NEWS

Activist group says the ‘twisted’ Hong Kong judicial system had long ago decided that the pair were guilty.

A Hong Kong court has found two pro-democracy activists guilty on national security charges in a trial widely viewed as exemplifying the erosion of freedom of expression in the Chinese city.

Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, and Chow Hang-tung, 41, former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, were found guilty of “incitement to subversion” for their role in organising candlelit vigils to mark Beijing’s deadly 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, in a Hong Kong court on Friday. The two had pleaded not guilty and were charged in 2021.

The pair could face up to 10 years in jail. Sentencing is expected at a later date.

Prosecutors argued that the pair “endanger[ed] national security in the name of human rights”.

Chow, a human rights barrister who represented herself, told the court in May that the law itself was on trial.

Friday’s verdict was “no surprise”, said Mark Clifford, president of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation.

Hong Kong’s “twisted” judicial system had already decided the pair were guilty in 2021, he said. He described Lee and Chow as “true Chinese patriots” who were silenced because they “spoke truth to power” and “held up a mirror to the Chinese Communist Party”.

Hong Kong’s crackdown

For three decades, the candlelight vigil organised by the alliance was the only large-scale public commemoration of the Tiananmen crackdown, drawing tens of thousands of people annually to mourn the victims in China. The event was banned in 2020 during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, weeks before Beijing imposed the security law on Hong Kong to quell the 2019 massive antigovernment protests.

The alliance’s leaders have been behind bars since they were charged.

Chow and Lee “exposed the Chinese government’s fears of the memory of its own atrocities”, Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said, urging governments around the world to hold Beijing to account for erasing Hong Kong’s freedoms.

Earlier this year, Jimmy Lai, 78, a media mogul and high-profile rights campaigner in Hong Kong, was found guilty on national security charges and sentenced to 20 years behind bars.

Led ‘like a dog on a lead’

In a personal blog published in the days leading up to the verdict, Chow detailed her treatment by correctional services, in which she described being led “like a dog on a lead”, shackled at the wrists, waist and ankles.

She described a new method of restraint, with specialised handcuffs, as the source of significant pain during her long detention: “One can only ‘choose’ which part of the body shall suffer in turn” due to the bodily contortions forced by the restraints she has been held in.

Chow is one of the few high-profile political prisoners detained in Hong Kong to continue to speak out publicly against the authorities.

In June 1989, China’s government sent tanks and soldiers to crush a pro-democracy movement that had installed itself in Beijing’s central Tiananmen Square. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people were killed by soldiers, and many were injured. Beijing has since sought to censor mention of the incident in China.

Lee and Chow were also leaders of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance (HKA).

The HKA was founded in May 1989 to support students holding pro-democracy rallies. Weeks later, the Communist Party crushed pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square with troops and tanks. Estimates of the death toll range from a few hundred to many thousands.

Over the next three decades, HKA called on authorities to accept responsibility for the crackdown, free dissidents and introduce democratic reform.

The Alliance’s leaders were charged in 2021 and have been behind bars since.

Rights group Amnesty International has said the case “relies on vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of ‘subversion'”.

Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director, said Chow and Lee had “not committed any recognisable crime”.

“Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan are prisoners of conscience who should never have been prosecuted in the first place. They must be released immediately and unconditionally”, she added.

In a separate case, Chow was arrested in June 2021 for “inciting” the public to take part in that year’s vigil and later found guilty.

However, Hong Kong’s top court overturned that conviction in 2022, with a judge ruling the police hadn’t properly justified the vigil’s ban.

Chow Hang-tung spoke to the BBC in 2021, weeks before her arrest on 4 June 2022.

“I am prepared to be arrested. That is how Hong Kong is now,” she had said.

“I am willing to pay the price for fighting for democracy”.

The El Nino weather phenomenon is expected to increase the likelihood of drought and excess heat across the region.

The Panama Canal is expected to limit traffic starting in early September, as it prepares for lower water levels due to the El Nino weather phenomenon.

On Thursday, the Panama Canal Authority, the body that oversees the waterway, announced that daily transit caps would be set to address concerns about the drier weather conditions ahead.

Under the new measures, 34 vessels will be permitted to sail through the canal as of September 4. A further reduction will start on September 15, when the limit will be 32 ships.

The travel restrictions are a reversal for the Panama Canal Authority. Officials told the news service Reuters in May that they had no plans to limit crossings this year, citing water conservation measures imposed last year.

The canal, which handles about 5 percent of global maritime trade, usually has capacity to accommodate about 40 vessels per day.  Since June, it has seen a daily average of 35 transits.

Any significant decrease in travel through the canal is likely to translate into slower international shipping for industries that rely on the waterway. That, in turn, could increase costs.

A severe drought in 2023, for instance, cut traffic through the Panama Canal by roughly 36 percent, leading to disruptions in global supply chains.

The declining water levels that year were also attributed to El Nino, as well as climate change accelerated by human activities.

El Nino is a naturally occurring weather phenomenon that takes place every two to seven years, when the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean is warmer than usual.

The resulting weather patterns can have an impact across the region and even globally, putting some areas at risk of excessive heat and drought, while others suffer from flooding

Scientists expect a particularly strong El Nino in the coming months, potentially among the strongest on record. That could lead to an increase in cases of extreme weather events.

Panama Canal authorities have previously imposed vessel limits in order to conserve water.

The canal relies on a lock system that lifts and lowers vessels as they travel from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea, and vice versa.

But the canal is fed, in part, by freshwater from nearby lakes and reservoirs, most notably Gatun Lake.

Panamanians rely on that lake as well to supply drinking water to nearby cities, including the capital Panama City, putting additional strain on the waterway during times of drought.

The United States has sent about 2,300 Mexican nationals to Guatemala, despite objections from the Mexican government, as President Donald Trump steps up deportations.

Guatemalan President Bernardo Arevalo confirmed on Wednesday that his country has received about 2,284 Mexican nationals deported from the US this year.

“They are arriving on planes carrying Guatemalan returnees,” Arevalo said in a news conference.

“In coordination with the Mexican government, what we have done is bring them through in transit so that we can return them to Mexican territory within 24 hours of their arrival in the country.”

The removals are part of a growing trend of third-country deportations under Trump, who has sent migrants and asylum seekers from the US to countries they may have no connection to.

Largely, the Trump administration has justified such deportations by saying that the immigrants in question are unable to return to their home countries.

But that is not the case with Mexico, which has consistently accepted deportations from the US.

Critics have blasted the third-country removals as a form of punishment, effectively stranding migrants and asylum seekers far from home.

Speaking about the Mexican nationals sent to Guatemala, Arevalo has said that the deportees are quickly repatriated to their country, with the costs covered by either the Mexican or US government.

But Mexican officials voiced concern about the US sending its citizens to third-party countries.

“The Mexican government has expressed its opposition to this practice to US authorities and has reiterated that every Mexican citizen has the right to enter the country,” Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Thursday.

Following a meeting with Guatemalan officials on Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry also said that the two countries are united by shared values including shared security and “human mobility with dignity”.

Guatemala is not the only country to receive Mexican nationals from the US in recent months. Reports have also emerged that some Mexicans have been transported to Honduras as well.

“They didn’t tell us anything, just to get on the flight,” Arturo Trejo, a Mexican man who was deported to Honduras, told the TV channel Telemundo.

Mexico’s National Migration Institute (INM) told The Associated Press news agency that the US had justified the practice as a form of deterrence.

“The reason is that the United States wants to prevent them from crossing back into its territory,” the INM said.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), meanwhile, responded to inquiries about the practice by saying that it was “utilising all lawful options to carry out the largest deportation operation in history, just as President Trump promised”.

But many human rights experts view the third-country deportations of Mexicans as an intimidation tactic.

“What we are seeing seems part of [a] broader trend towards a very severe US migration policy where they seek to instill terror and fear in migrants at all costs,” Ana Maria Mendez, the Central America director at migrants rights group WOLA, told the news service Reuters.

As neighbours, the US and Mexico have long had a close relationship. The two countries remain top trading partners for one another, with a cross-border exchange of roughly $964.1bn in 2025 alone.

But since Trump returned to the presidency last year, the Mexican government has had to strike a delicate balance.

It has sought to cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration enforcement, while defending the rights of its citizens against alleged abuse.

Critics have accused immigration agents of using excessive violence during raids, and experts have noted a rising number of deaths while in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Since Trump returned to office, at least 15 Mexican nationals have died in ICE custody, and another three died during enforcement operations.

In response, the Mexican government has filed complaints with state prosecutors in the US. It has also denounced conditions in ICE detention centres as “incompatible with human rights standards” and urged regular visits from Mexican consular officials.

The aircraft carrier USS George Washington transited the Arabian Sea today after arriving in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) region yesterday, the command announced via X. The move was designed to relieve the overworked USS Abraham Lincoln and comes as the U.S. continues to maintain a naval blockade of Iranian ports amid ongoing tensions with Tehran. However, the deployment also leaves the U.S. bereft of aircraft carriers in the western Pacific, at least for the moment, highlighting the strain on one of its most important assets for American power projection. Extended deployments across multiple carriers is putting extreme stress on the carrier force and could have major cascading effects as maintenance required to reset these ships after deployments draws on longer than originally planned. At the same time, delays in carrier production could also exacerbate the future availability of the force.

The need to redeploy the Washington from Yokosuka, Japan, where it is based, to the CENTCOM region was sparked by concerns about the condition of the crew of the Lincoln. That carrier reportedly endured grueling conditions amid round-the-clock operations without any liberty port calls since deploying last year. The issue sparked outrage from those worried about the mental and physical health of the sailors and Marines aboard, as well as pushback from U.S. officials who claimed the media was blowing the situation out of proportion.

The addition of the Washington comes as the Lincoln has departed. That means there are now two carriers in the Middle East at the moment. The USS George H.W. Bush arrived in the region on April 23.

While the U.S. and Iran have stopped firing at each other, the region remains a tinderbox. Both Washington and Tehran are claiming control over the Strait of Hormuz, and negotiations to end hostilities have broken down. 

With the ongoing blockade, as well as CENTCOM’s efforts to move millions of barrels of oil through its preferred southern route close to Oman, there is still a need for the aviation assets provided by carriers and the strike and defensive missile capabilities provided by their escort ships. This is especially true for contingency operations, deterring Iran, and pressuring them to conform to Washington’s demands.

As we noted earlier in this story, all this leaves Adm. Samuel Paparo, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), with no carrier coverage in theater to deter or counter potential PRC or DPRK aggression. Carrier gaps in the Pacific were rare up until 2024, which marked the first time in decades that the U.S. had no flattops in Asia. Though the U.S. military has been largely focused on the Middle East, the PACOM region remains the top concern among many within the national security apparatus, as China is America’s top pacing threat and North Korea remains unpredictable and dangerous. Russian operations in the Pacific are another issue, among a slew of others.

The extended deployment of the Lincoln, and the need to replace it, didn’t just create an issue, albeit temporary, for PACOM. Typical carrier deployments last about six to seven months, a period designed to ensure the ships can maintain readiness and the crews do not get worn out. When that doesn’t happen, it creates a cascading series of problems that affect not just the ships and crews, but the facilities that have scheduled repairs and lined up workers to make them happen.

The bottom line is that the longer these vessels stay out on cruise, the longer they have to stay in on deep maintenance, and past a certain point, the magnitude of this relationship skyrockets. Extra days out can turn into extra weeks in the yard, and so on. With yard facilities at a premium, especially those capable of dealing with a supercarrier, critical schedules can quickly implode, with work stacking up across multiple vessels, resulting in them being sidelined much longer than planned. You can read all about this in our past feature linked here.

For instance, after returning from a historic 11-month deployment, USS Gerald R. Ford transited to Pier 5N at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in July to begin its first post-deployment Planned Incremental Availability (PIA). Ford’s PIA will take longer than initially expected due to the stress from its journey, including a fire the laundry room that raged for more than 30 hours and will require an additional, concurrent availability. This will likely extend its time in dry dock, a situation experienced by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower after it had an epic deployment. Of note is that the damage to the Ford meant it had to depart the CENTCOM region in March at the height of the war on Iran. That left just one carrier on station, which, ironically, was the Lincoln.

There are several other issues being faced by the carrier force as the Navy has had to juggle maintenance schedules to make up for construction delays.

The future Ford class USS John F. Kennedy is not scheduled for delivery until March 2027. JFK just completed Acceptance Trials Aug. 15, following a four-day underway period off the Atlantic Coast. The Navy had originally planned to take delivery of the Kennedy in 2022, but that was delayed until March 2027 “to support completion of Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) certification and continued Advanced Weapons Elevator (AWE) work,” according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request. To offset that, the decommissioning of the USS Nimitz was pushed back.

The entire Ford class program has been running years behind schedule and now the U.S. Navy is reportedly evaluating changes to the Ford class that could add further delays. This includes moving the island superstructure further forward on the flight deck and abandoning the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapults and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) on the Ford class, starting with the future USS Doris Miller.

As for what carrier capacity is actually available today, four are currently offline or waiting to enter maintenance availabilities.

The USS John C. Stennis moved to complete a Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) period at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia in May 2021. When the contract was awarded to Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) in February 2021, work was expected to be completed by October 2025, and the downstream effects of the extended delay have rippled across the fleet.

Nimitz class aircraft carriers typically complete RCOH, a lengthy modernization and maintenance period that includes a nuclear refuel, at the halfway point of their expected 50-year service life. The Navy is rethinking its approach to speed up future such overhauls and cut down on labor requirements, beginning with USS Harry S. Truman.

Truman is pierside in Norfolk, Virginia, waiting to enter RCOH following the Stennis, as only one shipyard on the East Coast is capable of conducting such invasive maintenance.

USS Ronald Reagan is the only carrier on the West Coast that is unavailable to deploy today. It was previously forward-deployed to Yokosuka, Japan, completed a hull swap with USS George Washington in mid-2025 and is currently in dry dock at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Bremerton, Washington. When the contract for the Drydocking PIA (DPIA) was awarded in 2025, work was expected to be completed by August 2026, and the timeline appears to be on schedule. According to Stars & Stripes, Ronald Reagan is expected to wrap up the 17-month DPIA and return to service by the end of the month.

This leaves three carriers that could be pushed toward the Pacific in an emergency, one of which is largely ready for deployment. The USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Carl Vinson, and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, are in various states of readiness and working up in preparation for future deployments. Theodore Roosevelt, which completed COMPTUEX in May before participating in large-scale exercise RIMPAC 2026 over the summer, is expected to deploy in the very near term, and is the most likely to be sent to the Pacific. Also homeported out of San Diego, Carl Vinson pulled out of port on August 10 and is underway training off the West Coast. As of publication. Dwight D. Eisenhower finished a 16-month post-deployment PIA and completed sea trials in April, and most recently returned home on July 27 after conducting an ammo onload with dry cargo/ammo ship USNS Medgar Evers.

Lincoln, as we noted earlier in this piece, is heading home to San Diego after leaving the CENTCOM region, but when it will return to service is unknown. There is an upcoming DPIA scheduled for the carrier, according to Fiscal Year 2027 budget documents, but the timeline is unclear. Based on the history of other lengthy carrier deployments, that could be delayed as well.

So, it’s likely another carrier strike group will be heading toward the West Pacific soon and the gap won’t be a prolonged one, but after multiple prolonged deployments, America’s carrier force may be set up for a larger availability crisis down the line.

Contact the authors: howard@twz.com; ian.ellis-jones@recurrent.io

New York City, United States – Mayor Zohran Mamdani is challenging a new law that would give New York City’s teaching aides a one-time $10,000 bonus, arguing it goes against the city’s collective bargaining laws.

On Wednesday, the bill, which was passed by New York City’s City Council, automatically became law because the mayor had opted not to veto it. Instead, Mamdani filed a lawsuit to block it because the City Council had enough votes to override his veto.

The bill, called the Respect Check Act, was backed by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), a labour union representing teachers across New York City’s public school system and was championed by City Council Speaker Julie Menin, who has often clashed with the mayor.

Teaching assistants are among the lowest-paid workers in the city’s school system, according to a statement released by Menin’s office on Wednesday. Their pay is as low as $32,000. According to MIT’s living wage calculator, the living wage in New York City is $79,469 for Manhattan, $67,558 for Brooklyn, $73,258 for Queens, $67,974 in Staten Island, and $60,341 for the Bronx.

When the bill passed in July, Mamdani argued that the law directly violated a state law called the Taylor Law, a nearly 60-year-old law that gives public sector workers the right to organise. The UFT, which endorsed Mamdani in July 2025 ahead of the city’s election, pushed back on the mayor’s claims. The group argued the City Council did not undermine collective bargaining.

“The City Council would not have introduced – let alone passed – this bill if it were illegal, and we would not have supported a bill that threatened our collective bargaining rights,” Michael Mulgrew, president of the UFT, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“This moment is an opportunity for Mayor Mamdani to create a new, fairer system and build the kind of city he said he wanted to lead. This administration must keep its promises, and we won’t stop until it does.”

The City Council crafted the law to avoid violating New York’s Taylor Law, a UFT representative told Al Jazeera.

Under a 2023 state appeals court ruling, additional payments to public employees are mandated to be independent of a worker’s regular salary and cannot be tied to collective bargaining, they argue.

“The Court of Appeals has found that the Taylor Law does not prevent a municipality from unilaterally providing an economic benefit,” Beth Norton, general counsel for the UFT, said in testimony in front of the City Council in 2025, provided to Al Jazeera.

Pushing back

New York City Hall sees it differently.

“Council labels these ‘stabilisation’ payments; they effectively function as stipends or salary bonuses and, regardless of terminology, are an additional form of compensation and, as such, a mandatory subject of bargaining,” the 18-page filing obtained by Al Jazeera said.

“I think the mayor is right that this sets a bad precedent,” Adin Lenchner, founder of the New York-based political consultancy Carroll Street Campaigns, told Al Jazeera.

“Him and his team are either posturing, negotiating, or using this as a moment to negotiate toward some other kind of deal. I think everyone would agree that, substantively and philosophically, this is aligned with the mayor’s public policy approach and his vision for the city,” Lenchner added.

“So, if I had to guess, this is, on the one hand, about not wanting to establish a bad precedent and, on the other hand, a step toward a longer-term negotiation.”

Citizens Budget Commission (CBC), a nonpartisan think tank, urged the mayor in July to veto the bill, arguing that City Council should not make this decision. It says the now-law would add $325m in city spending.

“The City should continue to determine employee compensation at the bargaining table, not the legislative chamber,” vice president for research at CBC, Ana Champeny, said in a press release in mid-July.

Mamdani echoed that sentiment when he was asked about the law earlier this month.

“Conversations around compensation are better left at the bargaining table,” Mamdani said in a news conference on August 6.

However, the mayor voiced support on the campaign trail for legislation that would provide support payments to these paraprofessionals. That legislation supported recurring payments, not a one-time payment.

“The version he supported last fall made the payment recurring; what passed last month only guarantees it for one year. That’s the line between then and now, so not much of a flip-flop,” Lenchner added.

“We will not allow the political process to replace the collective bargaining table. The City is filing a lawsuit to protect the right of every union to negotiate on behalf of its members, to fight for the workplace they deserve and ensure that workers – not politicians – determine their own futures,” Matt Rauschenbach, a spokesperson for the mayor, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“We will work towards a quick resolution that respects workers, protects the City’s finances, and ensures that the Council does not interfere with collective bargaining in the future.”

Rauschenbach declined to provide further comment.

Caracas, August 20, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government has signed agreements with Texas-based Hunt Oil and SLB amid ongoing efforts to court foreign oil firms.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Paula Henao finalized the deals on Tuesday on behalf of Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.

Hunt Oil, originally founded by far-right tycoon H.L. Hunt in the 1930s, signed “Productive Participation Contracts,” which are concession-type deals, to operate the mature Caro and Carisito oilfields in eastern Venezuela. The two projects, belonging to the Oriente branch of state oil company PDVSA, produce light crude and natural gas.

CEO Hunter L. Hunt said in a statement that his firm “wants to play a constructive role in revitalizing and growing Venezuela’s oil and gas production.” Hunt Oil previously leveraged its close ties to the George W. Bush administration to secure energy contracts in Iraqi Kurdistan following the 2003 US invasion.

For its part, SLB, formerly Schlumberger, inked deals focused on reservoir studies and provision of services. SLB is the world’s largest oilfield services provider. According to Reuters, the multinational will work to reactivate 15 oil rigs in the Caribbean nation, with only two onshore rigs presently active.

Crossover Energy, a company created in 2022 with no prior energy track record, is also reportedly close to finalizing agreements to run Venezuelan oilfields, having acquired an operating firm in eastern Venezuela. Crossover Energy had signed a memorandum of understanding with the acting Rodríguez administration in May.

The Colorado-based firm showed no verifiable commercial registration, public website, or operating history before its agreement with the Venezuelan government. Crossover CEO Eric McCrady previously ran Sundance Energy Inc., which filed for bankruptcy in 2021 with over $250 million in debt, before being sold and liquidated in 2022. 

Henao traveled to Houston alongside PDVSA executives to participate in an event titled “Empowering Venezuela: Energy, Investment & Opportunity” on Tuesday as part of the August 17-20 International Meeting for Applied Geoscience and Energy (IMAGE). She was joined by US Energy Undersecretary Kyle Haustveit.

According to Venezuelan state broadcaster VTV, Henao presented “investment opportunities” while also detailing “the benefits of recent reforms and joint work with the US Department of Energy.” The Venezuelan minister went on to hold meetings with US officials to “consolidate the cooperation agenda.”

In parallel, ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL), the overseas arm of India’s state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), recently secured a US Treasury waiver to resume its activities in Venezuela. 

“Now we have full freedom to work on the Venezuela project because earlier we were restricting our operations there because of the sanction-related risks,” ONGC executive Anupam Agarwal said in a press conference last week.

OVL owns 40 and 11 percent respective stakes in the San Cristóbal and Carabobo-1 extra-heavy crude ventures in the Orinoco Oil Belt. Agarwal stated that the company was in talks with Venezuelan authorities to renegotiate agreements and assume operational control of the projects.

Furthermore, ONGC is also looking to collect around US $500 million in overdue dividends that state oil company PDVSA was unable to pay due to US sanctions.

Hunt Oil, SLB, and OVL have followed energy majors such as Shell, Chevron, and Repsol in taking advantage of Venezuela’s pro-business overhaul of the energy sector. A reformed Hydrocarbon Law slashed royalties and taxes, turned over control of operations and sales to private corporations, and subjected disputes to international arbitration bodies.

In addition to securing a favorable environment for Western corporations, the Trump administration has also seized control of Venezuelan oil revenues, which are deposited in a US Treasury account before US officials decide when and how much should be returned to Caracas. The White House is also reportedly deducting the costs of its January 3 military operation against Venezuela from the export earnings.

According to Bloomberg, BP received a US Treasury license to join Vitol and Trafigura in lifting and re-selling Venezuelan crude. A BP tanker loaded fuel oil headed for Houston on Tuesday. The intermediary companies secure cargoes at below-market rates and deposit the proceeds into a designated US Treasury account before rerouting them to final customers for a profit.

The London-based multinational is likewise moving forward in multiple offshore natural gas projects in Venezuelan waters. BP, alongside Qatar’s UCC and the UAE’s XRG, is set to develop the second phase of the Loran Field. It will also explore the Cocuina-Manakin Field alongside Trinidad and Tobago’s NGC. The Venezuelan state holds no stake in either project, with the owed royalties and taxes also significantly reduced under the reformed legislation and likewise to be deposited in the US Treasury account.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia.

The mayor of Como has banned riding bicycles in certain areas of the historic Italian city after he was hit by an electric one.

Alessandro Rapinese said the ban was necessary to improve public safety. It means from September, cyclists will have to dismount through an area of around 30 streets.

He told Italian news agency Ansa: “People act based on their own experiences and I know what it’s like to be hit by one of these beasts.”

Several other local authorities around Europe, including in the UK, have restricted where and how e-bikes and other single-person vehicles can be used.

The measure put forward by Rapinese is part of a package of new traffic regulations, establishing a Limited Traffic Zone (ZTL) to manage tourist growth, and which impose stricter rules on cars and vans in the city centre.

Many of the roads covered by the ban are the widest in the old town and are popular with delivery drivers.

The measure applies to both electric and push bikes, as the Italian highway code does not distinguish between models.

Rapinese explained his decision in a video as part of a series of online videos he produces himself, known as RapiNews24.

He recounted an incident in which he had been leaving city hall in July and collided with an e-bike shortly after his administration had discussed traffic restrictions in the city centre.

The cyclist involved in the collision has not been identified.

“In this case, I didn’t even end up in the hospital,” Rapinese said. “I was hit by a bike. I gathered information, and that’s where the measure came from.”

On July 23, Volodymyr Zelensky told Ukrainians that Raytheon wanted to help produce Patriot interceptors on Ukrainian-linked lines. Five days later, Lockheed Martin signed a second license, this one for the PAC-3 MSE — the hit-to-kill missile that has spent three years picking Russian ballistic warheads out of the sky over Kyiv. For a moment it looked like a watershed: the United States handing a country still absorbing nightly missile and drone barrages the blueprint to build its own air defense. Then, within days, the story came apart in public. US Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said Washington would not allow Ukraine to build PAC-3s at all. Donald Trump called the technology transfer “a hard thing to give away.” NATO’s own envoy said no agreement would close before winter. Something had clearly been decided. Nobody could agree on what.

The Patriot system is the closest thing the West has to a proven shield against ballistic missiles, and it is scarce almost everywhere it is needed. Roughly twenty countries now compete for a production line that turns out about 650 PAC-3 MSE interceptors a year worldwide — Lockheed Martin’s entire global output, shared among Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, Gulf states and the US Army’s own depleted stocks. Russia, meanwhile, has been firing 55 to 60 Iskander ballistic missiles a month at Ukraine alone, before counting the nightly Shahed drone waves that push crews to expend scarce interceptors on cheaper threats out of necessity. The Pentagon has spent much of the past two years quietly rationing Patriot allocations across allies, reportedly diverting orders meant for Taiwan and Ukraine to replenish American stockpiles. Against that backdrop, “Ukraine will build its own Patriots” is not primarily a sovereignty story. It is a story about whether the system that makes Patriots for everyone else can keep up at all.

What the deal actually requires

Start with what was actually signed, because the headlines overstate it. Raytheon’s license covers the PAC-2 GEM-T, an older blast-fragmentation interceptor effective against aircraft and cruise missiles. Lockheed Martin’s covers the PAC-3 MSE, the missile that actually stops Iskanders and Kinzhals. Neither license includes the radar, the fire-control system or the launchers; those still come from existing Patriot batteries. And neither company has committed to building these missiles on Ukrainian soil in the near term. Reporting from Reuters and Ukrainian officials both point to Germany, which already runs its own PAC-2 line, as the likely first production site, with capacity shifting to Ukraine only “after the war ends.” What was announced in July, in other words, is not a factory. It is paperwork that keeps a door open.

Even so, the paperwork matters, because of what it concedes. Every PAC-3 MSE round carries a 24-month production lead time for the missile itself and 30 months for its solid rocket motor. Boeing manufactures every active radar seeker that guides it from a single facility in Alabama, capped at 650 to 700 units a year — a bottleneck no amount of Ukrainian factory floor changes. Aerojet Rocketdyne is the sole source for the motor. These are not obstacles a co-production agreement dissolves; they are structural limits on how fast the United States can arm anyone, Ukraine included. A government does not open its most tightly export-controlled missile program to a country still under nightly bombardment unless it has concluded that the existing pipeline, working alone, cannot meet demand. That is the admission buried in the announcement: not that Ukraine’s industrial base is ready, but that Lockheed’s and Raytheon’s are strained, and Washington needs help from a country it would ordinarily be supplying, not licensing.

The contradictions among American officials sharpen the point rather than undermine it. Whitaker’s flat denial that Ukraine would ever build PAC-3s, arriving days after Zelensky announced the license, is not really about Ukraine’s trustworthiness. A Republican congressional official close to the process gave the more candid version: the manufacturers are less worried about Ukraine leaking American technology to Moscow than about Ukraine improving on it and producing it “at scale, faster and for much less money.” That fear has a track record behind it. Fire Point’s Flamingo cruise missile, built in Ukraine during the war, reportedly costs around $600,000 — roughly a sixth of a Tomahawk and a fraction of a $2 million PAC-3 ACE round — while Ukraine’s home-grown Freyja interceptor is priced at roughly a fifth of the Patriot missile it is meant to substitute for. A country that has spent three years learning to manufacture air defense under fire, at a fraction of Western unit costs, is not the industrial partner a legacy prime wants loose inside its own supply chain. The reluctance is commercial before it is strategic.

The strongest objection to this reading is that Kyiv already produces a large share of its own weapons, so extending that into Patriots is a natural next step rather than a crisis signal. Zelensky puts the domestically produced share of Ukraine’s frontline weapons at close to 60 percent, up from roughly 40 percent a year earlier — drones, the Bohdana howitzer, the Neptune and Flamingo missiles. That is true, and it matters. But those are systems Ukraine designed and built from scratch under wartime pressure, with no legacy export-control regime standing in the way. Patriot is different: it is Washington’s most sensitive interceptor program, run by companies that have spent decades keeping production onshore for precisely the security reasons Whitaker cited. Handing over any piece of it, even nominally, to a country under active bombardment breaks with everything the export-control system was built to prevent. That the United States is doing it anyway — however slowly, however contested internally — says less about confidence in Ukraine than about how thin the interceptor pipeline has become.

Three ways this goes

What happens next depends on which of the deal’s obstacles proves harder to move: engineering or politics.

Base case (our estimate: roughly 55 percent probability). The license survives, but production stays offshore. Germany’s existing PAC-2 line absorbs the first Ukrainian-linked output sometime in 2027; Lockheed and Raytheon leave the seeker and motor bottlenecks unresolved; and Zelensky’s own target of “production capability by the end of 2026” slips the way most Patriot-related deadlines have slipped since 2022. The deal functions mainly as a signal — to Moscow, to Congress, to the manufacturers themselves — that the West is willing to widen its supplier base, without actually widening it before the war’s most dangerous phase has passed.

Downside case. Export-control friction, not battlefield risk, kills momentum outright. Boeing declines to license seeker technology, Congress balks at formally notifying an ITAR transfer into an active conflict zone, and the agreement quietly becomes what several earlier Patriot-adjacent announcements already have: a signed memorandum with no factory behind it. Unable to close its ballistic-missile gap through licensed production, Ukraine leans harder into Flamingo and Freyja — cheap and available, but not full substitutes for hit-to-kill interception. Iskander and Kinzhal strikes on Ukrainian cities continue at close to current tempo through 2027.

Upside case. Ukraine’s wartime manufacturing culture forces the restructuring the primes have been resisting. Facing a credible cheaper competitor, Lockheed and Raytheon accelerate second-sourcing of seekers and motors — the actual chokepoints — to defend market share rather than out of goodwill toward Kyiv. Patriot output rises for every operator, not only Ukraine, and Kyiv becomes the proving ground for a lower-cost interceptor variant that outlives the war. This is the scenario in which an admission of scarcity turns into a fix for it — plausible, but it requires the manufacturers to treat competition, not politics, as the threat that finally moves them.

The takeaway

So: is licensing Patriot production to a country under bombardment an admission? Yes — but not the one the announcements were built to convey. It does not say Ukraine’s industrial base has arrived. It says the American one has not kept pace with a war of attrition it did not plan for, and that Washington is now willing to test its most sensitive export controls against the same scarcity that has Israel, Taiwan and its own Army competing for the same missiles.

Watch for: whether groundbreaking on a German or Polish production line actually begins before the end of 2026 — Zelensky’s own deadline for “technical capability.” If it hasn’t started by then, treat every subsequent announcement as the political theatre this one increasingly resembles: a scarcity confession dressed up as an industrial handshake.

A first group of deportees, out of an expected total of 1,200, has landed at the Roberts International Airport in Monrovia, Liberia, from the United States.

Thursday’s flight is part of an expanding trend of third-country deportations under the administration of US President Donald Trump, whereby foreign nationals are sent to countries that are not their own.

The inaugural flight carried 20 people, largely from Latin American countries like Venezuela and Cuba.

After landing, the group boarded a bus and was taken away by Liberian authorities without being allowed to speak to reporters.

The flight follows an agreement, announced on Tuesday, between the US and Liberia that will bring up to 1,200 deportees to the African country over the coming year.

Liberia is part of a growing list of countries striking agreements with the Trump administration.

Since taking office for a second term as US president in 2025, Trump has inked deals with at least 35 countries to accept third-country deportees, according to the nonprofit Human Rights First.

In exchange, some of those countries have received financial aid and trade deals. Senate Democrats in February estimated that at least $40m had been spent on such deals in the first year of Trump’s second term.

The US, for example, awarded Liberia $5m this year for “migration management activities”.

But in announcing the transfer deal earlier this week, Liberia’s Ministry of Information denied any reports that it agreed to the deportations for financial motives.

“The transfer of persons to Liberia is not a transaction with a quid pro quo,” the ministry said in a statement. “Liberia has not demanded or received any compensation or promise of reward in exchange for its consent to participate in the program.”

Liberia’s Information Minister Jerolinmek Piah also told the news agency Reuters that the International Organization for Migration and the United Nations refugee agency would help provide services for the deportees.

Those brought to Liberia will be allowed to apply for asylum and are “free to depart the country when they so desire”, according to Tuesday’s statement.

Liberia has said that the deportees are not “criminals and are not being prosecuted in any manner”.

“Liberia, the first black African independent nation on the African continent, has a long history of accepting people seeking refuge from political and other crises,” the ministry’s statement said.

“As a matter of fact, Liberia itself was founded as a refuge for freed slaves from the United States of America and other parts of the world.”

But critics have questioned whether smaller countries in Africa and elsewhere are being used as a “dumping ground” for US deportees, and whether the immigrants forcibly sent abroad will have adequate access to the resources they need.

Some have characterised such third-country deportations as excessively punitive, stranding migrants and asylum seekers in places where they sometimes cannot even speak the language.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has framed the third-party deportations as necessary for immigrants whose home countries will not accept them. It has also framed the removals as a form of deterrence.

Guatemalan President Bernardo Arevalo on Thursday estimated that, this year alone, roughly 2,300 Mexican citizens have been deported from the US to his country, as opposed to being sent directly to Mexico.

Media outlets, including CBS News, have reported that the manouevre is part of an effort to disincentivize Mexican nationals from returning to the US without legal immigration status.

Arevalo explained, however, that such deportees are swiftly sent back to Mexico. “They are arriving in planes of Guatemalan returnees, and what we have done is process them as in transit, ‌in coordination with the Mexican immigration authorities,” he said.

Authorities were warned about dangers of hitting Mohammad Ghamira, who suffered from the rare medical condition haemophilia.

A Syrian police officer has been arrested and may be criminally prosecuted after an investigation found that he hit a detainee with a medical condition who died shortly after being released from custody.

Syria’s Interior Ministry said on Thursday that Mohammad Ghamira, 29, died after being slapped by police investigator Ahmad Jawad, who has since been detained and referred to the public prosecutor.

Ghamira, who died on Sunday, suffered from haemophilia, a rare condition that prevents blood from clotting properly, making sufferers bleed more easily and for longer periods.

The father of two was a member of the White Helmets, the civil defence organisation made up of volunteers that operated in rebel-held areas in Syria. They went on search and rescue operations and provided medical care following government attacks.

The investigation found that Ghamira had told internal security personnel about his condition, while his wife twice informed authorities about the potential danger.

Ahmad Latouf, head of the investigation committee and assistant interior minister for police affairs, confirmed that Ghamira died after suffering a brain haemorrhage believed to have been caused by the slap.

Two other police officers are also being investigated but are not currently due to be prosecuted.

Ghamira’s death has provoked widespread anger among Syrians, reminding many of the gross human rights abuses that were systematic under former President Bashar al-Assad, who was overthrown by rebels in December 2024.

New leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has promised to usher in a new era, prioritising human rights and overseeing an inclusive government. However, human rights organisations have documented widespread abuses by government forces, particularly against minority groups.

Commenting on Ghamira’s death on Thursday, the Interior Ministry accused Jawad of violating ministerial instructions and the code of conduct, which strictly prohibit any form of humiliating or abusive treatment of detainees.

Syrian Interior Minister Anas Khattab said in a statement that the investigation results showed the ministry’s “commitment to reaching the truth and holding accountable those proven to have overstepped”.

“We rose up against the former tyrant’s regime in rejection of injustice and impunity, and therefore, building a state of law begins with our ability to hold the wrongdoer accountable, to give restitution to the victim, and not to do injustice to anyone who has not been proven responsible” for wrongdoing, he said.

Reporting from Syria’s northwestern port city of Latakia, Al Jazeera’s Heidi Pett said the Syrian government has vowed to take further action.

“There will be surveillance put into police stations and better training provided to officers but they say all of this will take time,” Pett said.

“Part of the reason it has resonated so widely is because of who Mohammad was. He was a young man, 29 years old, and he had two children and was a volunteer with the White Helmets. They were basically seen as heroes. His father joined the revolution and so he’s a figure who many people here in his community and nationally respected,” she added.

“That’s part of why there’s been so much sadness and anger and it’s also [because of] the fact that Mohammad is not the first to be mistreated in detention by the new authorities. Syrian rights organisations have documented other cases of deaths in detention.”

Ghamira was arrested last week accused of theft. He was later released and died at a hospital in Latakia on Sunday.

During a forensic examination, medical experts found no visible signs of violence or severe force, as well as no skull fractures or traumatic wounds.

Fifteen years since the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya began, and with civil strife leading to the downfall of what was once one of Africa’s wealthiest countries, several actors are seeking to end the civil war and reunite the country.

Among them are the US, which has commercial interests in Libya’s oil fields. Qatar, Egypt and Turkiye are also pushing for a return to “One Libya”, after more than a decade of fighting between two rival authorities for control of the country.

Here’s what we know:

What happened 15 years ago?

The Libyan uprising erupted during the Arab Spring, when thousands of people in the port city of Benghazi took to the streets to protest against Gaddafi’s more than four decades of absolute power.

Violence against the demonstrations pushed the protesters into an armed rebellion against Gaddafi’s rule, with a civil war starting between the two sides.

A United Nations Security Council resolution authorised an international military intervention force – led by NATO members, the United States, United Kingdom and France – to enforce a no-fly zone and ensure the protection of civilians in Libya. This bombing campaign pushed back Gaddafi’s forces from Benghazi and aided the rebels in seizing territory.

Gaddafi was eventually captured and killed in October 2011, 42 years after he first seized power in a military coup that overthrew King Idris.

How is Libya divided?

Following Gaddafi’s death, a power vacuum emerged, with multiple groups – and their allied militias – competing for power.

Control of the country is now split between two rival administrations: the UN-recognised Government of National Unity (GNU) in Tripoli, led by Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dheibah, and the eastern, Tobruk-based administration backed by Khalifa Haftar and his self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA).

The GNU is recognised by the UN and other countries, and officially has authority in the capital and western Libya.

Under Gaddafi, Haftar was exiled in the US for two decades where he holds citizenship.

His forces control vast resource-rich lands in the east, including the strategic port city of Benghazi, reportedly with the backing of Russia.

The UN began formal mediation efforts in 2020 under the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL). This roadmap advocates for a three-track strategy that includes unifying the two rival administrations, presidential and parliamentary elections, and hosting national dialogue meetings.

The US was a key mediator behind the scenes, and in May 2021, appointed Ambassador Richard Norlan as Special Envoy to Libya, to lead high-level talks between the two sides.

What is the US’s new plan?

Under Massad Boulous, US President Donald Trump’s African and Middle Eastern affairs adviser, and father-in-law to Tiffany Trump, Washington is intensifying efforts to reunite the country. But this can only be achieved if both sides agree to form a single government.

According to leaked details, Trump’s initiative centres on the promise that if the rival governments cooperate, the US would encourage American investment in Libya’s sizable oil fields. This comes as the Libyan Central Bank, which is attempting to finance both authorities, sounds the alarm over the dire economic situation.

While Tripoli has international legitimacy, Haftar’s forces control the oilfields and terminals.

The US is also proposing a power-sharing deal that would see Dheibah continue to lead the government while Haftar’s son and LNA army chief, 35-year-old Saddam Haftar, serves as president.

There are obvious opportunities for US energy companies and economic and political incentives for European countries in a unified and stable Libya.

They include stopping irregular migration from Libya and other North African countries to the EU.

Some criticise the US-led plan as lacking input from the Libyan people. The deal, some say, could entrench the power of political dynasties, which might be best for long-term stability in Libya.

What have the results been?

There are signs that Haftar’s camp, at least, is on board with the US plan. Saddam Haftar, whose father, Khalifa, was based in Virginia until 2011, reportedly met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in DC in July.

Experts attribute the ongoing mediation efforts to the unified national budget of 2026, signed in April – the first in more than a decade.

However, there are still no talks or signs of a unified government forming.

What is Turkiye’s role?

Turkiye, which earlier deployed troops to support the GNU, has also made efforts to mediate between the two sides and is pushing a ‘One Libya’ policy.

Last month, Foreign Affairs Minister, Hakan Fidan, met with Saddam Haftar in Ankara. Earlier this month, Fidan travelled to both Tripoli and Benghazi for high-level talks with Dheibah and Khalifa Haftar.

What has Egypt done?

The Egyptian government has traditionally cooperated with Haftar’s Tobruk government, which is just across the border.

On Wednesday, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi met with Khalifa Haftar in Cairo and discussed unification talks.

Earlier this month, Dheibah visited Cairo, while Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad travelled to Tripoli.

What is Qatar’s stance?

Qatar has largely backed the UN mediation channels in Libya: the UNSMIL and the UN roadmap for peace.

While it has good relations with the GNU, Qatar seeks stabilisation efforts led by Libyan parties and elections.

In April, Qatar and other states welcomed the unified budget for 2026. A statement issued by Qatar, Egypt, France, Germany and several others called for all parties in Libya to follow the UN roadmap to “advance a Libyan-led political process leading to unified governance and national elections.”

Mérida, August 19, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez announced the creation of the National Training Program for Construction Workers.

According to official sources, the initiative seeks to professionalize workers in key trades, including plumbers, masons, electricians, blacksmiths, and carpenters, to integrate them into housing and infrastructure projects amid the country’s post-earthquake recovery efforts.

The project is being coordinated by several institutions, including the Education and Labor Ministries, the INCES vocational training institute, and the “Venezuela Rises” program created by the government in the wake of the June 24 double earthquake. The training initiative will begin in Caracas and nearby areas.

Rodríguez, in a meeting with the government team, said that the people interested in this program “can register through the Homeland system. Registration will begin on August 24.” She also said that the persons “can be nominated by municipal administrations or at INCES offices throughout the country.”

She added that the program is “open to individuals with prior experience, training, or knowledge in this area, as well as those who wish to learn the trade.”

In parallel, the Venezuelan executive delivered 48 new apartments on Monday in the Ciudad Tiuna housing complex in Caracas to families who lost their homes in the recent earthquake. 

According to official figures, the government has assigned 335 homes to affected families so far, with authorities estimating that around 25,000 new homes will be needed for those displaced by the natural disaster. 

“By December we will have completed some 4,000 homes to hand over to those who are in the temporary camps,” the acting president pledged during Monday’s event in Ciudad Tiuna, one of the largest housing complexes of Venezuela’s Great Housing Mission (GMVV). 

Furthermore, in Ciudad Caribia, another major GMVV development, authorities are advancing in the construction of 1,000 new transitional homes where displaced families will relocate to while permanent housing projects are finalized.

Alongside the housing initiatives, the Rodríguez administration is also boosting credit programs for reconstruction projects. On Saturday, the acting president announced loans to 157 condominium boards in several parts of Caracas.

The subsidized credit line, part of the “Venezuela Rises” Plan, is intended for structural repairs, common area maintenance, and public utility fixes. The Venezuelan government has likewise launched loan programs for housing purchases.

According to the latest official figures released, the total death toll from the June 24 earthquake currently stands at 6,438 people. Authorities are presently focused on rubble removal operations, as well as controlled demolitions of buildings with heavily compromised structures in La Guaira State, the hardest-hit area.

Venezuela’s seismology institute FUNVISIS has registered over 1,400 aftershocks since the June tremors. The latest one, on Tuesday, had a magnitude of 4.0 with an epicenter located 10 kilometers northwest of La Guaira. There were no reports of damage.

New popular consultation scheduled

Alongside the post-earthquake recovery initiatives, Acting President Rodríguez also announced a new National Popular Consultation scheduled for October 18, 2026. It had originally been slated for October 11.

A prior consultation set for July was postponed following the double earthquake. 

The National Popular Consultation sees communities organized in communal circuits vote directly on local infrastructure and social projects to be funded by the national government. In prior editions, each winning project received US $10,000 of funding. According to Venezuelan officials, the upcoming vote will also extend to condominium boards and neighborhood associations.

In a conference call with government officials and grassroots spokespeople, Rodríguez emphasized that the consultations reinforce “the path of participatory and protagonistic democracy.”

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the top United States diplomat in Islamabad on Wednesday, hours after US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor described Indian-administered Kashmir as “an important part of India” during his first visit to the territory.

Islamabad rejected the remark and reasserted Kashmir’s status as disputed territory.

The visit by Gor, who also serves as President Donald Trump’s special envoy for South and Central Asia, was the first standalone trip by a serving US ambassador to Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019, and the first since India stripped the territory of its autonomy that year.

His remarks were made publicly, alongside Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, adding to Islamabad’s irritation.

The episode also comes at a delicate moment for Washington’s ties with both South Asian rivals, as Pakistan courts Trump’s administration more closely than it has in years, and as the US tries to balance that relationship against its strategic partnership with India.

So, what exactly did the US ambassador say, why has it caused such offence, and does it change anything? Al Jazeera explains.

What did the US ambassador say?

Sergio Gor, a 38-year-old former Trump aide who was confirmed as US ambassador to India in January, spent two days in Srinagar and Ladakh this week.

After meeting Abdullah in Srinagar, he told reporters he was thrilled to be visiting “an important part of India” for the first time.

He also said Washington was reconsidering its “do not travel” advisory, citing improved security under Abdullah’s administration.

The advisory at the moment places Jammu and Kashmir at a “Do Not Travel” level, citing terrorism and civil unrest, though it exempts the eastern territories of Ladakh and Leh.

Islamabad’s response came the same Wednesday evening. The Foreign Ministry summoned Charge d’Affaires Natalie Baker, who currently heads the US mission in the country.

The ministry lodged what it called a “strong demarche”, rejecting the “characterisation of Indian-administered Kashmir as a ‘part of India’” and reasserting it as an internationally recognised disputed territory awaiting final disposition under United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The statement called Gor’s remarks factually incorrect and said they negated Washington’s longstanding position on the dispute.

It also thanked Trump for his offer – made after India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire ending their four-day war last year – to help resolve the Kashmir question, urging Washington to keep its public language consistent with that position.

Why does Kashmir trigger such a reaction?

Kashmir is a Himalayan region claimed by both India and Pakistan since British colonial rule ended in August 1947.

India and Pakistan each administer part of the territory but claim it in full and have fought several wars over it.

A UN Security Council resolution passed in 1949 called for the territory’s final status to be decided by a plebiscite, which has never been held.

In June, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas signed a joint statement with Pakistan’s foreign minister in Islamabad that bracketed Kashmir alongside the war in Ukraine and called for its resolution “through dialogue and diplomacy”.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs rejected the reference, saying those with no standing in the matter should refrain from commenting on it.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has drawn similar protests from Delhi at least twice after voicing support for Pakistan’s position on Kashmir.

Trump himself triggered a dispute in 2019 when, during a meeting with then-Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, he claimed Prime Minister Narendra Modi had personally asked him to mediate on Kashmir. Modi’s government swiftly denied the account in parliament.

For Pakistan, US language on Kashmir’s disputed status is an important external validation of its effort to internationalise the issue.

For India, meanwhile, any suggestion that Kashmir remains open to outside mediation cuts against the foundation of its position.

What has the US position been, historically?

The US has officially maintained that Kashmir is disputed and its status should be settled between India and Pakistan, taking into consideration the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

American officials have repeated some version of “our policy has not changed” across successive administrations, including in 2019, when a senior US diplomat told Congress that India’s move had not altered Washington’s view of the Line of Control as a “de facto” boundary.

Formally, Washington has avoided recognising sovereignty over the territory for either country.

A major turning point came in 1999, when President Bill Clinton told Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that Pakistani forces would have to withdraw from Kargil in Indian-administered Kashmir, following the fighting there between the two countries in the region.

Analysts widely saw the episode as the beginning of Washington’s tilt towards Delhi.

But after the two countries’ most intense clash in decades last year, Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire and offered to “work with you both” on a Kashmir “solution”.

Pakistan welcomed the offer and nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. India rejected suggestions of US mediation, saying the ceasefire had been reached through direct military talks.

Jauhar Saleem, Pakistan’s former foreign secretary and president of the Islamabad-based Institute of Regional Studies, told Al Jazeera that Gor’s remark should not be mistaken for a change in US policy.

“US policy on a question as consequential as Jammu and Kashmir cannot be read from an off-the-cuff formulation during a visit by a US ambassador posted in India,” Saleem said. “Any change in policy would be reflected in Washington’s formal statements, State Department language and, in fact, should be at the level of the White House.”

He said such lapses were not new.

“Sometimes ambassadors fall prey to what we call ‘localitis’, and in an attempt to please their hosts can make comments entirely out of line with their country’s stated policy, creating unpleasant situations,” he said. “This is a classic example and has therefore evoked an expected strong demarche from Pakistan’s Foreign Office.”

Saleem said Trump’s repeated offers to mediate between Pakistan and India, “which was not appreciated in New Delhi”, showed that Washington’s position remained unsettled at the top rather than shifting towards India. “I would actually expect a clarification from Washington soon,” he added.

Will it affect Pakistan-US ties?

Saleem, who summoned a US ambassador in Islamabad during his tenure as foreign secretary in late 2022 over what he called “a very objectionable remark” by then-President Joe Biden, said a demarche was not primarily a tool to punish Washington. Biden had described Pakistan as “one of the most dangerous nations in the world”.

“A demarche is not just made to increase the cost of a policy; rather it is made to press a point and ask for an explanation,” the former ambassador told Al Jazeera. “The US response was constructive [then], and will be in this case as well, I believe.”

He said the Pakistan-US relationship was too broad-based for one ambassador’s remark to unsettle it, pointing to Pakistan’s role as a peacemaker between the US and Iran, economic cooperation, counterterrorism, regional security, Afghanistan, defence cooperation, “and of course Pakistan’s relationship with the Trump administration itself”.

Tariq Rashid Khan, a Pakistani former military general and diplomat, described the episode as “issue-specific boundary-setting”.

Islamabad’s protest, he told Al Jazeera, signals that a close strategic partnership with Washington “does not mean acceptance of any position on Kashmir contrary to Pakistan’s stated position”.

“Kashmir remains an unfinished agenda of the 1947 partition, which is why even one sentence can become strategically significant,” he said.

For Saleem, the significance lies less in Gor’s specific words than in what any drift in language could set in motion.

“Jammu and Kashmir is not just a territorial dispute; it is an issue of national identity, legitimacy and security for Pakistan,” he told Al Jazeera. “Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to let the international community’s vocabulary on Kashmir drift even slightly, because both sides believe that language today can become precedent tomorrow.”

Aizaz Chaudhry, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, told Al Jazeera he believed Gor’s remarks “might be his personal comments”, adding that the US position on the disputed territory is well known.

“Our demarche is only a reminder that the US envoy in Delhi must comply with the US position on the subject. The Kashmir dispute is a longstanding issue that must be resolved for the larger peace and stability of South Asia,” Chaudhry said.

Since Myanmar’s civil war escalated following a coup in 2021 more than 150,000 Rohingya have been purged from their homes and forced to seek asylum across Asia.

Most flee to neighbouring Bangladesh, where a million other members of this persecuted minority barely survive in some of the largest resettlement camps on Earth, following a brutal military crackdown in 2017.

Caught in the crossfire between the ruling military government and rebel fighters in Myanmar, some Rohingya refugees claim members of their families have been forcibly conscripted, subjected to targeted attacks and even massacred.

These atrocities are occurring in their homeland, Rakhine State, a secretive, inaccessible corner of the country largely controlled by a local armed group called the Arakan Army.

Rohingya witnesses allege that the violence and oppression they face now from the Arakan Army, Myanmar’s most powerful rebel group, is just as brutal as ethnic cleansing by the military in 2017 that first drew global attention to their plight.

Both the military and Arakan Army deny the allegations and blame each other

Working with human rights investigators from Myanmar Witness and Rohingya citizen journalists, Al Jazeera examines what has happened to this Muslim minority during the Arakan Army’s takeover of Rakhine.

This documentary also exposes how the rebel group is connected to the human trafficking of Rohingya refugees out of Myanmar, including young children and women who are subjected to sexual violence and brutality.

The Arakan Army declined to address the allegations raised in this film.  However, its leaders have previously denied accusations of targeted attacks on civilians, including two mass killings of Rohingya villagers in Rakhine. In a written statement to Al Jazeera, Myanmar’s military alleges that the Arakan Army is inciting hatred against Rohingya Muslims and has “reportedly committed acts of genocide” against them since taking control of much of the state.

With growing violence and a transnational crisis on their doorstep, Bangladesh wants to send all the refugees back to the war-torn country through a repatriation scheme.

But increased activity by Rohingya armed groups aligned with the military government is making that harder. Rohingya rebels active in the conflict reject those allegations.  When questioned about their conduct by Al Jazeera, one armed group called Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) denied burning civilian homes, participating in activities that cause harm to Rohingya villagers and encouraging refugees to fight against the Arakan Army.

Using leaked documents, covertly filmed footage and exclusive interviews, Al Jazeera investigates the driving forces behind this largely forgotten humanitarian emergency.

This story is part of Myanmar Exposed, a series of reports by Al Jazeera Investigates which uncover the hidden truths of an ongoing crisis caused by the 2021 coup and civil conflict.

Four workers in Japan have died after being struck by a train at Shin-Kanuma Station, north of Tokyo, authorities say.

The collision happened around 10:46 local time (01:46 GMT) while the workers were spraying herbicide, said the Tobu Railway, the operator of the line.

When emergency services arrived at the scene three workers were trapped under the train, while one was on the platform, police said.

Train service has been suspended on the Tobu Nikko Line due to the accident, according to Tobu Railway.

A passenger on the train told Japanese public broadcaster NHK that they heard a “strange noise” before the train made an emergency stop.

He said passengers were stuck on the train for a while as staff announced that they were investigating the noise.

Fatal train accidents are rare in Japan, which relies on a sprawling railway network.

The train involved in Thursday’s incident was a limited express train, according to NHK. These are the second-fastest trains in Japan, after the Shinkansen or bullet train.

Usually, there would be an employee stationed nearby to warn workers on the tracks of approaching trains – but it was unclear what the situation was like on Thursday morning when the accident happened, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported.

“The usual lookout system was operating as normal – when a train approaches, a lookout waves a flag and, once the driver acknowledges it, sounds the horn,” a representative from Tobu Railway told the BBC.

“We are currently investigating why the accident occurred despite this.”

The Iran war has pushed the global energy system into a deeper crisis, with the disruption increasingly shifting from crude oil supplies to the refined fuels that power transportation, industry and economies worldwide.

While global oil markets have adapted relatively well to the loss of a significant share of Middle Eastern crude production, the refining industry has had far fewer options to compensate.

That imbalance is already visible in fuel prices.

Brent crude is around $90 a barrel, roughly 25% above its level when the conflict began on February 28 but well below its wartime peak of $118.

Refined fuel prices, however, have remained much higher. European diesel prices have risen more than 70% since the start of the war, while U.S. gasoline prices have increased around 60%.

The growing divergence suggests that the biggest energy shock may no longer be coming from crude oil itself, but from the world’s ability to turn crude into usable fuel.

Why Are Fuel Prices Rising Faster Than Oil?

The key problem is declining refinery capacity.

The International Energy Agency estimates that more than 20% of the Middle East’s 9.6 million barrels per day of refining capacity was knocked out during the conflict.

At the same time, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has restricted fuel exports and disrupted the movement of Gulf crude.

The result has been a chain reaction.

Refineries, particularly in Asia, have had to reduce operations because of difficulties obtaining crude, while damaged Middle Eastern facilities have struggled to return to normal production.

This has created a shortage of diesel, gasoline and other refined products even as crude oil prices have retreated from their wartime highs.

How Has Russia Made the Fuel Crisis Worse?

The Middle East is not the only source of disruption.

Months of Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure have also reduced global refining capacity.

Russian refinery throughput has fallen by nearly 30% in recent months to below 4 million barrels per day.

The decline has forced Moscow to restrict diesel exports, removing another major source of refined fuel from international markets.

The combination of Middle Eastern refinery damage and reduced Russian output has left the global market with fewer alternatives.

That is particularly important for diesel, which is essential for freight transportation, agriculture, construction and industrial activity.

Why Are Diesel Refining Margins Surging?

The shortage is reflected in refining margins.

European diesel refining margins have more than tripled since February, rising above $75 a barrel.

U.S. diesel margins have increased more than 140%, reaching a record $100 earlier this week.

These figures demonstrate how severe the shortage has become.

Refineries capable of producing diesel and other fuels are commanding exceptionally high margins because demand remains strong while available capacity is shrinking.

The problem is that simply increasing refining margins does not immediately create new refining capacity.

Building or repairing refineries can take months or years, particularly when specialised equipment is required.

Have Global Fuel Inventories Been Depleted?

Yes, and that could become one of the biggest problems in the months ahead.

Fuel stockpiles provided an important buffer when the conflict began.

That buffer is now largely gone.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, global oil inventories fell at a rate of around 3.5 million barrels per day between March and July.

Stocks are expected to continue declining through the end of the year.

U.S. diesel inventories are already at their lowest seasonal level in three decades, while gasoline stocks are at their weakest seasonal level since 2012.

This leaves the market increasingly exposed to any additional disruption.

Is There a Global Fuel Production Shortfall?

The data suggests there is.

Global refinery runs during the second quarter were 5.1 million barrels per day lower than a year earlier, according to the IEA.

High fuel prices have reduced consumption, with demand for refined products falling by around 4 million barrels per day.

But that reduction has not been sufficient.

The result was still a shortfall of more than 1 million barrels per day.

The imbalance could become even worse during the third quarter.

Refinery runs are expected to remain 4.1 million barrels per day below last year’s level, while demand is projected to fall by only 2.4 million barrels per day.

In other words, fuel supply is declining faster than demand.

Would Reopening the Strait of Hormuz Solve the Crisis?

Not necessarily.

A diplomatic breakthrough between Washington and Tehran that permanently reopened the Strait of Hormuz could send crude prices sharply lower.

But cheaper crude would not automatically translate into cheaper gasoline and diesel.

The reason is that the refining infrastructure itself has been damaged.

More than 20 Gulf refineries suffered damage during the war, and many require extensive repairs.

Crucial equipment such as compressors, heat exchangers and specialised catalysts can take significant time to obtain.

Lead times for some of these components were already stretched before the conflict.

Consequently, even if crude shipments resume quickly, refinery capacity could remain constrained for much longer.

Why Is China Important to the Energy Crisis?

China’s response could have a major impact on global fuel markets.

China is the world’s second-largest refining centre and sharply reduced refinery processing rates and fuel exports during the conflict.

If Beijing keeps exports limited, the international market will lose another potential source of refined products.

Conversely, an increase in Chinese refinery utilisation and exports could provide some relief.

But China must also balance domestic fuel demand, inventory requirements and its own energy security.

That makes its decisions particularly important for Asia and the wider global market.

Could the Energy Crisis Fuel Global Inflation?

The answer could be yes.

The immediate impact of higher fuel prices is already appearing in inflation data.

U.S. consumer prices rose 3.4% year-on-year in July, with energy costs increasing 14.7% and gasoline prices rising 24.6%.

Euro zone inflation accelerated to 2.9%, driven partly by a 10% increase in energy costs.

Japan’s producer price index rose 7.2% in July.

These figures raise concerns that the energy shock could spread beyond fuel markets.

Higher transportation costs increase the cost of moving goods, while expensive diesel raises costs for agriculture, manufacturing and logistics.

If those increases persist, businesses may eventually pass them on to consumers.

Why Could the Energy Crisis Last for Years?

The central problem is that refining capacity cannot be restored as quickly as crude production.

Oil wells can continue producing once transportation routes reopen.

Refineries, however, require complex infrastructure, specialised machinery, skilled workers and maintenance.

If damaged facilities need major reconstruction, restoring capacity could take years.

At the same time, depleted fuel inventories will eventually need to be rebuilt.

That means refiners could face sustained pressure to process more crude even after the immediate crisis ends.

The result could be a prolonged period of elevated refining margins and fuel prices.

What Does This Mean for Europe and Asia?

Europe and Asia could face particularly severe pressure.

Both regions rely heavily on imported energy and have already experienced increases in refined fuel and liquefied natural gas prices.

For European economies, expensive diesel could increase transportation and industrial costs.

For Asian economies, disruptions to Gulf crude supplies and reduced Chinese fuel exports could create additional pressure.

The combination of higher fuel and LNG prices could therefore create a broader energy inflation shock rather than an isolated oil-market disruption.

Could Consumers Eventually Reduce Demand?

Demand destruction remains one of the few mechanisms capable of restoring balance.

If fuel prices remain extremely high, consumers may drive less and businesses may reduce transportation and energy consumption.

Companies may also delay investment and cut production.

That could eventually reduce demand enough to ease pressure on the refining system.

But demand destruction carries an economic cost.

A reduction in fuel consumption caused by efficiency improvements is very different from a decline caused by households and businesses being unable to afford energy.

The latter can slow economic growth while inflation remains elevated.

Analysis: Why the Refining Crisis May Matter More Than the Oil Shock

The most important lesson from the Iran war energy crisis is that the global energy system is not simply dependent on how much oil exists, but on whether the world can refine and transport that oil into usable fuel.

The crude market has shown considerable resilience.

Refined fuel markets have not.

That distinction could determine how long the current energy shock lasts.

Even if diplomacy reopens the Strait of Hormuz and crude prices fall, damaged refineries, depleted inventories and reduced Russian exports will continue to constrain fuel supplies.

This creates a particularly difficult situation for central banks.

If energy prices rise temporarily, policymakers can theoretically look through the shock. But if fuel shortages persist for months or years, higher transportation and production costs can become embedded across the economy.

That would make the assumption of a short-lived inflation shock increasingly difficult to defend.

The depletion of global inventories is perhaps the biggest warning sign.

Stockpiles normally provide a cushion against geopolitical disruptions. That cushion has now been significantly weakened.

As a result, another major refinery outage, shipping disruption or escalation in the Middle East could produce a much larger price response than it would have before the war.

The world therefore faces a dangerous mismatch: crude supplies may recover faster than the infrastructure needed to turn them into fuel.

That is why the energy crisis could outlast the war itself.

The Iran conflict may have started as a crude oil shock, but its most consequential economic legacy could be a prolonged global shortage of refined fuels, keeping inflation and energy costs elevated long after the fighting ends.

With information from Reuters.

A U.S. Air Force’s new EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare jet made an appearance near the Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave on Tuesday. The flight was part of a large presence of U.S. and NATO reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft and Polish ground forces arrayed near the strategic Baltic Sea salient bordering Poland and Lithuania. This took place place against the backdrop of growing concerns about increasing Russian aggression in the region – including a growing fears of a potential limited action against a NATO member and concerning Russian naval operations in the Baltic Sea. However, NATO is downplaying the aerial mission as routine and not a reaction to any particular event.

“On 18 August 2026, NATO deployed a specialized reconnaissance and electronic warfare flight package over the Baltic Sea near the Kaliningrad Oblast,” a Polish military official told TWZ on Wednesday. “This operation involved the deployment of a rare US EA-37B ‘Compass Call II’ electronic warfare aircraft, relocated from Greece to Powidz in Poland, which operated alongside an E-3 AWACS and an ARTEMIS II surveillance plane.”

The Polish military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational details, declined to offer further information about the role of the Polish ground forces, how many there were, or how they were equipped.

A NATO official on Wednesday clarified to us that the activity, which is ongoing, is allied in nature and controlled by the U.S., not NATO. We have reached out to U.S. Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa (USAFE) for additional details.

After open-source flight trackers noticed the increased air activity near Kaliningrad on Tuesday, we reached out to NATO spokesman Col. Marty O’Donnell for comment.

“NATO is a defensive Alliance and Allies are constantly honing their defensive abilities,” he explained. “The Allied activity today in the Baltic region involving U.S. and Norwegian fighter aircraft, Polish ground forces, a NATO E-3A Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS), and more, which is being overseen by the U.S., is one example of this approach.”

NATO aircraft operating near Kaliningrad is not a unique circumstance. The enclave – separated from Russia and ensconced between two NATO nations and the Baltic Sea – is a key Russian military outpost, hosting an array of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles, several squadrons of tactical jets and thousands of troops.It has also been a notorious hub of disruptive Russian electronic warfare activity itself.

However, having an EA-37B operating over the area is of note. This was reportedly the first time one of these highly specialized jets appeared near the enclave. Online flight trackers showed it flying orbits in Polish airspace near Kaliningrad for nearly two hours on Tuesday.

A heavily modified Gulfstream G550 business jet, the aircraft leverages the Conformal Airborne Early Warning (CAEW) configuration developed first for the Israel Defense Forces. The jet packs powerful active electronically scanned arrays is designed to provide critical stand-off jamming support, including against enemy radars and communications systems. The EA-37B also has a secondary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) function given its ability to spot, track, and geolocate various types of emitters.

The Air Force is planning to procure 10 of these jets to replace the aging and ever smaller fleet of turboprop EC-130H Compass Call planes, of which only four remain. The 43rd Electronic Combat Squadron flew the first training sortie for the EA-37B on May 2, 2025, and flew its first combat missions during the Operation Epic Fury war against Iran.

The Compass Call is one of, if not the world’s most power airborne EW platform and blinding and deafening Russian forces in the enclave would be critical to minimizing any military impact that capabilities based there could have in a contingency.

As we noted earlier in this story, though NATO is downplaying the activity, it comes amid growing concerns about Russian actions in the region and against the backdrop of the still raging war in Ukraine.

Earlier this week, the Russian frigate Admiral Kasatonov escorted the Russian Floating Storage/Production ship Portovyy through the Baltics, according to The Telegraph. It was the second such transit of a Russian warship in the region in recent weeks and part of Moscow’s increasing efforts to protect its energy shipments in the wake of seizures of its shadow fleet vessels by European authorities, the independent Russian The Insider news outlet noted.