failing

Africa is burning, not metaphorically, but in measurable realities of conflict, collapse, and abandonment. Old wars refuse to end, new crises are born faster than diplomacy can name them, and the continent has become the gravitational centre of global disorder. This is not accidental. It is the consequence of a world order that has lost both its moral authority and its will to act reasonably. 

Across Africa, unresolved conflicts metastasise into permanent emergencies. From the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where rebellion has become cyclical rather than exceptional, to Nigeria, where life has become short and brutal, even for schoolchildren, to the broader Sahel, where state authority continues to retreat.

West Africa alone has recorded more military coups and counter-coups in recent years than any other region in the world, a stark signal of democratic erosion and widespread disillusionment with governance models that no longer deliver security or dignity.

At the same time, global terrorist organisations once concentrated in the Middle East, such as Al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State, have strategically relocated their operational centres to Africa. This shift is not because Africa is inherently prone to extremism, but because prolonged neglect, weak international engagement, and fragmented security cooperation have created fertile ground. Terrorism has followed power vacuums, not cultures.

Climate change compounds these failures. Shrinking water sources, desertification, and unpredictable weather patterns are intensifying violent competition over land and livelihoods in countries like Nigeria. Farmer–herder conflicts, insurgent recruitment, and forced displacement are increasingly linked to environmental stress. Africa, which has contributed the least to global carbon emissions, is paying one of the highest prices for climate inaction.

Meanwhile, the continent’s once-vibrant wildlife and ecological heritage are being depleted at alarming rates, seen as collateral damage of conflict, illegal exploitation, and weak global enforcement. The loss is a planetary failure dressed up as a regional problem.

Yet the world’s response is disturbingly muted.

The traditional self-appointed guardians of international order – the global ombudsmen who once spoke the language of human rights, rule of law, and humanitarian responsibility – are increasingly selective, inconsistent, or complicit in many wars. While African conflicts smoulder with minimal global outrage, these same powers are actively involved in or defending genocide in Gaza. International law, once presented as universal, is now applied with geopolitical discretion.

More troubling still is the open disregard for sovereignty and legal norms by states that brand themselves as “civilised democracies”. From extraterritorial military actions to extraordinary renditions and unilateral interventions, practices once condemned when carried out by authoritarian regimes are now normalised by democratic ones—often without consequence. 

This double standard carries profound implications for Africa. It weakens already fragile states, delegitimises global institutions, and reinforces the perception that African lives and laws matter less in the global calculus. When rules are enforced selectively, power, not justice, becomes the governing principle.

The world today is not merely facing a crisis of conflict; it is facing a crisis of leadership.

What is missing is rational, principled global leadership that upholds the rule of law not only within national borders but across them; leadership that does not excuse violations when committed by allies; leadership that understands Africa not as a theatre of endless emergencies but as a central pillar of global stability. Africa, long treated as the periphery of global concern, may yet prove to be the mirror in which the world’s moral failure is most clearly reflected.

As we enter 2026, one truth is impossible to ignore: children around the world are facing their greatest levels of need in modern history – just as the humanitarian system meant to protect them and their futures is battling some of its biggest challenges in decades.

The events of 2025 marked a dramatic rupture in global humanitarian and development efforts. When the United States abruptly halted foreign aid in January, billions of dollars vanished overnight. Critical programmes were suspended, offices closed, and millions suddenly lost access to food, healthcare, education, and protection. Overnight, lifelines that communities had depended on for decades were thrown into jeopardy – and children, as always, paid the highest price.

For international NGOs, the shock was immediate and severe. At Save the Children, we were forced to take some of the toughest decisions in our 106-year history. We had to close country offices, cut thousands of staff positions, and wind down life-saving operations. We estimated that about 11.5 million people – including 6.7 million children – would feel the immediate impacts of these cuts, while many more would be impacted in the longer term.

The aid cuts came at a time when children globally were already facing major challenges, from conflict to displacement, to climate change, with decades of progress at risk of being reversed.

The facts are startling. In 2025, one in every five children was living in an active conflict zone where children are being killed, maimed, sexually assaulted and abducted in record numbers. About 50 million children globally are displaced from their homes. Nearly half the world’s children – about 1.12 billion – cannot afford a balanced diet, and some 272 million were out of school.

These numbers point to a global failure. Behind each statistic is a child whose childhood is being cut short, a childhood defined by fear, hunger and lost potential.

For children, the collapse of aid was not an abstract budgetary decision, but it was deeply personal.  Health clinics closed, classrooms closed, and protection services disappeared just as violence, climate shocks and displacement intensified. Years of hard-won progress in child survival, education and rights were suddenly at risk of being undone, leaving millions of children more vulnerable to hunger, exploitation and violence.

The crisis also revealed the fragility of the global aid system itself. When humanitarian support is concentrated among a handful of government donors, sudden political shifts reverberate directly through children’s lives. The events of 2025 showed how quickly international commitments can unravel – and how devastating that can be for the youngest and least protected.

Yet amid this turmoil, something extraordinary happened.

In many places, families, teachers, health workers and local organisations found ways to keep learning going, to provide care, and to create spaces where children could still play, heal and feel safe. These efforts underscored a simple truth: Responses are strongest when they are rooted close to children themselves.

There were also moments of progress. In a year marked by pushback against human rights, important legal reforms advanced children’s protection – from a ban on corporal punishment in Thailand, to the criminalisation of child marriage and the passing of a digital protection law in Bolivia. These gains reminded us that change is possible even in difficult times, when children’s rights are put at the centre of public debate and policy.

Out of the shocks of 2025 has come a moment of reckoning and an opportunity: to adapt, to innovate, towards approaches that are more sustainable, more locally led and more accountable to the people they are meant to serve. For children, this shift is critical. Decisions made closer to communities are more likely to reflect children’s real needs and aspirations.

This period of reinvention has also revived difficult questions that can no longer be postponed. How can life-saving assistance be insulated from political volatility? How can funding be diversified so that children are not abandoned when a single donor withdraws? And how can children and young people meaningfully participate in decisions that shape their futures?

Innovation alone will not save children, but it can help. When digital tools, data and community-led design are used responsibly, they can improve access, accountability and trust. Used poorly, they risk deepening inequalities. The challenge is not technological — it is political and ethical.

Children do not stop wanting to learn, play or dream because bombs fall or aid dries up. In camps, cities and ruined neighbourhoods, they organise, speak out and imagine futures that adults have failed to secure for them. They remind us why our work – and our ability to adapt – matters so profoundly.

In Gaza this year, I witnessed the horrors that children are living through daily, with the war now raging for more than two years and most of the Strip covered in rubble. I saw children facing malnutrition at our healthcare clinics and heard how some now wish to die to join their parents in heaven. No child should ever be living under such terror that death is preferable. They are children, and their voices need to be heard.

If 2025 exposed the failures of the old aid model, 2026 must become a turning point. A different choice is possible — one that builds systems resilient to political shocks, grounded in local leadership and accountable to the children they claim to serve. The challenge now is to reshape our systems so that, no matter how the world changes, we can put children first, always, everywhere.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The University of Oklahoma has fired an instructor who was accused by a student of religious discrimination over a failing grade on a psychology paper in which she cited the Bible and argued that promoting a “belief in multiple genders” was “demonic.”

The university said in a statement posted Monday on X that its investigation found the graduate teaching assistant had been “arbitrary” in giving 20-year-old junior Samantha Fulnecky zero points on the assignment. The university declined to comment beyond its statement, which said the instructor had been removed from teaching.

Through her attorney, the instructor, Mel Curth, denied Tuesday that she had “engaged in any arbitrary behavior regarding the student’s work.” The attorney, Brittany Stewart, said in a statement emailed to the Associated Press that Curth is “considering all of her legal remedies.”

Conservative groups, commentators and others quickly made Fulnecky’s failing grade an online cause, highlighting her argument that she’d been punished for expressing conservative Christian views. Her case became a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over academic freedom on college campuses as President Trump pushes to end diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and restrict how campuses discuss race, gender and sexuality.

Fulnecky appealed her grade on the assignment, which was worth 3% of the final grade in the class, and the university said the assignment would not count. It also placed Curth on leave, and Oklahoma’s conservative Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, declared the situation “deeply concerning.”

“The University of Oklahoma believes strongly in both its faculty’s rights to teach with academic freedom and integrity and its students’ right to receive an education that is free from a lecturer’s impermissible evaluative standards,” the university’s statement said. “We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.”

A law approved this year by Oklahoma’s Republican-dominated Legislature and signed by Stitt prohibits state universities from using public funds to finance DEI programs or positions or mandating DEI training. However, the law says it does not apply to scholarly research or “the academic freedom of any individual faculty member.”

Home telephone listings for Fulnecky in the Springfield, Mo., area had been disconnected, and her mother — an attorney, podcaster and radio host — did not immediately respond Tuesday to a Facebook message seeking comment about the university’s action.

Fulnecky’s failing grade came in an assignment for a psychology class on lifespan development. Curth directed students to write a 650-word response to an academic study that examined whether conformity with gender norms was associated with popularity or bullying among middle school students.

Fulnecky wrote that she was frustrated by the premise of the assignment because she does not believe that there are more than two genders based on her understanding of the Bible, according to a copy of her essay provided to The Oklahoman.

“Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth,” she wrote, adding that it would lead society “farther from God’s original plan for humans.”

In feedback obtained by the newspaper, Curth said the paper did “not answer the questions for the assignment,” contradicted itself, relied on “personal ideology” over evidence and “is at times offensive.”

“Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs,” Curth wrote.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press.

Warner Bros. Discovery has sharply rejected Paramount’s latest offer, alleging the Larry Ellison family has failed to put real money behind Paramount’s $78-billion bid for Warner’s legendary movie studio, HBO and CNN.

Paramount “has consistently misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a ‘full backstop’ from the Ellison family,” Warner Bros. Discovery’s board wrote in a Wednesday letter to its shareholders filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

“It does not, and never has,” the Warner board said.

For Warner, what was missing was a clear declaration from Paramount that the Ellison family had agreed to commit funding for the deal. A Paramount representative was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

The Warner auction has taken a nasty turn. Last week, Paramount launched a hostile takeover campaign for Warner after losing the bidding war to Netflix. Warner board members unanimously approved Netflix’s $72-billion deal for the Warner Bros. film and television studios, HBO and HBO Max.

In its letter, the Warner board reaffirmed its support for Netflix’s proposal, saying it represented the best deal for shareholders. Warner board members urged investors not to tender their shares to Paramount.

Board members said they were concerned that Paramount’s financing was shaky and the Ellison family’s assurances were far from ironclad. Warner also said Paramount’s proposal contained troubling caveats, such as language in its documents that said Paramount “reserve[d] the right to amend the offer in any respect.”

The Warner board argued that its shareholders could be left holding the bag.

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has argued his $78-billion deal is superior to Netflix’s proposal.

(Evan Agostini / Evan Agostini/invision/ap)

Paramount Chairman David Ellison has championed Paramount’s strength in recent weeks saying his company’s bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, which includes HBO, CNN and the Warner Bros. film and television studios, was backed by his wealthy family, headed by his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men.

In its letter last week to shareholders, asking for their support, Ellison wrote that Paramount delivered “an equity commitment from the Ellison family trust, which contains over $250 billion of assets,” including more than 1 billion Oracle shares.

In regulatory filings, Paramount disclosed that, for the equity portion of the deal, it planned to rely on $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as well as $11.8 billion from the Ellison family (which also holds the controlling shares in Paramount). This week, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners private equity firm pulled out of Paramount’s financing team.

Paramount’s bid would also need more than $60 billion in debt financing.

Paramount has made six offers for Warner Bros., and its “most recent proposal includes a $40.65 billion equity commitment, for which there is no Ellison family commitment of any kind,” the Warner board wrote.

“Instead, they propose that [shareholders] rely on an unknown and opaque revocable trust for the certainty of this crucial deal funding,” the board said.

Throughout the negotiations, Paramount, which trades under the PSKY ticker, failed to present a solid financing commitment from Larry Ellison — despite Warner’s bankers telling them that one was necessary, the board said.

“Despite … their own ample resources, as well as multiple assurances by PSKY during our strategic review process that such a commitment was forthcoming – the Ellison family has chosen not to backstop the PSKY offer,” Warner’s board wrote.

Board members argued that a revocable trust could always be changed. “A revocable trust is no replacement for a secured commitment by a controlling stockholder,” according to the board letter.

David Ellison has insisted Paramount’s Dec. 4 offer of $30 a share was superior to Netflix’s winning bid. Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, while Netflix has made a deal to take Warner’s studios, its spacious lot in Burbank, HBO and HBO Max streaming service.

Paramount’s lawyers have argued that Warner tipped the auction to favor Netflix.

Paramount, which until recently enjoyed warm relations with President Trump, has long argued that its deal represents a more certain path to gain regulatory approvals. Trump’s Department of Justice would consider any anti-trust ramifications of the deal, and in the past, Trump has spoken highly of the Ellisons.

However, Warner’s board argued that Paramount might be providing too rosy a view.

“Despite PSKY’s media statements to the contrary, the Board does not believe there is a material difference in regulatory risk between the PSKY offer and the Netflix merger,” the Warner board wrote. “The Board carefully considered the federal, state, and international regulatory risks for both the Netflix merger and the PSKY offer with its regulatory advisors.”

The board noted that Netflix agreed to pay a record $5.8 billion if its deal fails to clear the regulatory hurdles.

Paramount has offered a $5 billion termination fee.

Should Warner abandon the transaction with Netflix, it would owe Netflix a $2.8 billion break-up fee.

Warner also pointed to Paramount’s promises to Wall Street that it would shave $9 billion in costs from the combined companies. Paramount is in the process of making $3 billion in cuts since the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners took the helm of the company in August.

Paramount has promised another $6 billion in cuts should it win Warner Bros.

“These targets are both ambitious from an operational perspective and would make Hollywood weaker, not stronger,” the Warner board wrote.