TODAY

US allies reacted to President Donald Trump’s threats to take over Greenland on Tuesday, with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney telling delegates at Davos that it was time to imagine a future without US leadership.

Artillery fire, gunship attack, demolitions in war-battered Gaza as PM Netanyahu accepts US ‘peace board’ position.

The man who killed Japan’s former prime minister Shinzo Abe has been sentenced to life in prison, three and a half years after he shot him dead at a rally in the city of Nara in 2022.

Tetsuya Yamagami had pleaded guilty to murder at the trial’s opening last year, but how he should be punished has divided public opinion in Japan. While many see the 45-year-old as a cold-blooded murderer, some sympathise with his troubled upbringing.

Prosecutors said Yamagami deserved life imprisonment for his “grave act”. Abe’s assassination stunned the country, where there is virtually no gun crime.

Seeking leniency, Yamagami’s defence team said he was a victim of “religious abuse”.

His mother’s devotion to the Unification Church bankrupted the family, and Yamagami bore a grudge against Abe after realising the ex-leader’s ties to the controversial church, the court heard.

On Wednesday, Judge Shinichi Tanaka from the Nara district court said the fact that Yamagami “shot [Abe] from behind… when he was least expecting it” showed how “despicable and extremely malicious” his actions were, AFP news agency reported.

Yamagami sat quietly with his hands clasped and eyes downcast as the sentence was handed down. Nearly 700 people had lined up outside the courtroom to attend the hearing.

Abe’s shocking death in broad daylight prompted investigations into the Unification Church and its questionable practices, including soliciting financially ruinous donations from its followers.

The case also exposed links with politicians from Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party and resulted in the resignations of several cabinet ministers.

Journalist Eito Suzuki, who covered all but one of Yamagami’s court hearings, said Yamagami and his family seemed “overwhelmed with despair” throughout the trial.

Yamagami “exuded a sense of world-weariness and resignation”, recounts Suzuki, who began looking into the Unification Church long before Abe’s shocking murder.

“Everything is true. There is no doubt that I did this,” Yamagami said solemnly on the first day of his trial in October 2025.

Armed with a homemade gun assembled using two metal pipes and duct tape, he fired two shots at Abe during a political campaign event in the western city of Nara on 8 July 2022.

The murder of Japan’s most recognisable public figure at the time – Abe remains the longest-serving PM in Japanese history – sent shockwaves around the world.

Calling for a jail term of no more than 20 years, Yamagami’s lawyers argued that he was a victim of “religious abuse”. He resented the church because his mother donated to it his late father’s life insurance and other assets, amounting to 100 million yen ($633,000; £471,000), the court heard.

Yamagami spoke of his grievance against Abe, who was 67 when shot, after seeing his video message at a church-related event in 2021, but said he had initially planned to attack church executives, not Abe.

Suzuki recalls Abe’s widow Akie’s look of disbelief when Yamagami said the ex-leader was not his main target. Her expression “remains vividly etched in my mind”, Suzuki says.

“It conveyed a sense of shock, like she was asking: Was my husband merely a tool used to settle a grudge against the religious organisation? Is that all it was?”

In an emotional statement read to the court, Akie Abe said the sorrow of losing her husband “will never be relieved”.

“I just wanted him to stay alive,” she had said.

Founded in South Korea, the Unification Church entered Japan in the 1960s and cultivated ties with politicians to grow its following, researchers say.

While not a member, Abe, like several other Japanese politicians, would occasionally appear at church-related events. His grandfather Nobusuke Kishi, also a former PM, was said to have been close to the group because of its anti-communist stance.

In March last year, a Tokyo court revoked the church’s status as a religious corporation, ruling that it coerced followers into buying expensive items by exploiting fears about their spiritual well-being.

The church has also drawn controversy for holding mass wedding ceremonies involving thousands of couples.

Yamagami’s sister, who appeared as a defence witness during his trial, gave a tearful testimony on the “dire circumstances she and her siblings endured” because of their mother’s deep involvement with the church, Suzuki recalls.

“It was an intensely emotional moment. Nearly everyone in the public gallery appeared to be crying,” he says.

But prosecutors argue there is “a leap in logic” as to why Yamagami directed his resentment of the church at Abe. During the trial, the judges also raised questions suggesting they found it hard to understand this aspect of his defence.

Observers, too, are divided on whether Yamagami’s personal tragedies justify a reduced penalty for his actions.

“It’s hard to dismantle the prosecution’s case that Abe didn’t directly harm Yamagami or his family,” Suzuki says.

But he believes Yamagami’s case illustrates how “victims of social problems are led to commit serious crimes”.

“This chain must be broken, we must properly examine why he committed the crime,” Suzuki says.

Rin Ushiyama, a sociologist at Queen’s University Belfast, says sympathy for Yamagami is largely rooted in “widespread distrust and antipathy in Japan towards controversial religions like the Unification Church”.

“Yamagami was certainly a ‘victim’ of parental neglect and economic hardship caused by the [Unification Church], but this does not explain, let alone justify, his [actions],” Ushiyama says.

Singapore’s Ministry of Defence plans to replace its fleet of Fokker 50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft with Boeing-made P-8A reconnaissance planes.

The United States has approved a $2.3bn weapons sale to Singapore that includes P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft, lightweight torpedoes, and air defence systems.

The State Department notified the US Congress of the sale on Wednesday, according to a statement on the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) website.

The proposed sale will allow Singapore to “meet current and future threats by providing a credible maritime force capable of deterring adversaries and participating in US allied operations”, the DSCA said.

“This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a strategic partner that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Asia,” the statement continued.

Ian Chong, a political scientist, told Al Jazeera that the patrol aircraft are used to protect Singapore’s “extended sea lanes of communication and its very busy waterways” in Southeast Asia.

The acquisition of four Boeing P-8A aircraft is part of Singapore’s long-term plan to replace its ageing fleet of Fokker 50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft, according to its Ministry of Defence.

Singapore Defence Minister Chan Chun Sing announced plans to buy the US aircraft in September, following a meeting with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon.

The US has $8.38bn in active government-to-government sales with Singapore, which range from munitions to F-35 fighter jets, according to the State Department.

Singapore is due to receive the first aircraft from its outstanding order of 20 F-35s later this year, according to its Defence Ministry.

The US and Singapore cooperate on a range of security issues, and their militaries regularly host joint training exercises.

Gaza City – Khaled Abu Jarrar spends his days trying to find ways to get his wife treatment for her recently diagnosed liver cancer.

The 58-year-old, originally from the town of Beit Hanoon in northern Gaza, but displaced with his family for the last year and a half in Gaza City, knows that his wife needs to travel abroad urgently.

It is why he is so desperate for the Rafah crossing, previously the Gaza Strip’s main access point to the outside world, to open.

Israel has kept it firmly shut for most of the past two years, as it conducted its genocidal war on Gaza, killing more than 70,000 Palestinians.

Khaled is looking towards Gaza’s new administration – a group of Palestinian technocrats overseen by United States President Donald Trump’s so-called “board of peace” – to change things.

The National Committee for Gaza Management (NGAC) met for the first time last week, in the Egyptian capital, Cairo. It will manage Gaza’s day-to-day affairs in place of the Palestinian group Hamas as part of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire plan.

The US announced that the second phase had begun last week.

Khaled now wants to see tangible results from the NGAC and the second phase, starting with the opening of the Rafah crossing. But he is sceptical.

“I hope it’s a committee with real powers, not just words on paper,” Khaled told Al Jazeera. “Otherwise, it will be a failed committee.”

His pessimism is understandable. Israel has continued to attack Gaza, killing more than 400 Palestinians since the beginning of the ceasefire.

It has also made clear its opposition to the NGAC, and makes little effort to allow for life in Gaza to improve. One of Israel’s most recent moves has been to order the shutdown of international humanitarian organisations providing vital medical care and food aid in Gaza.

“On the ground, the shelling never stops,” Khaled said, as he followed news on the NGAC from inside a shelter set up in the former Legislative Council building in western Gaza City.

“In the media, they talk about withdrawals and reconstruction, but on the ground, the bombing continues from the north and the south, and things seem even more complicated.”

Waiting for solutions

Khaled’s living arrangements in a government building are not unusual. Thousands of displaced people have found shelter in the structures from which Gaza was once administered, or buildings that have at least partially survived Israel’s targeting.

This reality underlines the difficulty the NGAC and any administration will face when attempting to govern Gaza.

And it makes any talk of new committees and administrations hinge on a series of simple questions for the displaced: Will the technocrats be able to overcome the restrictions imposed on Gaza by Israel? Will they be able to deliver tangible changes to the lives of Palestinians exhausted by displacement and loss?

The committee is presented as a politically “neutral” framework, made up of non-factional figures with administrative and technical expertise. It will be led by Ali Shaath, a former Palestinian Authority (PA) deputy minister.

But many Palestinians believe its success depends less on its composition and more on its ability to operate in an environment that Israel still dominates, and is unwilling to allow to rebuild.

Palestinian political analyst Ahed Farwana referred to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent comments, in which he described the second phase of the ceasefire as “symbolic”, as evidence that Israel has no intention of cooperating.

“So far, things are unclear for the committee, because it depends on serious implementation of the second phase’s obligations,” Farwana told Al Jazeera.

Many of the obligations on Israel in the first phase of the ceasefire, such as halting attacks, a full Israeli withdrawal from a specified area of Gaza, and the opening of the Rafah crossing, have not happened.

Farwana believes that Netanyahu does not want to pay the political cost in Israel of allowing the ceasefire to progress and fully declaring an end to the war, particularly as he will face an election sometime this year.

If anything, Farwana expects Israel to continue violating the ceasefire and expanding its buffer zone, while it cites excuses such as that one remaining Israeli body has not been handed over from Gaza. Hamas has said that it is unable to reach the body because of the amount of rubble left behind by Israeli attacks.

“If there is real American pressure, there will be real change and implementation of the second phase,” Farwana said, arguing that the ceasefire’s partial success was largely tied to pushes made by the US administration. “[But] leaving the field to Netanyahu will not produce results.”

Israeli restrictions

Israeli officials deny the existence of limits on the quantity of aid coming into Gaza. However, international organisations and local Palestinians point to delays in permit approvals, as well as prolonged inspection procedures that slow access and restrict the entry of goods Gaza desperately needs, including non-food items and heavy materials for infrastructure.

The United Nations and aid agencies have repeatedly called for crossings to be opened and the facilitation of aid entry, stressing that the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains catastrophic and that a large share of agreed-upon aid has yet to enter since the implementation of the ceasefire.

The continued closure of the Rafah crossing, in particular, has left Gaza almost entirely dependent on other entry points, such as Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom), which is subject to complex inspection procedures and full Israeli security control.

Against these obstacles, discussions about Gaza’s new administration become more complex, as any committee’s authority to manage services and reconstruction is directly linked to its ability to operate within restrictions on the movement of materials.

Asmaa Manoun is waiting desperately for things to improve.

The 45-year-old, originally from northern Gaza’s Jabalia refugee camp, is a mother of five, but one of her children was killed during the war.

She now lives with her husband Mohammad – injured during the war – in the stairwell of a partially-destroyed building in Gaza City. A simple tarpaulin barely shelters them.

Those conditions explain why Asmaa did not initially hear the news of the establishment of the NGAC, and talk of the beginning of the second phase of the ceasefire.

“Most of the time, my phone isn’t charged, and the internet isn’t available,” she said. “Usually, we hear things from people around us in the camp, and discussions circulate among them.”

Asmaa had initially left southern Gaza, where she had been living displaced, to Jabalia in an attempt to return home. But constant Israeli shelling and gunfire, including a bullet that she said killed a woman in the tent next to her, ended the experiment and made it clear that safety was still a far-off prospect.

Mohammad, 49, stood beside Asmaa as she talked. His hope for the new committee was clear: organise aid entry and distribution, and manage Gaza after the chaos that it had been through.

“We hear a lot, but in reality, we are in the same place we’ve been for two years,” he said.

“The situation in Gaza is beyond difficult. We can barely manage. For many months, we haven’t received aid, food parcels, or tents. Things are chaotic, and Israel is interested in this chaos, and in using aid as punishment.”

Corporate media have deployed a lexicon of legitimation in their coverage of the deadly US invasion of Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, along with his wife and fellow politician Cilia Flores. Major news outlets have routinely described these events using words like “capture” (New York Times, 1/3/26) or “arrest” (BBC, 1/3/26), which presents them as a matter of enforcing the law against fugitives or criminals, and carries the built-in but false assumption that the US had the right or even duty to conduct its operation in the first place.

The ludicrous premise is that any time an arrest warrant is issued somewhere in the United States, the US has the right to do anything, anywhere in the world, in pursuit of the subject—including bombing another country, invading it, killing its citizens, and spiriting away its president and first lady. Cornell Law School professor Maggie Gardner (Transnational Litigation Blog, 1/5/26) rebuked the idea that the US merely enforced the law in Venezuela, pointing out (emphasis in original):

Under customary international law, a sovereign can only exercise enforcement jurisdiction in the territory of another sovereign if it has that sovereign’s consent. This hard line limiting enforcement powers to a sovereign’s own territory is clear and well-established.

Venezuela, of course, didn’t consent to being bombed, or to having Maduro and Flores taken from the country at gunpoint. Accordingly, what happened in Caracas is best understood not as the US enforcing the law, but as the US breaking international law. It’s misleading, therefore, to use language like “capture” and “arrest,” which evoke the US upholding the law, to describe blowtorch-wielding, heavily armed US forces taking Maduro and Flores prisoner in the middle of the night (BBC, 1/4/26).

‘Abducted, so to speak’

I used the news aggregator Factiva to examine New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post coverage from January 3 through January 5, the day of the US’s attack on Venezuela and the first two days after these developments. The papers published a combined 223 pieces that featured Maduro’s name, and 166 of these (74%) used the term “capture” or a form of it, such as “captured” or “capturing.” Sixty of these pieces, or 27%, included the word “arrest” or variations on the term, like “arrested” or “arresting.”

“Abduction” or “kidnapping”—synonyms that mean to take someone away unlawfully and by force—are far more suitable words for what the US did to Maduro and Flores. Only two pieces in the Post and one in the Journal used any form of “abduct” (such as “abduction”) in any of the articles that refer to Maduro—1% of the combined total articles. In each case, the term appears in quotation marks. The Times ran no pieces in which the word appeared.

The Post (1/3/26) shared a perplexing perspective from Geoffrey Corn—head of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, and a former top legal adviser to the US Army—who said that the US Supreme Court has been clear since the late 19th century that “you can’t claim that you were abducted and therefore the court should not be allowed to assert authority over you.” The article went on:

“Maduro is not going to be able to avoid being brought to trial because he was abducted, so to speak, even if he can establish it violated international law,” Corn said, adding that in his view, the administration’s overnight military operation lacked any “plausible legal basis.”

So, despite Corn’s view that the US attack was illegal, he couldn’t bring himself to present Maduro’s abduction as literal rather than figurative.

That article, as well another in the Post (1/3/26) and one in the Wall Street Journal (1/5/26), quoted Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner:

If the United States asserts the right to use military force to invade and capture foreign leaders it accuses of criminal conduct, what prevents China from claiming the same authority over Taiwan’s leadership? What stops Vladimir Putin from asserting a similar justification to abduct Ukraine’s president?

Even as Warner is skeptical about the US’s actions in Venezuela, he still uses the language of “capture” for Maduro, while using “abduct” for a hypothetical scenario in which the official enemy Putin carries out a parallel crime. None of the articles that included Warner’s quote  commented on this linguistic inconsistency.

The word “abduct” was never used in the voice of a reporter from any of these papers to describe what the US had done.

‘It’s not a bad term’

Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself (New York Times, 1/5/26), say that he was “kidnapped” by the US. They’re not the only ones. On Democracy Now! (1/3/26), Venezuelan journalist Andreína Chávez and US-based Venezuelan historian Miguel Tinker Salas both used that word to characterize what the US did to Maduro and Flores.

Canada’s national broadcaster, the CBC (1/5/26), regarded the idea that Maduro was “kidnapped” as at least meriting serious discussion. Co-anchor Andrew Chang asked:

Did the US military just kidnap Nicholas Maduro?… “Kidnap” is a loaded word because it implies illegality. Maybe a more neutral way of describing Maduro’s capture is as an “abduction,” but the US government calls it an “arrest.”…

This isn’t some nerdy question about semantics. It’s a question about law, and whether the US has the legal right to extract world leaders from their homes, and maybe even whether other countries might have that right, too.

Notably, when Trump was told that Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez said it was a “kidnapping,” he didn’t push back, saying, “It’s not a bad term.”

However, the only times “kidnap” appeared in the Times, Journal or Post in relation to Maduro and Flores—in 10 pieces, or 4% of the coverage—came when that term was attributed to representatives of the Venezuelan state. Suggesting to readers that a government that has been demonized in US media for decades is the only source that regards Maduro and Flores as having been “kidnapped” is tantamount to suggesting that no credible sources take that position.

The three papers combined to run zero articles treating as an objective fact the view that America “abducted” or “kidnapped” a sitting head of state in defiance of international law, while they regularly used “captured” and “arrested” outside of quotation marks, as if those word choices are merely flat descriptions of reality.

ICE also ‘arrests’

These linguistic choices matter. “Capture” and “arrest” paint Trump, Delta Force and the CIA as righteous heroes protecting their country—as well as Venezuela and the rest of the world—from the villainous Maduros. “Abduct” and “kidnap” morally invert the good guy and bad guy roles, and would portray US actors as the wrongdoers.

This particular form of word play is part of a pattern for corporate media under this Trump administration. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) round-ups of migrants in the United States have featured what can most accurately be described as abductions or kidnappings of people—off the streets, at courts, in workplaces and elsewhere—by armed, masked and unaccountable agents, into unmarked vehicles. It’s little surprise, then, that immigration lawyers, members of Congress, and law professors (LA Times, 10/21/25), among others, routinely use the word “abduct” to describe these events.

And describing ICE’s practices as “kidnappings” isn’t some fringe view. Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.) uses the word (Independent, 12/5/25), as does Rolling Stone editor Tim Dickinson (7/2/25), and the academic and author Natasha Lennard of the New School for Social Research in New York (Intercept, 7/1/25). ICE’s victims (Mother Jones, 7/18/27; NPR, 7/27/25) and their families (Guardian, 4/15/25, 6/10/25, 6/26/25) frequently describe their ordeal in such terms.

Yet corporate media eschew such language for the same sanitized “arrest” or “capture” language they employed for Maduro and Flores. When I used Factiva to pair “ICE” with the words “abduct” or “kidnap,” just two articles turned up that included the perspective that ICE “abducts” people (New York Times, 7/13/25; Washington Post, 12/3/25), both attributed to critical sources. Five (2%) included a version of the word “kidnap,” all in quotation marks.

Three of these quotes were from the much-maligned Venezuelan government (New York Times, 3/18/25, 11/25/25; Washington Post, 5/4/25), one came from a man whose father and daughter-in-law had been detained by ICE (Washington Post, 3/21/25), and another from a member of the Chicago Board of Education (New York Times, 10/22/25).

The language is freighted in the same way, whether it is migrants under attack from US jackboots, or those same forces unleashed against socialist politicians in Global South countries seeking to escape imperial domination.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: FAIR

What if I told you that the Pope, beyond his shepherding on how his followers should conduct their daily lives, also speaks extensively about international politics?

It was evident during Pope Leo XIV’s “State Of The World” address last week.

In his first such event since being elected to the Papal throne back in May last year, the Pope addressed a wide range of issues. Using a classic from Augustine, titled ‘The City of God,’ as the base of his speech, the Pope further elaborated his thoughts on three main topics: the first being the importance of diplomacy as well as the use of language within it; the second being human rights which includes freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and religious freedom; and the final headline being the world peace. The third, of course, came at the right time: just days after the US attack in Venezuela, a Catholic-majority country.

But, there is a specific aspect of the speech that I found particularly intriguing, especially since it was uttered by a religious leader like the Pope: multilateralism.

In his address, the Pope highlighted the ‘weakness of multilateralism’ as a ’cause for concern at the international level.’ He also lamented the rise of the use of force at the global scale, mentioning that ‘diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force.’ The main question then emerges: why does the Pope have to address this issue? Why multilateralism?

Holy See’s Foreign Policy: A Holy Diplomacy

You probably have seen that in many contemporary and academic literatures, the terms ‘Vatican’ and ‘Holy See’ are often used interchangeably. While acceptable, we have to acknowledge that the two do have distinctions.

The ‘Vatican’ is a physical territory which hosts the iconic Basilica of Saint Peter, the ever-crowded Saint Peter’s Square, the magnificent Sistine Chapel, and the famous Vatican Museum. Meanwhile, the ‘Holy See’ is the spiritual and administrative centre of the Roman Catholic Church and is a subject of international law. In other words, the Holy See is the body of government. Thus, it is the Holy See, not the Vatican, that represents all of the Catholic faithful on the global stage, including at the United Nations. However, for the purpose of simplicity, I will use those two terms interchangeably.

How long, then, has the Holy See been participating as an actor on the global stage?

According to Jodok Troy, the Holy See is ‘one of the oldest participants in the international society of states.’ Similarly, a paper by Janne Matlary claims that the Holy See has always been an international actor, even before the concepts of Westphalian statehood and sovereignty were formulated. In the same research, Matlary adds that the Vatican’s foreign policy is fueled by ‘the rich intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church,’ which means not only do they draw their foreign policy solely from teachings of the Scripture, but also those from Church Fathers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.

Pope Leo XIV, in his first audience with members of the Diplomatic Corps in May last year, reiterated three pillars of missionary work that simultaneously act as ‘aim[s] of the Holy See’s diplomacy.’ Those are peace, justice, and truth.

Imagine a classical building, those three aspects will act this way: truth as the foundation, justice as the supporting pillars, and peace as the entablature.

Peace is, evidently, highly regarded by the Holy See.

We should also understand the Vatican’s sense of peace since it does not merely mean an absence or pause of war and conflict.  

The Vatican’s understanding of peace can be found in the concept of ‘just peace’; it should permeate every aspect of society. Matlary explains that to achieve just peace, it requires ‘just distribution of goods’, respect of human rights, as well as ‘honest investigation’ of atrocities that may have been conducted in a conflict. That very concept was also reiterated by the Pope himself in his last year’s address, explaining that peace should engage and challenge human beings, regardless of our cultural background or religious affiliation, demanding first of all that we work on ourselves.’

Departing from the Pope’s statement, it is obvious that the Holy See put human beings as an imago Dei at the very centre of its diplomacy.

Pope Leo XIV emphasised that Papal diplomacy is ‘inspired by a pastoral outreach…at the service of humanity.’

Similarly, Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State under the late Pope Francis (as well as under the current Pope Leo XIV), stated that the diplomacy run by the Holy See is a ‘human diplomacy’ and therefore all diplomatic actions should revolve around ‘real people.’

We can conclude that, according to the Vatican’s perspective, one of the ways in which humans can work for peace is through dialogue and consensus in a multilateral setting. It, then, brings us to the main question of this article: why multilateralism?

The Global Reach of Catholicism

The first answer is that Catholics are scattered in most, if not all, of the countries all over the world. From peaceful nations to those with conflicts, such as those in the Middle East and Latin America, you can find a multitude of faithful. The latest data from the Vatican claimed that there are around 1.4 billion Catholic faithful worldwide.

Despite having less than 50 hectares of sovereign area, the Holy See, being the ecclesiastical centre of the Roman Catholic Church, regards every Catholic faithful as its subject. In other words, Catholics worldwide do obey the authority of the Pope. Daniel Binchy, in an address to the Chatham House in 1945, even went on to say that Papal sovereignty “does not depend on the small territory over which he rules.”

We can, therefore, safely say that Papal influence transcends Westphalian-style sovereignty. It transcends modern state boundaries.

For Catholics worldwide, the Pope is regarded as the ‘Vicar of Christ,’ a title that has been passed throughout millennia since the foundation of the Church by the Apostle Paul. As for non-Catholics

As far as my knowledge goes, that case is particular to the Holy See.

Doesn’t that make the Holy See somewhat cosmopolitan?

Referring back to Binchy’s address eight decades ago, he agreed to the idea that the Holy See has ‘acquired an essentially cosmopolitan outlook.’ He further elaborated that the Holy See’s ‘attitude’ is, in fact, ‘supra-national [sic] rather than international’ and it was passed down from the ‘universalist’ idea from the olden age of the Roman Empire.

I, on the other hand, have to dissent from that idea.

The opinion of the Holy See being ‘cosmopolitan’ is actually a mischaracterisation of its global presence that might seem ‘overarching’ for some.

The Holy See, in fact, subscribes to the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that matters should be handled by the most direct authority. In the case of international politics, the direct authority refers to the state government. The principle is also mentioned in Pope Pius XI’s 1931 encyclical, Quadragessimo Anno.

Therefore, it is clear that the Holy See, despite its unique capacity to transcend borders, still consider that states worldwide and their governments are sovereign over their own citizens. It then makes a clear statement about the need for multilateralism.

It is also important to note that most multilateral cooperation happened within what we know as multilateral institutions. And, for the Holy See, those institutions are useful for the continuity of its diplomacy.

For that reason, we come to the second answer: the Holy See prefers multilateralism since it can utilise multilateral institutions to amplify its diplomatic message.

A Need for an Amplifier

In the words of Sarah Teo, multilateralism ‘facilitates the institutionalisation of rules and norms that are relatively beneficial to all participants, regardless of economic size or military capability.’ She, then, argues that multilateral institutions are ‘more open and fair’ and that they could ‘help to restrain major powers from imposing their preferences on the smaller states.’

It is obvious that the Vatican does not possess material resources such as military and economic power in order to be on a par with other states. Instead, they become a norm entrepreneur, taking on the task to define an appropriate standard of behaviour in the international society.

Being a norm entrepreneur is quite common among states of lesser power, such as small and middle powers. It compensates for the lack of material power a country failed to possess.

Papal ‘human-centred’ diplomacy, along with peace, justice, and truth being the aim, is universally accepted, and, regardless of which state you belong to, you will find yourself in agreement with these points. Thus, these are the bases for the Vatican’s norm entrepreneurship.The act of serving as a norm entrepreneur is, therefore, the core of Papal diplomacy.

How does the Holy See project its norm entrepreneurship in a multilateral setting?

It is through the United Nations that the Holy See has been projecting its norm entrepeneurship in the global setting.

The UN, as the centre of multilateral diplomacy, has witnessed the play of the Vatican’s ‘holy diplomacy’ since its elevation to a permanent observer/non-member status within the institution.

The current Pope Leo XIV spoke highly of the United Nations, highlighting its achievements in mediating conflicts, promoting development, and helping states protect freedoms and human rights over the eight decades since its inception.

The UN was built on the ashes of the Second World War, which had ‘brought untold sorrow to mankind.’ Therefore, it is enshrined in its Charter that the purposes of the UN are to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems, and to be the centre for harmonising the actions of nations.

For the Holy See, the aforementioned purposes share similarities with its conception of diplomacy.

According to an article by Alan Chong and Jodok Troy, both the Holy See and the United Nations represent a ‘universal idealist mission’ such as pursuing peace and working on the ‘universalisation of human rights.’

Even back in the 1960s, Pope Paul VI stated that the Holy See’s role in the United Nations is as an ‘expert of humanity.’

Vatican’s commitment to humanity through multilateral means is also evident in the Pope’s recent address to the diplomatic corps, where he emphasised the need for a “more focused” policy aimed at the “unity of the human family instead of ideologies.” We can also interpret that particular statement as the Pope’s call for reform at the UN, just in time for the growing need for multilateralism.

The slow demise of multilateralism is, therefore, a nightmare for the Holy See.

Not only will it lose its influence in international politics, but the Holy See will eventually have to worry about the safety and security of its subjects worldwide, for when multilateral diplomacy fails, it will lead to the ‘ushering in’ of the ‘diplomacy of force’ that will put humankind in danger.

Therefore, it is right and just that the Pope use his platform and call for efforts to renew the institutions where multilateral diplomacy takes place.

A new draft defense spending bill making its way through Congress seeks to boost funding for the U.S. Air Force’s E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft to $1.1 billion for the current fiscal year. This is hundreds of millions of dollars more than Congress had already authorized in a defense policy bill signed into law last month. This underscores the changing fortunes of the E-7 program, which the Pentagon had sought to cancel last year.

The Senate Appropriations Committee released a draft of the Defense Appropriations Act for the 2026 Fiscal Year, which reflects negotiations with its counterparts in the House, earlier today. The proposed defense spending legislation is currently consolidated with other bills covering funding for an array of other government agencies. A separate annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the current fiscal cycle became law in December, and had already approved $846.676 million in funding for E-7. Congress also included a separate tranche of $200 million for Wedgetail in a short-term spending bill signed into law in November to reopen the federal government following a protracted shutdown.

“The agreement emphasizes the importance of the E-7 Wedgetail platform and the airborne early warning and battle management mission for the Department ofthe Air Force. Therefore, $1,100,000,000 is included in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force for fiscal year 2026 to continue E-7 rapid prototyping activities and transition to engineering and manufacturing development aircraft,” according to a Joint Explanatory Statement report the Senate Appropriations Committee also released today. “The Secretary of the Air Force is directed to present a plan to the congressional defense committees, not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, on ongoing actions to streamline requirements and control costs on future production of the E-7 aircraft.”

The Boeing 737-based E-7s are part of a larger Air Force plan to supplant its current fleet of E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, which we will come back to later on. The Air Force’s 16 remaining E-3s provide essential airborne early warning, data-sharing, and command and control capabilities, but are aging and have become increasingly difficult to operate and maintain. The Wedgetail features a newer radar and other improved systems over the E-3 in a package that also offers better fuel economy and other benefits, as you can read more about here. Versions of the Wedgetail are already in service in Australia, South Korea, and Turkey. The United Kingdom is still on track to field the E-7, but the NATO alliance cancelled plans to buy a fleet that multiple members would operate collectively after the U.S. military separately withdrew from that effort.

Furthermore, “the agreement bolsters the E-7 Wedgetail aircraft program and includes a new general provision that prohibits the use of funds to pause, cancel, or terminate the E- 7,” the Joint Explanatory Statement adds.

The Air Force first announced plans to buy E-7s in 2022, but, as noted, the Pentagon had moved to cancel the program last year. The Air Force had requested just under $200 million for Wedgetail in Fiscal Year 2026, but explicitly to support the process of closing it out, including a full financial audit. The Pentagon and the Air Force had also laid out an alternative plan involving the purchase of additional E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft as interim gap-fillers for the retiring E-3s until the Air Force could push most, if not all, airborne target warning sensor layer tasks into space. Officials justified the decision, in part, by raising concerns about the E-7 vulnerability, especially in future high-end fights, such as one against China in the Pacific. Significant delays and cost overruns were also cited as key factors.

Members of Congress, as well as independent observers, were quick to question various aspects of this plan, including whether E-2s would be an adequate interim substitute for the E-7 and what the realistic timeline might be for new space-based capabilities to become operational. In the U.S. military, the Hawkeye is currently in service with the Navy. The lower and slower flying aircraft was designed with the unique requirements of carrier-based operations, and their constraints, in mind. Survivability concerns would apply just as much to the E-2 as the E-7, the latter of which also offers a larger platform that is more adaptable to expanded mission needs, such as battle management and acting as a networking node.

When it comes to future space-based capabilities, the U.S. officials have touted progress on being able to persistently track targets on the ground and at sea from orbit, but have acknowledged challenges in doing the same with ones in the air.

“So GMTI [ground moving-target indicator capability] and AMTI [air moving-target indicator capability] sound like they’re really close, just because one little letter that is all you changed, [but it] turns out they’re pretty different,” Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman, U.S. Space Force’s top officer, said during a press briefing on the sidelines of a conference in December, according to Breaking Defense. “What it takes to accomplish AMTI is different than what it takes to accomplish GMTI.”

“Things on the ground move slower than things on [sic] the air, so [they] require different levels of fidelity tracks,” he added.

With all this in mind, there had already been a steady drumbeat of moves in Congress to preserve the E-7 program since last summer. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2026 was the first piece of legislation to enshrine this into law. That bill also included a provision blocking the retirement of any E-3s in the current fiscal cycle.

When the Air Force may now begin to field E-7s operationally, even with a further boost in funding, does remain to be seen. When the Pentagon revealed plans to cancel the program last year, the Air Force was still working to acquire two initial production representative prototypes. The original plan had been to use those aircraft for test and evaluation purposes in the lead-in to the production of Wedgetails in a full U.S.-specific configuration. The Air Force had hoped to have the first examples flying missions in 2027. As of January of last year, the initial operational capability timeline had been pushed back to 2032, according to the Government Accountability Office, a Congressional watchdog.

In the meantime, Congress does look set to further underscore its support for the E-7, a program already in a completely different position from where it was a year ago.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has deployed a military radar in the Somali region of Puntland as part of a secret deal, amid Abu Dhabi’s ongoing entrenchment of its influence over the region’s security affairs.

According to the London-based news outlet Middle East Eye, sources familiar with the matter told it that the UAE had installed a military radar near Bosaso airport in Somalia’s semi-autonomous Puntland region earlier this year, with one unnamed source saying that the “radar’s purpose is to detect and provide early warning against drone or missile threats, particularly those potentially launched by the Houthis, targeting Bosaso from outside”.

The radar’s presence was reportedly confirmed by satellite imagery from early March, which found that an Israeli-made ELM-2084 3D Active Electronically Scanned Array Multi-Mission Radar had indeed been installed near Bosaso airport.

READ: UAE: The scramble for the Horn of Africa

Not only does the radar have the purpose of defending Puntland and its airport from attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, but air traffic data reportedly indicates it also serves to facilitate the transport of weapons, ammunition, and supplies to Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), further fuelling the ongoing civil war in Sudan.

“The UAE installed the radar shortly after the RSF lost control of most of Khartoum in early March”, one source said. Another source was cited as claiming that the radar was deployed at the airport late last year and that Abu Dhabi has used it on a daily basis to supply the RSF, particularly through large cargo planes that frequently carry weapons and ammunition, and which sometimes amount to up to five major shipments at a time.

According to two other Somali sources cited by the report, Puntland’s president Said Abdullahi Deni did not seek approval from Somalia’s federal government nor even the Puntland parliament for the installation of the radar, with one of those sources stressing that it was “a secret deal, and even the highest levels of Puntland’s government, including the cabinet, are unaware of it”.

READ: UAE under scrutiny over alleged arms shipments to Sudan

US has moved to assert strict control over the production and sale of Venezuelan oil since attacking the country this month.

The United States military announced that it has seized a seventh Venezuela-linked oil tanker, as the US tightens its control over the production and sale of the country’s considerable oil resources.

US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), which oversees military operations in Latin America, said on Tuesday that it captured the Motor Vessel Sagitta as part of its blockade on oil vessels leaving and entering the country.

“The apprehension of another tanker operating in defiance of President Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean demonstrates our resolve to ensure that the only oil leaving Venezuela will be oil that is coordinated properly and lawfully,” SOUTHCOM said in a statement.

It added that Tuesday’s tanker seizure occurred “without incident”, sharing a video appearing to show US forces flying towards the vessel and landing on its deck.

The US began seizing sanctioned tankers on December 10, as part of a campaign of increasing pressure on Venezuela.

Tensions between the US and Venezuela came to a peak on January 3, when US President Donald Trump authorised a predawn military operation to abduct his Venezuelan counterpart, Nicolas Maduro.

In the lead-up to that operation, Trump and allies like Stephen Miller had been increasingly vocal about laying claim to Venezuelan oil, given the US’s history of prospecting for petroleum there in the early 20th century.

But by 1971, Venezuela had nationalised its oil industry. Efforts to expropriate assets from foreign oil companies in 2007 have further fuelled criticism from the Trump administration, which considers Venezuelan oil “stolen” from US owners.

Legal experts, however, largely consider such arguments a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.

Trump has nevertheless said the US will control Venezuela’s oil and has used the threat of further military attacks to pressure Venezuela’s government into compliance.

The Trump administration has also placed steep sanctions on Venezuela’s economy, as part of a trend stretching back to the Republican leader’s first term as president.

The US has framed the tanker seizures as a way of enforcing those sanctions, although the legality of using military force to enforce economic penalties is disputed.

Trump and his officials have said that the sale of Venezuelan oil on the world market will be dictated by the US and that the proceeds from those sales will be placed in a US-controlled bank account.

Trump has also used control over Venezuela’s oil to ratchet up pressure on Cuba, for which access to Venezuelan oil is an important economic lifeline.

The US president told reporters on Tuesday at a White House briefing that he has taken 50 million barrels of oil from Venezuela.

“We’ve got millions of barrels of oil left,” he said at the White House. “We’re selling it on the open market. We’re bringing down oil prices incredibly.”

Interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, meanwhile, said that her country had received $300m from recent oil sales. In her inaugural state of the union address last week, she signalled that her administration would reform the country’s hydrocarbon law to allow more foreign investment in future.

Arsenal win 3-1 at Inter Milan in the league phase of the UEFA Champions League to seal their place in the last 16.

Gabriel Jesus is already hitting top form just a month after returning from a lengthy injury layoff.

The Arsenal forward was given only his third start this season, and he scored twice in a dynamic first half to set his side on the way to a 3-1 victory at Inter Milan in the Champions League on Tuesday.

Jesus was out for almost a year after tearing his ACL last January.

“It’s a dream night. I always dreamed of being a footballer,” Jesus told Amazon Prime. “I watched when I was a kid, I watched a lot of Serie A, so to be here in this stadium and score here is tears in my eyes, because I always dreamed of being here.

“There is always a reason that things happen, even whether it’s good things or difficult things. I learned that during my 11 months out of the field.”

Jesus returned in December, but has made mainly substitute appearances since then, with his only starts before Tuesday coming in domestic cup competitions.

However, Arsenal coach Mikel Arteta named the Brazilian in the starting lineup at San Siro in place of Viktor Gyokeres, who has struggled to adapt since his big-money move from Sporting Lisbon in the summer.

“Everyone wants to start,” Jesus added. “I am a very respectful guy. I am not a kid any more; I am 28, so I understand football.

“I am very happy Vik came on and scored a goal. I am so happy I scored, and Vik scored.”

Jesus fired Arsenal in front in the 10th minute with an instinctive finish to stretch out his leg and get on the end of a scuffed Jurrien Timber shot.

It was his first Champions League goal in more than two years since netting in a group match against Lens in November 2023.

Inter levelled eight minutes later through Petar Sucic, but Jesus was again in the right place at the right time to put Arsenal in front in the 31st minute.

Bukayo Saka swung in a corner from the right to the far post, where Leandro Trossard nodded it back across for Jesus to head home.

Gyokeres came on for Jesus in the 75th and scored Arsenal’s third nine minutes later.

The victory assured table-topping Arsenal a spot in the knockout stage of the Champions League and also saw it win seven European games in a row for the first time in its history.

Arsenal have never won the Champions League, although they reached the final in 2006, losing to Barcelona.

Arteta’s side also top the Premier League, with a seven-point advantage, and host Manchester United on Sunday.

Kurdish-led SDF accepts truce but reports continued attacks by government-allied forces, despite the agreement.

The Syrian government has announced a four-day ceasefire with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) after the army continued to seize territory in the country’s northeast following lightning advances.

The Syrian Army announced the ceasefire, which came into effect at 8pm (17:00 GMT) on Tuesday.

It also said it had asked the SDF to provide the name of a candidate for the role of assistant to the defence minister in Damascus, as part of efforts to integrate the Kurds into the Syrian state.

The SDF confirmed it had accepted the ceasefire and said it would not engage in any military action unless attacked.

“We also affirm our openness to political paths, negotiated solutions, and dialogue, and our readiness to move forward with the implementation of the January 18 agreement in a manner that serves de-escalation and stability,” the SDF said in a statement.

However, shortly after the ceasefire came into effect, the SDF claimed that government-allied groups were launching an attack, “using heavy weapons”, on the village of Tal Baroud, along the Abyad road, south of Hasakah.

According to the SDF’s spokesperson, Farhad Shami, the town of Zarkan has been “under intense artillery shelling” in recent hours by Damascus-affiliated factions. He said that government-allied forces have also attacked al-Aqtan Prison north of Raqqa, using five suicide drones and heavy gunfire.

In the past few days, the Syrian government has rapidly advanced and seized territory held by the SDF, in the biggest success and change of control for President Ahmed al-Sharaa after the fall of former leader Bashar al-Assad.

Syria’s Ministry of Interior said the army’s forces have begun to take control of the al-Hol camp in northeastern Syria, home to thousands of ISIL (ISIS) fighters’ families as well as other long-term refugees from the conflict. The SDF abandoned control of the camp earlier today.

The SDF still retains control of Hasakah city, with a population of Kurds and Arabs, and the Kurdish-majority city of Qamishli. The Syrian government said its forces would not try to enter either of the cities during the ceasefire.

Under intense military pressure, the SDF agreed to withdraw from two Arab-majority governorates it controlled for years, Raqqa and Deir ‌Az Zor, the site of Syria’s main oilfields.

Abdul Karim Omar, a Kurdish representative in Damascus, told Al Jazeera that the northeastern region of Syria, formerly under SDF control, is ready for the process of integrating SDF forces into the institutions of the Syrian state.

Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ibrahim Olabi, told reporters that the government hope the ceasefire agreement holds.

“We’re working with our partners at the United States to make sure that it holds,” Olabi said.

The US envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, announced that the Syrian government was now the US’s main partner in fighting ISIL, a role previously held by the SDF.

Usha Vance, the wife of Vice-President JD Vance, has announced she is pregnant with her fourth child.

In a post on X, the second lady said she is looking forward to welcoming a boy in late July.

“Usha and the baby are doing well,” a statement posted on Tuesday to the second lady’s social media account read.

Vance and his wife, Usha, 40, have three young children: Ewan, Vivek and Mirabel.

Usha Vance (née Chilukuri) was born and raised in the working-class suburbs of San Diego, California, to a mechanical engineer father and a molecular biologist mother who had moved to the US from Andhra Pradesh, India.

She met JD Vance as a student at Yale Law School in 2010, when they joined a discussion group on “social decline in white America”.

JD Vance has been one of the most vocal members of the Trump administration in calling for higher birth rates in the US.

The British government has given China approval to build the largest embassy in Europe in London eight years after Beijing bought the site.

The British government has given China approval to build the largest embassy in Europe in London eight years after Beijing bought the site.

Housing Minister Steve Reed’s decision to grant planning permission on Tuesday came before an expected visit to China by Prime Minister Keir Starmer later this month, the first by a British leader since 2018.

China’s plans to build a new embassy on the site of the two-century-old Royal Mint Court near the Tower of London have stalled for three years over opposition from residents, lawmakers and Hong Kong pro-democracy campaigners in Britain.

Pro-democracy campaigners from Hong Kong fear Beijing could use the embassy to harass political opponents and even detain them, while nearby residents fear it could pose a security risk to them and attract large protests.

Politicians in Britain and the United States have warned the government against allowing China to build the embassy on the site over concerns that it could be used as a base for spying.

The future embassy could still face legal challenges as residents said they planned to challenge the approval in the courts.

Reed said the decision was now final, barring a successful challenge in court.

A government spokesperson said intelligence agencies had helped to develop a “range of measures … to manage any risks”.

Security Minister Dan Jarvis said China would continue to pose national security threats but added that after “detailed consideration of all possible risks around this new embassy … I am assured that the UK’s national security is protected”.

The Chinese government purchased the Royal Mint Court in 2018, but its requests for planning permission to build the new embassy there were rejected by the local council in 2022 over safety and security concerns.

Last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping asked Starmer to intervene.

Starmer’s government had repeatedly postponed its decision in recent months after multiple cases of alleged Chinese spying and political interference underlined concerns about the proposed embassy.

In November, the domestic intelligence agency MI5 issued an alert to lawmakers warning that Chinese agents were making “targeted and widespread” efforts to recruit and cultivate them using LinkedIn or cover companies.

Beijing has strongly denied those claims, calling them “pure fabrication and malicious slander”.

Starmer has stressed that while protecting national security is nonnegotiable, Britain needs to keep up diplomatic dialogue and cooperation with the Asian superpower.

Bloomberg via Getty Images

American response

The World Economic Forum has released a report showcasing successful applications of artificial intelligence (AI) that are yielding measurable benefits and demonstrating how organizations are advancing beyond initial trials to achieve significant results. As investments rise and expectations grow, the report emphasizes a widening gap between companies that effectively scale AI and those encountering challenges in its deployment. The report offers strategies to close this gap by drawing on real-world examples.

The report titled “Proof over Promise: Insights on Real-World AI Adoption from 2025 MINDS Organizations,” was created in partnership with Accenture. It compiles insights from the MINDS program, which highlights impactful AI applications worldwide, analyzing numerous cases from over 30 countries and spanning 20 industries such as healthcare and energy. An independent council of experts identified key trends in successful AI use, including integrating AI into decision-making, enhancing human-AI collaboration, improving data management, modernizing technology, and ensuring governance.

According to Stephan Mergenthaler from the World Economic Forum, many organizations are unsure how to harness AI’s potential. The showcased cases illustrate the transformation possible when ambition meets operational change, and the report serves as a practical guide for others to follow similar paths. Manish Sharma from Accenture added that leveraging AI effectively requires organized data and processes along with human creativity to maximize investment returns. He encourages organizations to develop clear plans focused on responsible innovation for AI implementation and scaling.

The Forum also announced the second cohort of MINDS, comprising 20 organizations pioneering high-impact AI solutions in areas like disease detection and energy optimization. Applications for the third MINDS cohort are now open, inviting public and private organizations to apply by demonstrating the impact and novelty of their AI projects. Selections will be made by an independent council following a shortlisting process by the Forum.

The report lists exemplary organizations from both the first and second cohorts of MINDS, classified by various sectors. In the information technology sector, companies like AMD and Synopsys improved chip-design productivity through AI, while KPMG and SAP accelerated enterprise migrations using an AI copilot. In energy management, firms like Horizon Power developed an AI for weather forecasting that significantly enhanced energy market predictions.

Improvements in battery manufacturing were noted as CATL automated designs and significantly cut research cycles. For global health, Ant Group created a multimodal health platform achieving high diagnostic accuracy. Robotics innovations included Hyundai’s developments in autonomous robots that optimize performance and efficiency.

In financial services, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China improved decision-making and profits through a large-scale financial model. Retail advancements included PepsiCo’s implementation of smart factory technology, reducing waste and saving costs, while Wumart streamlined operations with real-time AI.

In chemical and scientific discoveries, companies like Deep Principle automated materials simulations efficiently, and UCSF accelerated Parkinson’s drug research significantly. Engineering case studies highlighted Hitachi Rail’s AI analytics for transportation efficiency and Fujitsu’s AI agents reducing supply chain costs substantially.

In advanced manufacturing, firms like Foxconn automated workflows efficiently and Siemens implemented visual inspection systems to save operational costs. Socially, Tech Mahindra’s multilingual AI systems enhanced digital services across diverse regions, benefiting millions of users.

Wildfires in Chile have wiped out entire towns, killing at least 20 people. Tens of thousands of others have been forced from their homes. Al Jazeera’s Lucia Newman has been seeing the damage in one of the worst hit areas.

Actor and comedian Russell Brand has been granted bail after being accused of two further sex offences, including rape.

The 50-year-old appeared via video link from the US for the six-minute hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday afternoon. Wearing a partially unbuttoned denim shirt, he spoke only to confirm his name and date of birth.

Brand previously denied two counts of rape, one count of indecent assault and two counts of sexual assault in relation to alleged offences between 1999 and 2005, involving four women.

The two latest offences are one for rape and one for sexual assault, with are both alleged to have taken place in London in 2009, according to court documents.

Brand will appear at Southwark Crown Court on 17 February.

In relation to the five original charges, a trial is scheduled to begin at Southwark Crown Court later this year.

Detectives began investigating allegations into Brand which came to light following reporting from the Sunday Times, the Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches in September 2023.

Brand, who was born in Essex, rose to fame as a stand-up comedian and became a household name as host of TV shows such as Big Brother’s Big Mouth, and with his own radio programmes on stations including BBC Radio 2 and 6 Music.

He went on to establish a Hollywood career, starring in films including Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him To The Greek.

Mérida, January 21, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government launched a series of initiatives over the weekend to support communities affected by the January 3 bombings carried out by the United States.

On Friday, January 16, folk artists performed at the Rómulo Gallegos Urbanization in La Guaira state, where US forces struck the local port. The attack destroyed a medical supplies warehouse and a residential building, killing an elderly civilian woman.

During the event, Venezuelan singer-songwriter Benjamín Zambrano said that music helps restore collective spirit and identity. “Through song we invoke our roots, our conscience, our way of life, and our right to live in peace,” he stated.

Cultural events continued Saturday at the Ezequiel Zamora Urban Complex in Ciudad Tiuna, Caracas, organized by the Venezuelan Housing Mission and the Ministry of Culture. The large-scale housing complex is adjacent to Fuerte Tiuna, the capital’s main military headquarters where most of the US strikes took place.

During the recreational activity, Culture Minister Ernesto Villegas said the government has a responsibility to help more than 10,000 families recover from the impact of the January 3 attacks. The US operation likewise included the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

Multiple Venezuelan artists performed in Ciudad Tiuna on Saturday and Sunday as well.

On Saturday, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez also visited Ciudad Tiuna, where 463 apartments were reported damaged.

She called for swift efforts to restore the affected homes and emphasized the importance of supporting children. “We wanted to hold special events for our children, including psychological support sessions,” the acting president told press.

“The Venezuelan people should know that there is hope and a future for our children,” Rodríguez added, noting that recreational activities will continue over the coming weekends. The visit additionally provided a food market as well as healthcare and psychological services.

Rodríguez expands on upcoming economic reforms

The Ciudad Tiuna visit likewise saw Rodríguez comment on announced economic reforms, including two “sovereign wealth funds” to manage oil revenues. The acting president announced the initiative during her 2026 annual address before the National Assembly. 

“The first fund will focus on social protection to improve workers’ incomes,” she affirmed. “This will ensure that foreign currency goes directly to hospitals, schools, food programs, and housing.” 

The second fund will focus on “water, electricity, and road infrastructure.”

Over the weekend, Rodríguez also led a meeting of the National Productive Economy Council with representatives from private sector associations. She presented the 2025 economic growth forecast and the strategic roadmap for the current year. 

Alongside the sovereign wealth funds, she outlined a package of legislative initiatives scheduled for the coming months. The government’s plans include a reform of the Hydrocarbon Law designed to “integrate the advances made under the anti-blockade law” in order to improve conditions for foreign investors.

According to Rodríguez, when the current law was enacted in 2001, Venezuela had “mature and developed oil fields to attract investment,” but now seeks to bring capital to “virgin or green fields.”

Former President Hugo Chávez implemented key changes to oil regulations in 2001 and 2006 to increase the Venezuelan state’s role in the sector while also raising tax and royalty payments to sustain social programs.

Acting President Rodríguez went on to present legislative projects to defend socioeconomic rights and streamline bureaucratic procedures. 

In addition, she proposed creating “a national committee to defend Venezuela’s economic rights worldwide,” with representation from the national executive branch and sectors including oil, agriculture, industry, commerce, banking, non-oil exports, and community organizations.

“This committee,” Rodríguez argued, “will defend Venezuela’s economic rights in multilateral organizations and international forums, traveling the world to promote and uphold those rights.”

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.