and Investor Behavior

The episode reflects broader structural concerns about U.S. trade policy’s unpredictability. Investors are no longer just reacting to tariffs themselves, but to the instability and volatility of policy enforcement. The uncertainty affects supply chains, corporate earnings forecasts, and capital allocation decisions. Nvidia’s upcoming earnings, for example, are being closely watched, given the company’s 8% weighting in the S&P 500, demonstrating how trade policy shocks can amplify market sensitivity to specific corporate results.

Analytical Outlook

Trump’s oscillating trade policy highlights a critical tension between political objectives and market stability. While tariffs are framed as instruments to advance domestic economic priorities, the resulting unpredictability imposes systemic costs: currency swings, equity market volatility, and flight to safe assets. The mixed regional responses Asian equities partially rallying, European markets cautious underscore how interconnected global trade and finance are, and how unevenly shocks are absorbed.

In essence, this episode illustrates a modern economic paradox: protective trade measures intended to strengthen domestic interests can, in practice, destabilize markets worldwide. Investors now must hedge not only against tariffs themselves but also against the policy volatility that accompanies them a scenario likely to persist as long as U.S. trade decisions are made unilaterally and unpredictably.

Trump’s approach has transformed trade from a predictable framework into a high-stakes, reactive arena, forcing global markets to continuously recalibrate. The lesson is clear: in today’s interconnected financial system, the cost of policy uncertainty often outweighs the intended protectionist benefit.

With information from Reuters.

Afghan officials deny claims, as they accuse Pakistan of targeting civilians and violating its sovereignty in Sunday’s border air raids.

A senior Pakistani government official has claimed that its military killed at least 70 fighters in air raids along the border with Afghanistan, claims Kabul has denied, amid escalating tensions between the two South Asian neighbours.

Talal Chaudhry, Pakistan’s deputy interior minister, offered no evidence for his claim in an interview with Geo News on Sunday evening that at least 70 rebels were killed in the attack. Pakistan’s state media reported that the death toll had jumped to 80; however, there was no official confirmation.

Pakistan’s military carried out the air raids early on Sunday, targeting what it called “camps and hideouts” belonging to armed groups behind a spate of recent attacks, including a deadly suicide bombing at a Shia mosque in the capital, Islamabad.

The country’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar wrote on X that the military conducted “intelligence-based, selective operations” against seven camps belonging to the Pakistan Taliban group, known by the acronym TTP, and its affiliates.

Tarar said Pakistan “has always strived to maintain peace and stability in the region”, but added that the safety and security of Pakistani citizens remained a top priority.

President Asif Ali Zardari said late on Sunday that Pakistan’s recent attacks along the Afghan border were “rooted in [its] inherent right to defend its people against terrorism” after repeated warnings to Kabul went unheeded.

The attacks threaten a fragile ceasefire between the South Asian neighbours, negotiated following deadly border clashes that killed dozens of soldiers, civilians and suspected fighters in October last year.

Pakistan said it has repeatedly urged Afghanistan’s Taliban government to take action to prevent armed groups from using Afghan territory to launch attacks, but that Kabul has failed to “undertake any substantive action”.

Afghanistan has rejected Pakistani allegations that its territory is used by armed groups linked to attacks in Pakistan.

Afghanistan denies claims

The Afghan Ministry of Defence said in a statement that “various civilian areas” in the eastern provinces of Nangarhar and Paktika were hit, including a religious school and several homes. The statement called the attacks a violation of Afghanistan’s airspace and sovereignty.

Taliban government spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said “people’s homes have been destroyed, they have targeted civilians, they have committed this criminal act” with the bombardment of the two eastern provinces.

Residents from around the remote Bihsud district in Nangarhar joined searchers to look for bodies under the rubble using shovels and a digger, the AFP news agency reported.

“People here are ordinary people. The residents of this village are our relatives. When the bombing happened, one person who survived was shouting for help,” resident Amin Gul Amin, 37, told AFP.

Spokesperson Mujahid also said Pakistan’s claim of killing 70 fighters was “inaccurate”.

Mawlawi Fazl Rahman Fayyaz, the provincial director of the Afghan Red Crescent Society in Nangarhar province, said 18 people were killed and several others were wounded.

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Pakistan’s ambassador in Kabul to protest against the attacks.

In a statement, the ministry said protecting Afghanistan’s territory is its “Sharia responsibility”, warning that Pakistan would be held responsible for the consequences of such attacks.

South Korea and Brazil have agreed to significantly deepen cooperation across key minerals, trade, technology and security, as President Lee Jae Myung hosted Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Seoul for the first Brazilian state visit in more than two decades. The summit, held at the Blue House, marked a symbolic reset in bilateral ties and produced an ambitious roadmap aimed at elevating relations to a strategic partnership.

The two leaders endorsed a four-year action plan designed to anchor cooperation in strategic minerals, advanced manufacturing, defence, space industries and food security. They also oversaw the signing of 10 memorandums of understanding covering trade and industrial policy, rare earths and other critical minerals, the digital economy including artificial intelligence, biotechnology and health, agricultural collaboration, small-business exchanges, and joint efforts to combat cybercrime and narcotics trafficking.

Critical Minerals at the Core

At the heart of the agreement lies a shared recognition of the growing geopolitical importance of critical minerals. Brazil holds significant reserves of rare earth elements and nickel, both essential to electric vehicles, renewable energy systems and high-tech manufacturing. South Korea, a manufacturing powerhouse heavily reliant on imported raw materials, is seeking to diversify supply chains amid intensifying global competition for resource security.

For Seoul, closer ties with Brasília offer an opportunity to secure stable access to strategic inputs while reducing exposure to concentrated supply routes. For Brazil, the partnership represents a chance to attract South Korean investment into mining, processing and downstream industries, potentially moving up the value chain rather than remaining primarily a raw-material exporter.

Trade Expansion and Industrial Policy Alignment

Brazil is South Korea’s largest trading partner in South America, and both governments signaled an intent to broaden the scope of commerce beyond traditional commodity flows. Industrial policy coordination featured prominently in the discussions, suggesting a shift toward co-development in sectors such as semiconductors, batteries and green technologies.

The emphasis on the digital economy and artificial intelligence reflects a convergence of economic strategies. South Korea’s advanced technological ecosystem complements Brazil’s expanding digital market, creating potential for joint ventures and technology transfers. Cooperation in biotech and health also indicates a recognition of demographic and public health challenges that transcend borders.

Security, Stability and Shared Democratic Narratives

Beyond economics, the leaders framed their partnership within a broader narrative of stability and democratic resilience. Lee emphasized support for peace on the Korean Peninsula, while Lula underscored Brazil’s interest in a balanced and rules-based international order.

Their personal rapport, shaped by shared experiences of early-life factory work and social mobility, added a human dimension to the diplomacy. Lee publicly praised Lula’s life story as emblematic of democratic progress, reinforcing a symbolic alignment that may help sustain political goodwill between the two administrations.

The inclusion of joint policing initiatives against cybercrime and transnational threats signals that the partnership extends into non-traditional security domains. As digital connectivity deepens, cyber resilience and coordinated law enforcement become integral to safeguarding economic integration.

Strategic Diversification in a Fragmented World

The timing of the summit is notable. As global trade faces renewed uncertainty and supply chains continue to recalibrate, middle powers such as South Korea and Brazil are seeking to hedge against volatility by strengthening bilateral and regional ties. By formalizing cooperation in minerals, technology and defence, both governments aim to insulate their economies from external shocks while positioning themselves within emerging industrial ecosystems.

The ceremonial elements of the visit including a state banquet blending Korean and Brazilian cultural traditions underscored the leaders’ intent to broaden engagement beyond transactional trade. Whether the newly signed agreements translate into measurable investment flows and industrial integration will depend on sustained political commitment and private-sector participation. Yet the framework established in Seoul suggests that both countries see strategic partnership not as a symbolic upgrade, but as a practical response to an increasingly fragmented global landscape.

With information from Reuters.

From what one should eat to what one should say, AI chatbots on your phone have the final say. The choice of bots, though, is totally in your hands, but what choice you will make with it is barely in your hands. Are you by any chance handing your decision-making power to bots, which you assume makes your life easy? If yes, then let’s consider a few things before your next chatbot conversation. First, understand the dual system model by Daniel Kahneman. According to that, there are two types of systems in the human brain. System 1 is associated with fast, intuitive, emotional, and automatic thinking. System 2 is associated with analytical, slow, effortful, and deliberate thinking. The majority of the technology that is available for the general masses urges individuals to use system 1, as it does not require much effort. Decision-making needs system 2 and is complex and requires time and effort, though this is something that people tend to avoid at all costs. Machines were built to reduce human effort, and artificial intelligence is there to reduce the decision-making efforts, something that differentiated the individual from the technology or innovation earlier.

Now at the state level, artificial intelligence is being integrated; take the example of the United States National Defense Strategy of 2022, where the inclusion of artificial intelligence in decision-making processes was of prime importance. At the systematic level, unfortunately, until now, there have not been concrete efforts towards establishing rules regarding artificial intelligence, except for the Bletchley Declaration, which was a landmark international agreement on AI safety. Though at the individual level, rather than being careful, people are playing with and handing over their decision-making power. As was reported by the BBC, in an interview, Megan Garcia, the mother of a 14-year-old, said that an AI chatbot encouraged her son to commit suicide. Another case involving a young Ukrainian woman with poor mental health received suicide advice from an AI chatbot. Another report by Vice of a person who committed suicide after having multiple conversations with a chatbot over environmental issues. AI chatbots that run on algorithms have been taken as emotional support beings, which they are not.

They are given different names to grab the attention of the user, such as “your goth friend,” “your possessive girlfriend,” and several others. They are targeting the emotional side, or System 1, of the user, and they have been quite successful in that. Everyone today almost has an AI chatbot with whom they have a conversation at least once a day. According to Chabot’s 2025 statistics, more than 987 million people use AI chatbots today. ChatGPT dominates the AI chatbot market share with 81.85%, using it globally, followed by OpenAI’s GPT-4, Microsoft Co-Pilot, Google Gemini, Claude, and DeepSeek with 11.05%, 3.07%, 2.97%, 1.05%, and 0.01%, respectively. With that, it is becoming dangerous and needs to be handled with more care and caution. The responsibility lies on individuals as much as it lies on the state and the international organizations.

Technology has been advancing for decades, and it has been creating ease and comfort for its users. Artificial intelligence, being one such technology, is beneficial too, but it should be used to enhance the mental capabilities and not hand over one’s control over things. AI is expanding and advancing at an immeasurable speed, and it will not wait for people to wake up and make better decisions for themselves. Social media platforms will not adjust themselves to the needs of the time, as they are markets, and all they care about is what is bought, which is the thing that should be sold. If people are buying the emotional support AI, then there will be multiple chatbots with attention-grabbing titles.

An individual might take it as a joke or play with it for fun, but what they do not realize is that they are providing their personal and sensitive information to a machine whose data can be sabotaged. People nowadays, without realizing, would jump on the ongoing trends without realizing what it will do to their data. The trend of Ghibli-style photos, where photos were being generated to the extent that it led to the melting of OpenAI’s servers, prompted the company to temporarily implement rate limits. In addition to that, it resulted in an intellectual property issue involving Studio Ghibli centers. As it mimicked the iconic style of Studio Ghibli, which has been working for decades, AI stole the art, and there was no genuine accountability. This is how dangerous it gets: stealing someone’s work and then getting away with it without being charged or held accountable. This intellectual property theft by AI resulted in Hollywood writers’ protest, leading to the establishment of the 2023 WGA AI contract. WGA (Writers Guild of America) led to AI not being treated as a writer and prevented it from getting any credit or being considered “literary material.” Where the threat is so imminent, laws are not efficient, control is lost, and profit is being generated, would you really let bots decide what you will do in your life?

Mérida, February 23, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly passed the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence on Thursday, January 19. 

The government, led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, immediately enacted the legislation and presented it as a step toward “peace and tolerance.”

The law establishes mechanisms that aim to promote political reconciliation through a blanket amnesty for crimes or offenses committed in the context of political violence between 1999 and 2026. The final document explicitly lists high-profile contexts, including the 2002 coup against then-President Hugo Chávez, the 2014 and 2017 opposition-led violent “guarimba” street protests, and the unrest following the July 2024 presidential elections.

“This law is guided by principles of freedom, justice, equality, […] the primacy of human rights, and political diversity,” article 3 reads.

Article 7 of the amnesty bill defines the ethical and constitutional scope of the pardon, expressly excluding those who have participated in serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, in accordance with Article 29 of the Venezuelan Constitution.

The legislation also excludes those prosecuted for or convicted of homicide, corruption offenses while in public office, and drug trafficking with sentences exceeding nine years.

During a press conference at the National Assembly, the head of parliament Jorge Rodríguez stated that the new law represents “a step forward to avoid the mistakes of the past.” 

“I believe that this law recognizes the victims in its articles and represents a step toward avoiding the mistakes of the past,” he told reporters. “This sends a powerful message that we can live, work, and grow politically within the framework established by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

During the Thursday session, opposition Deputy Henry Falcón from the Democratic Alliance affirmed that “amnesty is an opportunity that the state offers to forget. We cannot cling to past differences in the face of a higher interest: the country itself.”

After twenty days of consultations and debates and three two legislative debates, Jorge Rodríguez presented the final text that was unanimously endorsed by all 277 deputies. He also announced the creation of a Special Monitoring Commission, chaired by Jorge Arreaza (United Socialist Party of Venezuela, PSUV) and Nora Bracho (A New Era, UNT). This commission is responsible for ensuring the law’s implementation and addressing requests for release.

At a special ceremony held at Miraflores Palace on Thursday evening, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez formally received the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence following approval by the legislature and called for national reconciliation.

“This amnesty law opens an extraordinary door for Venezuela to come together again, to learn to live together democratically and peacefully, and to rid itself of hatred and intolerance,” she expressed. “ 

Regarding the exclusions contemplated, Rodríguez asked the Commission for the Judicial Revolution, chaired by Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, to review cases not covered by the amnesty and formulate recommendations to “heal wounds.”

The president of the legislature’s special commission, Jorge Arreaza, stated on a televised interview that the first 379 amnesty applications had been processed, primarily in Caracas.

“Both the Supreme Court and the Attorney General’s Office have received 379 requests for amnesty,” he explained. “These individuals should be released in the coming hours. This process will continue in the coming days.”

Parliamentary leader Jorge Rodríguez said on Saturday that there are a further 1,500 cases being revised.

Meanwhile, Ernesto Villegas, minister of culture and coordinator of the Program for Peace and Democratic Coexistence, reported on his Telegram channel a meeting with campesino, tenant, and labor organizations to discuss cases of activists facing legal proceedings due to social struggles over land, housing, and employment. These groups were not explicitly contemplated among the direct beneficiaries of the law.

The grassroots collectives denounced the criminalization of their social demands and provided concrete information that will be forwarded to the relevant authorities in coordination with the National Assembly’s special commission.

The meeting hosted by Villegas also saw relatives of individuals imprisoned for alleged corruption in the public sector criticize the penal system and advocate for their loved ones’ rights.

The Program for Peace and Democratic Coexistence promised to promptly send the complaints to the relevant bodies and encourage corrective actions.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Iran signed a secret missile agreement worth approximately €500 million (approximately $589 million) with Russia in order to rebuild its air defense system, the Financial Times claimed in a report published on Sunday, Anadolu reports.

An agreement was signed between Iran and Russia in Moscow in Dec. 2025, according to information obtained by the newspaper.

Under the agreement, Russia is expected to deliver 500 Verba portable launch units and 2,500 9M336-type missiles to Iran within three years.

As part of the roughly €500 million deal, the missiles are planned to be delivered to Iran in three separate phases between 2027 and 2029.

Some sources indicated that certain systems may have been delivered to Iran earlier than the scheduled timeline, according to the daily.

Following the attacks carried out by Israel and the US against Iran in June 2025 and the 12-day war that ensued, it was claimed that the Tehran administration formally requested these defense systems from Russia in July 2025.

Iran made this request in order to boost its defense capacity and protect its strategic facilities following the attacks.

The Verba is known as one of Russia’s most modern air defense systems.

The system can be used effectively against cruise missiles and low-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

While Kim has remained at the top of North Korean leadership, the party congress’s presidium – its executive committee – has been reshuffled since the last meeting in 2021. More than half of its 39 members have been replaced, according to state media.

The Afghanistan crisis is generally spoken of as a crisis of the hour in terms of the Taliban, outside power intervention, or an unsuccessful election season. Such framing is not as profound as the problem. The state and province conquests, bargaining, and coercion united Afghanistan, the state, but not a civic transaction between peoples. Although the significance of an actual national flag was yet to arrive, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Pashtuns, and minorities occupied different regions, related to regional leaders, tribal councils, and local trade routes. The power was not national but local and individual. The contemporary state emerged later, and at the inception of its emergence, it was naturally skewed in a manner that remained to fulfil the definition of politics.

The birth of Ahmad Shah Abdali, recalled as Ahmad Shah Durrani in the middle of the eighteenth century, could be recalled as one of the foundational legends. It was also when the military alliance of one community had become the core of the state’s strength. The shell of a state was built by Ahmad Shah through warfare, and the coalition of Pashtun tribes consolidated the territory and gained more lands, with the foundation of a heterogeneous and broad territory. The logic, however, was not inclusion. It was piety, preference, and blackmail. Peripheral territories like the non-Pashtun were to be ruled as they were expected to submit, pay, or surrender when the center was strong and to ignore when it was weak. That model had never killed with Ahmad Shah. It was a practice that has been emulated by other leaders who have come after and tried to play a stage of unity without building institutions that can be regarded as belonging to all groups.

The trend was established following the demise of Ahmad Shah. Kabul was rarely what it purported to be. Power moved around among leaders, but the leadership was generally stopped at metropolises, armies, and major highways. Large areas were something like semi-autonomous states, which cooperated with the state, fought it, or alternated in each of the seasons. When they say that Afghanistan has never had full rule of its own land, people are not hurting the country; they are saying a structural truth, which is that the center has never had sovereignty and has never received legitimacy on the full map. The actual authority was left to the ethnic groups, strongmen, clerics, and commanders. In that perspective, any change in Kabul became existential to the non-residents of the city, as the state was no competition referee but a prize.

Even the geography and the demography make this worse. Pashtuns have been estimated to be approximately 42 percent, Tajiks approximately 27 percent, and Hazaras and Uzbeks approximately 9 percent, and the rest are made up of Turkmen, Baloch, and others. Two official languages exist: Pashto and Dari, but the status of any language could never be a purely cultural one since it was always a political one. Even the name of the country, Afghanistan, is perceived by most Afghans as a loaded word, and that practice is tied to the Pashtun identity and leadership even when they are being applied as a national one. People are angry because of the gap between the way the label instructs us to feel and the way that people feel. Pleas of togetherness are empty when the name of a state is doubted even in real life.

The south, northeast, and many of the cities are then the Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara distributions, respectively. These areas are not eliminated by violent migration, displacement in war, or careful political manipulation. Rather, the blurring would contribute to some new fault lines, and communities would need to be pushed into the interspace of their neighbors without an established system of solving disagreements without favoritism. The cross-border relationships include the Tajiks and Tajikistan, Uzbeks and Uzbekistan, and Pashtuns and Pakistan, and there is a stable tug-of-war that the neighbors and patrons can make use of. A low external and high center connection is a formula for continued disintegration.

This is the sphere where the aspect of security cannot be neglected. The decades of controversial control and open borders have transformed parts of Afghanistan into an attractive location for militants that occupy uncontrolled space. When the state cannot provide some kind of protection over territory, the armed networks take its position and deliver protection, taxation, ideology, and logistics. These networks do not have a localization. Training, financing, and planning have border-crossing characteristics, subjecting the region to an environment of a shared threat. At that, the question is not only a moral or historical one, but one of expediency: what are the political structures that may be implemented to make sure that Afghanistan will no longer remain a jihadist temptation to armed groups that can break the peace of its neighbors?

The solution is suggested in a provocative manner, and that is the territorial restructuring, a peaceful partitioning of the state along ethnic and regional lines: Uzbek majority areas become Uzbekistan, Tajik majority areas become Tajikistan, Pashtun majority areas become Pakistan, another separate state is established called Hazaras, etc. The appeal is obvious. It will eliminate the sovereignty of a group, a distinct line of power, and smaller political units, which might be more efficient to govern. It also tries to compare borders to lives in stating that when people believe that the state is an extension of them and not the rulers of the state, then stability is achieved.

Authors: Ajay Kumar Mishra and Shraddha Rishi*

At the Davos World Economic Forum, Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, shared his thoughts on the hegemonic and subservient world order. When integration turns into a source of subordination, one cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit in the midst of a collapsing global order. The trading communities appear to have a hegemonic and subservient relationship as a result of the dollar’s adoption as the world’s reserve currency. Furthermore, the competing global order between the US and China appears to be caving in to Chinese modus operandi without investigating the reasons for US authoritarian dominance, which could result in the acceptance of Chinese domination. The recognition of the US dollar as the worldwide currency and its dominance over oil, one of the most traded commodities, have put the US in leadership of the world trading regime. Furthermore, it appears that China’s monopoly over rare earth elements (REEs) is giving the Chinese yuan the same reserve currency power. Therefore, the globe might witness a change of control from the US to China, thus jeopardizing the world trading system to the whims and fancies of the country holding the reserve currency.

:

According to this essay, the dollar’s reserve currency status is the true cause of the world order’s disintegration, which equates to allowing the US to take the only seat at the table. It contends that a multipolar currency is essential for a multipolar world order. This understanding is necessary to prevent the rule of any country based on currency supremacy. Diversifying the currency basket for trade transactions is encouraged. To show how the currency dominance of a reserve currency would rise to currency imperialism, this article looks into the petrodollar problem and the duality of reserve currency and trade deficit to delegitimize the necessity of the dollar as a reserve currency. Any currency in question is subject to the same reasoning. Thus, a multi-currency trading framework is advocated in this article.

Geoeconomics of the Petrodollar Crisis’s Spiral

The dollar controls trade, payments, and reserves. About 96 percent of trade in the Americas, 74 percent in the Asia-Pacific area, and 79 percent in the rest of the world is denominated in the currency. About 60 percent of international and foreign currency claims (mainly loans) and liabilities (mostly deposits) are in US dollars. Its proportion of foreign exchange transactions is roughly 90 percent. Approximately 60% of the world’s official foreign reserves are in US dollars. Furthermore, in Q1 2025, the US dollar’s percentage of global foreign exchange reserves dropped to 53.6%. Additionally, the 50-year security agreement with Saudi Arabia to price oil only in dollars and invest surpluses in U.S. Treasury bonds in exchange for military protection expired in 2024. This could result in a shift toward accepting different currencies, albeit it won’t happen right away. Additionally, countries like Russia, China, and Iran are increasingly using non-dollar currencies for energy trade, aiming to reduce reliance on Western financial networks.

To achieve its geoeconomic goals, US authorities have attempted to preserve the dollar’s reserve currency status in several ways, compensating for economic weaknesses such as a lack of competitiveness in particular. The US appears to be addressing the growing trade deficit by maintaining the dollar as the world’s currency and matching China’s hegemony over rare earth elements. The US’s current dominance over the trade regime is largely due to dollar-based trade. The oil trade in dollars gives the US significant influence to shape geopolitics globally, both bilaterally and multilaterally, as oil holds a premier position in the international trading landscape.One commodity (oil) and one currency (the US dollar) have the power to both destabilise and stabilise the global price system. Its “as good as gold” quality can only be maintained in a world where the dominant currency is no longer associated with gold if it is associated with oil, that is, if wealthy people have faith that oil prices won’t continue to rise relative to the US dollar. The US gains influence over the oil trade by controlling the petro-dollar trade.

The globe is essentially on an “oil-dollar standard” during the post-Bretton Woods system, when currencies are meant to be “floating.” The US is under pressure to control oil sources, which it does through coercion or persuasion, to maintain wealth-holders’ faith in the value of the dollar, without which the global economy will experience severe financial turmoil, particularly given the ongoing US current account deficit. In a nutshell, war is a result of today’s necessity to preserve US financial stability. It does, however, produce a spiral effect. To control a significant oil source for financial stability, the US attacked oil-rich Iraq and, more recently, Venezuela. However, as a result of the opposition this strike provoked, oil prices skyrocketed, increasing the threat to financial stability and the temptation to wage war on other oil-rich nations like Iran. Additionally, the US would experience the same spiral consequences in a much more severe form if it decided to go to war with Iran.

The Reserve Currency and Trade Deficit “Trade-off”

Trade deficit and reserve currency operate in a trade-off scenario wherein a nation whose currency serves as the world’s reserve currency must maintain a trade deficit. It is based on two fundamental ideas. The first is the ‘policy trilemma’ or ‘impossible trinity’ thesis of economists Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming. It contends that an economy cannot sustain unrestricted capital flow, a fixed exchange rate, and an autonomous monetary policy at the same time. The second paradox bears the name of Robert Triffin, an economist. This states that where their money works as the global reserve currency, a nation must run huge trade deficits to meet the demand for reserves. Any candidate for a new global reserve currency position must run significant current account deficits and risk an intolerable loss of economic control.

However, trade imbalances are thought to be self-correcting. A nation’s currency is predicted to lose value when it has a trade imbalance. Exports will then rise, while imports will fall, resulting in a reduction in the trade deficit. However, as the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, this idea does not apply to the US economy. A large portion of a country’s foreign exchange reserves is invested in US government securities. As a result, the dollar is overpriced. A chronic trade deficit results from higher imports and lower exports due to an overpriced dollar. Therefore, the US has a trade deficit not because it imports more goods, but rather because it supplies the world’s reserve currency.

In the face of “unfair” trade and an overpriced currency, how can the US bring manufacturing back and lower the country’s trade deficit? Enter duties on imports. Tariffs will decrease imports and increase their cost, lowering the trade imbalance. By shielding American manufacturers from import competition, they will promote domestic production. However, the US’s return to a more protectionist policy through tariffs has led to increased bilateral commerce in non-dollar currency. For instance, India-Russia oil trade and China’s increasing use of bilateral currency swaps with its trading partners have caused major concern for the US reserve currency supremacy. Moreover, it caused a spiral effect. For example, the reserve currency of the central banks has become less dollarized as a result of the recent US policy of reciprocal tariffs to safeguard trade transactions in dollars. It promotes asking about options for a reserve currency basket and the possibility of de-dollarization. Trump has made no secret about retaining the US dollar’s global supremacy, even threatening the BRICS nations with 100% additional tax should they move forward with a unified currency to “degenerate” and “destroy” the dollar. After all, de-dollarization has the potential to tip the scales against the United States and reduce its capacity to influence international financial markets and the global economy. Furthermore, to protect dollar dominance from the assault of renewable energy, the US withdrawal from India’s solar alliance must be considered.

Economists fear that tariffs go against the concept of economic efficiency. Tariffs, they warn, will imply greater expenses for American consumers, an increase in the inflation rate, and an inefficient manufacturing sector. Moreover, tariffs will encourage nations to undermine the dollar’s standing as a reserve currency by making imports more expensive. It will portend the trading of multiple currencies. Even when Trump managed the inevitability of a trade deficit because of having a reserve currency, the US was still faced with two additional problems: the increasing bilateral trade in member countries’ currencies and China’s control over modern-era gold, ‘rare earth minerals’ critical for key industries. China’s hegemony over REEs and chip production challenges the US dollar’s hegemony.

Conclusion

It reflects that the actual geo-economic strength of the US lies in the acceptability of its currency as a global reserve and its hold over one of the most traded commodities, oil. The rise of China and the evolving structure of international trade are changing the dynamics of this area, even though the US dollar continues to be the most important reserve currency. However, there wouldn’t be any surpluses to invest or deficits to finance if trade were more bilaterally balanced over time, which would lessen the demand for a reserve currency like dollars. The world looks to be headed towards a multi-currency structure for harmonious commercial ties. By encouraging alternate payment methods among trading nations and choosing the currency used for the IMF’s reserve holdings, for instance, it is necessary to end the US monopoly on currency arrangements. The structure can be extended to incorporate trading blocs, where imbalances net out amongst members when aggregated. It suggests a world with several reserve and trade currencies.

This bilateral or multilateral currency autarky might unleash the potential to trade freely as well as to obtain investment capital for emerging economies. Moreover, this strategy is embedded in the evolving industrial structure driven by economic sovereignty. Meanwhile, the US’s capacity to finance its ongoing budget and trade deficits would be impacted by the dollar’s declining value. Dollar interest rates may have to climb, and the currency may depreciate. The role of its capital markets and financial institutions would shrink. It would give more space for the formation of a multipolar currency regime.

*Shraddha Rishi teaches Political Science at Magadh University, Bodhgaya. She has obtained her PhD from the Centre for South Asian Studies, JNU, New Delhi.

Lula says he wants to tell US President Trump that Brazil wishes for all countries to be treated ‘equally’.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva says his country does not want a “new Cold War”, ahead of his visit to the United States.

“I want to tell the US President Donald Trump that we don’t want a new Cold War. We don’t want interference in any other country; we want all countries to be treated equally,” Lula told a news conference at the end of his three-day trip to India on Sunday.

The Brazilian president has refused to comment on Friday’s US Supreme Court decision, which struck down many of Trump’s tariffs on goods entering the US. In response to the Supreme Court decision, Trump said that 15 percent levies would replace it under a different law.

Still, Lula said he is “convinced that Brazil-US relations will go back to normalcy after our conversation”, adding that Brazil has only wanted to “live in peace, generate jobs, and improve [the] lives of our people”.

“The world doesn’t need more turbulence; it needs peace,” he added.

Lula said he expects to meet Trump during the first week of March, and his agenda will include trade, immigration, and investment.

While Lula has differed with Trump on issues such as tariffs, Israel’s war on Gaza, the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and Trump’s Board of Peace – a group of nations assembled to plan Gaza’s future – US and Brazil ties appear to be mending.

In November, for instance, Trump’s administration exempted key Brazilian exports from the 40 percent tariffs that had been imposed on the country.

Brazil-India

On Saturday, Lula met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the Brazilian leader arrived in New Delhi on Wednesday to attend a summit on AI.

The two leaders agreed to boost cooperation on critical minerals and rare earths, looking to diversify their trade.

Lula and Modi agreed on a non-binding memorandum of understanding on rare earths, which establishes a framework for cooperation, focusing on reciprocal investment, exploration, mining and other issues.

They also agreed on legal frameworks and other topics, including entrepreneurship, health, scientific research and education.

Mexican security forces have killed Nemesio Ruben Oseguera Cervantes, the notorious drug lord widely known as “El Mencho”, in a major military operation, the country’s Secretariat of National Defence confirmed.

The Mexican government said that seven members of Oseguera’s Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) were killed in the raid in Tapalpa on Sunday.

Reports of road blocking and violence by drug cartels emerged in Jalisco and other states after news of the operation became public.

“At this time, elements of the Mexican National Guard and Mexican Army troops from the centre of the country and states neighbouring Jalisco are mobilising to reinforce the security of this state,” the Defence Secretariat said in a statement.

“With these actions, the Secretariat of National Defence reaffirms its commitment to contributing to the strengthening of Mexico’s security.”

Oseguera, the leader of the powerful CJNG, one of Mexico’s most violent and dominant criminal organisations, spent decades evading justice.

Washington, which had a $15m reward for information leading to Oseguera’s arrest, was quick to laud the raid.

“I’ve just been informed that Mexican security forces have killed ‘El Mencho,’ one of the bloodiest and most ruthless drug kingpins,” US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said in a post on X, calling the operation “a great development for Mexico, the US, Latin America, and the world”.

Of the seven cartel members killed on Sunday, four had been injured but later succumbed to their wounds. Three others were arrested, according to the Secretariat of National Defence.

Three military personnel were wounded during the operation and hospitalised, according to the statement.

As news of the killing spread, cartel-linked violence erupted in response, with reports of roadblocks, burning vehicles, and other acts of intimidation in Jalisco and surrounding areas – tactics the CJNG has used in the past to disrupt security operations.

President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government was responding to the unrest, stressing that in the “vast majority of the national territory, activities are proceeding with complete normality”.

“There is absolute coordination with the governments of all states; we must remain informed and calm,” Sheinbaum wrote on X.

According to The New York Times, the violence erupted in at least five Mexican states, and
the Spanish newspaper El Pais also reported “blockades” in central Mexico.

An Al Jazeera witness shared photos of a burned-out bus on a major highway in Guadalajara, the capital of Jalisco, which will host several matches in the upcoming FIFA World Cup.

The US Embassy in Mexico warned American citizens in Jalisco and other central states to stay at home until further notice due “to ongoing security operations, associated roadblocks and related criminal activity”.

Landau, the US diplomat, also expressed concern about the events. “It’s not surprising that the bad guys are responding with terror. But we must never lose our nerve,” he said.

While airports across Mexico remain operational, the US embassy later noted that “some domestic and international flights cancelled” in Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta, a coastal city in Jalisco.

The Reuters news agency reported that several major airlines, including Air Canada and United, have temporarily halted flights to Puerto Vallarta.

Oseguera’s fall was a priority target for the US, and is the biggest blow to drug trafficking in recent years.

Oseguera had built an aura of mystery around himself, drawing on the overwhelming power of the CJNG and his limited media presence: All photos of him were decades old, according to Al Pais.

Oseguera crossed over the border in the US several times in the late 80s, and lived illegally in San Francisco.

At the age of 19, he was arrested for the first time by local police for stolen property and carrying a loaded gun.

In 1989, he was arrested again and deported to Mexico. But he re-entered the US and was again arrested on drug charges in 1992 . He was prosecuted and sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty.

After spending three years in a federal US prison, El Mencho was released on parole and deported to Mexico, where he joined the local police.

A former police officer and avocado farmer, he rose through the ranks of the Milenio Cartel before founding the CJNG.

The FBI has described him as one of the most wanted fugitives in Mexico, and the CJNG as one of the most violent cartels in the country.

“It has been assessed to have the highest cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine trafficking capacity in Mexico, and over the past few years, includes the trafficking of fentanyl into the United States,” the FBI said in a 2024 statement.

“Under Oseguera Cervantes’ leadership, CJNG has been responsible for many homicides against rival trafficking groups and Mexican law enforcement officers.”

US President Donald Trump has announced a 15 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports.

The move comes just a day after he set tariffs at 10 percent, enraged by a Supreme Court ruling that struck down much of his tariff regime.

Governments across the world, including those that already struck tariff deals with the United States, will be analysing the new policy.

What will the implications be for them? And how is the global economy reacting to Trump’s latest decision?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Deborah Elms – head of trade policy, Hinrich Foundation

Rebecca Christie – senior fellow, Bruegel think tank

Garima Kapoor – deputy head of research, Elara Securities

Gyokeres and Eze both score braces as Arsenal win North London football derby to move five points clear at top of the table.

Eberechi Eze has reignited Arsenal’s title ambitions in English football’s Premier League by being the scourge of Tottenham once again.

Three months after scoring a hat-trick against Spurs, the England midfielder netted two more goals against Arsenal’s fiercest rival in a 4-1 away win on Sunday. Viktor Gyokeres also scored twice for the leaders.

Eze came close to joining Tottenham in the summer, only for Arsenal – his boyhood club – to swoop in and sign him instead for a reported 60 million pounds ($80m). Spurs are suffering even more now – his only goals since the start of November have come against them.

Arsenal rebounded after two straight draws that have let second-place Manchester City back in the title race.

The Gunners regained their five-point lead, but City has a game in hand and still has to host Mikel Arteta’s team in the league in mid-April. They also meet in the English League Cup final on March 22.

It proved to be a tough start to life as Tottenham manager for Igor Tudor, who has made a habit of picking up good results early in his tenures at previous clubs.

Not this time, though. Tottenham did equalise two minutes after conceding the opener to Eze when Randal Kolo Muani dispossessed Declan Rice and drilled home a finish for 1-1 in the 34th minute.

Gyokeres made it 2-1 with a shot from the edge of the area in the 47th, and Eze stretched the lead in the 61st with a rebound after Bukayo Saka’s shot was saved. Gyokeres scored again in stoppage time.

Arsenal have 10 league games remaining in their bid for a first top-flight title since 2004.

Eze has scored six league goals this season, of which five have been against Spurs. Asked why he holds that record against their rivals, he told Sky Sports: “I don’t know. I try to score every single game. It seems to work quite a lot against Tottenham. It’s a feeling you get.”

Elsewhere in the Premier League on Sunday, ‌Liverpool midfielder Alexis Mac Allister struck a winner deep into ⁠stoppage time as ⁠his side snatched a scarcely-deserved 1-0 win at Nottingham Forest in their Premier League clash.

After a pedestrian ⁠90 minutes in which they barely managed a shot on target, Mac Allister lit the fuse with a stoppage-time effort that was ⁠ruled out for handball before rifling home a rebound in the 97th minute to snatch the win.

Meanwhile, with doubts swirling around the future of Crystal Palace manager Oliver Glasner, his team dug out a 1-0 win over last-place Wolverhampton thanks to a last-minute goal.

Evann Guessand prodded home a far-post finish after coming on as a substitute.

Fulham climbed above Sunderland into the top half of the table after becoming just the second visiting side to win at the Stadium of Light this season.

Raul Jimenez’s double secured a 3-1 victory for Marco Silva’s men.

Israel to join with India, Greece, Cyprus and other Arab, African, Asian countries that ‘see eye to eye’, says PM.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that Israel plans to build a network of allied nations in or around the Middle East to collectively stand against what he called “radical” adversaries.

Netanyahu made the comments on Sunday while announcing the upcoming visit to Israel of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose country the Israeli leader said would be part of the “axis of nations that see eye to eye” with Israel.

Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges, also referred to Greece, Cyprus and other unnamed Arab, African and Asian countries.

“In the vision I see before me, we will create an entire system, essentially a ‘hexagon’ of alliances around or within the Middle East,” Netanyahu said, according to the Times of Israel.

“The intention here is to create an axis of nations that see eye to eye on the reality, challenges, and goals against the radical axes, both the radical Shia axis, which we have struck very hard, and the emerging radical Sunni axis.”

Modi said he fully agrees with Netanyahu on the “bond between India and Israel”, including the “diverse nature of our bilateral relations”.

“India deeply values the enduring friendship with Israel, built on trust, innovation and a shared commitment to peace and progress,” Modi wrote in a post on X.

Since the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, its assaults have been weakening the Iran-led “axis of resistance”, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel and Iran also directly clashed last June in a 12-day war, in which the US military also joined to attack Iran’s nuclear sites.

Netanyahu did not elaborate on what he meant by “emerging radical Sunni axis”, but he has previously identified the Muslim Brotherhood as its leading element.

Relations between Israel and several predominantly Sunni Muslim states have soured amid the bloodshed in Gaza, including with Turkiye, whose President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sharply criticised Netanyahu, and Saudi Arabia, which has accused Israel of genocide.

Prospects for normalisation between Israel and Saudi Arabia also appear to be eroding. In recent months, the kingdom has rebuked Israel’s recognition of Somalia’s breakaway region, Somaliland, as well as the Israeli moves towards annexation in the occupied West Bank.

Since 2020, Israel has pushed to establish formal ties with Arab and Muslim states as a way to shore up its regional standing as part of the US-backed so-called “Abraham Accords”.

Under that framework, Israel has been enjoying close relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.

China adopts a stance rejecting the US militarization of the Middle East, viewing the increasing American bases and military buildup in the region as a strategy of containment and undermining Chinese influence. Beijing seeks to achieve regional balance through counter-diplomacy, both economic and security, and sees the American escalation as a threat to global stability, prompting it to strengthen its partnerships to protect its interests in the region. The Chinese perspective on the militarization of the region is that the American strategy in the Middle East is an extension of the policy of deterrence and containment, which extends from the Pacific to broader spheres of influence. China views American bases, such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, and other US military bases in Kuwait and the UAE, as an indirect tool to undermine Chinese economic and geopolitical stability. China considers the American military bases in the Middle East as instruments of hegemony and an attempt to contain and diminish its influence. Therefore, Beijing seeks to strengthen its military, diplomatic, and economic presence in the region as a strategic alternative, expanding its influence through its Belt and Road Initiative.

China adopts an approach that opposes the American military presence in the Middle East, prioritizing economic stability to serve its interests. This opposition manifests itself in several ways: supporting parallel security partnerships with Iran and Saudi Arabia, pressuring host countries like the UAE to prevent American expansion, and pursuing civil-military integration in strategic ports. The Egyptian researcher will attempt to identify and present specific examples of China’s rejection of the American military presence in the Middle East, such as China’s obstruction of the UAE’s F-35 deals. Beijing exerted pressure and raised security concerns that led to the stalling of negotiations for the UAE to acquire American F-35 fighter jets, due to Washington’s apprehension about the growing Chinese presence at the UAE’s Khalifa Port. Another example is China’s intensification of joint military exercises with Washington’s and Israel’s adversaries: China has increased its naval and air military exercises with Iran, a direct rival of the American presence in the region, thus posing a strategic challenge to American hegemony. China has also tried to secure oil routes away from Washington’s protection: China seeks to secure its oil interests through independent partnerships in the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf ports, reducing the Arab states’ need for American security protection and reinforcing Beijing’s vision of rejecting American “hegemony.” With (China’s criticism of the US “offensive strategy”): Chinese diplomacy criticizes the excessive US presence and instead calls for diplomatic solutions and “civil-military integration” through infrastructure investment, thus undermining traditional US bases. Here, China uses “soft power” and economic investments in ports, such as those in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran, as tools to diminish the strategic importance of US military bases.

The Chinese perspective is that US bases are used to restrict its movement in vital maritime routes and are viewed as tools of deterrence within the context of great power competition. Therefore, China seeks to secure its economic interests by ensuring its oil and gas import routes and protecting its projects, which has led it to strengthen its military presence, including its base in Djibouti, to match its economic influence. With China offering a “developmental and security alternative”: By enhancing its influence through massive investments and security and technology partnerships, such as developing Huawei’s 5G digital infrastructure and China’s defense partnerships with Egypt, Iran, and the Gulf states, to serve as an alternative to direct military presence. Here, China seeks to achieve “absolute security” by protecting its supply chains and projects without directly engaging in managing regional crises in the American manner, preferring instead to project geoeconomic influence.

Here, China adopts a stance rejecting the US militarization of the Middle East, deeming it an “adventure” that threatens stability and pushes the region toward the brink. Beijing instead seeks to enhance its influence through diplomacy and economics, with Chinese efforts aimed at undermining the American military presence and supporting regional stability through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative. The most prominent features of China’s rejection of the US militarization of the Middle East are China’s opposition to the “militarization” of the region and China believes that US strategies based on military bases and deterrence, particularly against Iran, increase instability. (China’s focus on finding a diplomatic and economic alternative): China focuses on comprehensive economic partnerships, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, and prioritizes diplomacy to resolve conflicts, making it appear as a strategic alternative to the US “gunboat diplomacy.” The US “gunboat diplomacy” is a declared strategy of President Trump to counter Beijing’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. To counter this, China is focusing on partnerships and economic interests. From the Chinese perspective, regional stability ensures secure energy supplies and massive infrastructure investments in the region.

This coincides with China’s exploitation of the American retreat in the region. China seeks to capitalize on the relative decline in American strategic interest to act as a balancing power, without direct involvement in crisis management, but with an increasing role in maintaining regional equilibrium. Conversely, China fears that American policies will lead to its encirclement and the curtailment of its economic influence, prompting it to strengthen its military ties with certain regional actors as a form of indirect response.

Therefore, China rejects the principle of American militarization of the Middle East. China seeks to find alternatives to American hegemony by strengthening its diplomatic and economic presence, especially given the recent escalation of American military activity. Chinese military analyses indicate that the recent American military buildup, including aircraft carriers and air forces in the region, increases the likelihood of widespread regional conflicts. To that end, China promotes the concept of “common security,” directly rejecting American military involvement that puts pressure on China’s traditional allies in the region, such as Iran.

Concerned circles in Beijing view the American militarization of the Middle East as a perpetuation of a “Cold War mentality.” This is evident in China’s rejection of the ongoing military alliances established by Washington, which Beijing considers attempts to contain its rising influence and force regional states into alignment, a situation Beijing describes as “American hypocrisy.” The Chinese alternative to American militarization in the region is centered on its strategy of “development over militarization.” China seeks to market itself as a “peaceful partner” focused on development and infrastructure, capitalizing on the partial American retreat to expand its diplomatic and economic influence. Beijing adopts a policy of “cautious neutrality,” committing to “non-interference” in regional conflicts and avoiding replacing the American role as the region’s policeman militarily, preferring instead to focus on its strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. While fully aware that the militarization of the region impacts China’s energy security, China prefers to address this through diplomacy and economic partnerships rather than direct military presence. China aims to protect its interests by deepening its economic engagement, thereby prompting a gradual US withdrawal, especially as China continues to present itself as a “responsible power” in the Global South.

Uganda Ministry of Foreign Affairs says Mohamed Dagalo’s meeting with President Yoweri Museveni focused on ending war.

Sudan has condemned Uganda for hosting the head of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, as an “insult” to humanity and the Sudanese people.

In a statement on Sunday, Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced the reception of Dagalo, also known as “Hemedti”, in the “strongest terms” and his meeting on Friday with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni.

“This unprecedented step insults humanity before it insults the Sudanese people, and at the same time, it disregards the lives of innocent people killed due to the behaviour of Hemedti and his terrorist militia,” the Foreign Ministry wrote.

Rights groups and international organisations have accused the RSF of war crimes and targeting civilians in Sudan.

Khartoum said hosting Dagalo “disregards” human values.

It “completely disregards the laws governing relations between member states of regional and international organisations that prohibit providing any support for rebel forces against a legitimate, internationally recognised government”, the Foreign Ministry added.

In 2023, Sudan was plunged into a civil war between the Sudanese army, led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the RSF.

According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), at least 11.7 million people have been displaced by the conflict and an estimated 150,000 people have been killed.

Last week, the United States imposed sanctions on three RSF commanders over their alleged roles in the 18-month siege and capture of el‑Fasher, the capital of North Darfur State in western Sudan.

In a statement, the US Department of the Treasury accused the RSF of perpetrating “a horrific campaign of ethnic killings, torture, starvation, and sexual violence” during the siege and capture of el-Fasher, which fell to the RSF in October.

Separately, a UN mission found that the RSF campaign in el-Fasher was a “planned and organised operation that bears the defining characteristics of genocide”.

‘Poisonous’ identity politics

Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued its own statement on Dagalo’s visit and said his meeting with Museveni focused on “ending the ongoing conflict in Sudan and restoring regional stability”.

Museveni reiterated in his remarks to Hemedti that peace in Sudan could only be achieved through dialogue and warned against what he described as identity politics.

“When I last came to Sudan, I met [former] President [Omar al-] Bashir and advised against the politics of identity instead of the politics of interest,” Museveni said.

“Identity politics is poisonous. It does not yield good results. What is important are shared interests that unite people,” he said while calling for both parties to prioritise “peace over military confrontation”.

For his part, Dagalo thanked Museveni and said he shares the Ugandan president’s “principles and your commitment to peace”, according to a statement released by the Ugandan government.

“He noted that Sudan continues to face serious humanitarian and institutional challenges as a result of the conflict and stressed the need for a peaceful resolution,” the statement added.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

The incident in Florida took place on Sunday when US President Donald Trump was in Washington, DC.

The United States Secret Service ⁠says its agents have shot and killed a man who attempted to break into a secure perimeter at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

The man, in his 20s, appeared to be armed with a shotgun and fuel can, according to the Secret Service’s communications chief Anthony Guglielmi. He was shot at about 1:30am Sunday morning (06:30 GMT).

Trump was in Washington, DC, not Mar-a-Lago, when the incident took place. No other individuals under Secret Service protection were present, said the agency.

Guglielmi said Secret Service agents and a deputy from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office confronted the armed individual, whose identity has not yet been disclosed, after he approached Mar-a-Lago’s north gate. The individual was pronounced dead after being shot by law enforcement officials.

“The incident, including the individual’s background, actions, potential motive and the use of force, is under investigation by the FBI, the US Secret Service and the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office,” said Guglielmi.

This is a breaking news story…

Follow the build-up, analysis and live text commentary of the game as Spurs host Arsenal for a crucial North London derby.