front

Avon and Somerset police are said to have turned up on set to arrest the bricklayer-turned-actor soon after filming scenes

An actor was arrested on the set of Disney’s Rivals in front of cast and crew just an hour after filming with Danny Dyer, it has been reported. Police are said to have arrived on set to arrest Nigel Adams who was working as an extra on the hit show.

The incident allegedly took place in front of shocked cast members and while Adams was still in costume due to filming scenes just moment beforehand. The 45-year-old was filming a polo scene alongside acting legend Danny Dyer for the second series of the programme.

However, it was reportedly just an hour later that police cars turned up and Adams was driven away before spending two nights in police custody. He then appeared in court on Friday as he was accused of assaulting an ex-girlfriend.

The Sun reported that a source said: “It was very dramatic. Everyone was in their costumes and Danny was filming this polo scene when an hour later police suddenly turned up to arrest one of the extras. It was shocking.”

The assault is reported to have happened at a house in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset. Police were allegedly called to the address at 2am on May 31 of this year.

Adams was said to be questioned about the assault once he was arrested. Avon and Someset police are thought to have been tipped off that the bricklayer-turned-actor was working on the Rivals set at the time.

A friend said that he will be “gutted” as the arrest could mark the end of his acting career. They said: “He’ll be gutted because it could end his TV career, something he really loves doing.

“He’s a bricklayer by trade but he’s been doing more and more TV work, he’s been in loads of stuff. Whenever he’s in the background of a show he gets all his family and friends to watch it.”

Adams has quite a few acting roles under his belt already which include House of the Dragon, The Forsyte Saga and 2022 movie Prizefighter: The Life of Jem Belcher. Adams appeared at Bristol magistrates’ court on Friday charged with assault causing actual bodily harm.

No plea was made by him and he was given conditional bail until he returns to the city’s crown court on July 7. Production company Happy Prince, which makes the drama Rivals, told The Sun: “On the 4th June, the police visited the set regarding an ­unrelated matter involving a supporting artist.

“Production co-operated with the police. We do not have any further information as it is not connected to Rivals or to our production.”

The Mirror have contacted Happy Prince, Disney and Avon and Someset police for comment.

Follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

On May 29th, Elon Musk officially stepped down from his role in the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), concluding a 130-day tenure marked by controversy and unmet fiscal goals. His departure follows public criticism of a Republican-backed spending bill that, contrary to DOGE’s mission, significantly increases the federal deficit. This development underscores the complex interplay between political affiliations, corporate responsibilities, and the influence of high-profile individuals on emerging financial markets.

His resignation marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing scrutiny of his leadership and its impact on Tesla. While Musk’s departure from DOGE was intended to refocus attention on Tesla, it has done little to ease growing concerns among investors and the public about his commitment to the company’s core goals of innovation and sustainability. Instead of restoring confidence, the move has highlighted deeper issues within Tesla, as the company continues to struggle with declining sales and mounting reputational challenges. These concerns are compounded by perceptions that Musk’s attention is divided, raising questions about whether he remains fully dedicated to steering Tesla through a critical period of transformation. As a result, his leadership is now under intensified scrutiny, with stakeholders demanding clearer direction and renewed focus on the values that once defined Tesla’s pioneering identity.

Tesla Takedown as a Global Backlash Against Musk

The hashtag #TeslaTakedown trended widely on X (formerly Twitter) and other social media platforms in early 2025, marking a global protest movement targeting Tesla and its founder, Elon Musk. Activists across the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia called for divestment from Tesla by urging individuals and institutions to sell off their vehicles and shares. The movement was sparked by a series of controversial decisions by Musk, most notably his decision to join the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which critics say undermined public trust in Tesla’s independence.

Even before the protest gained global momentum, Tesla was already grappling with unstable corporate performance, particularly in the stock market. In the first quarter of 2025, Tesla ranked among the worst-performing stocks in the S&P 500, with shares losing over a third of their value. This significant decline was largely fueled by public backlash against Musk’s aggressive efficiency policies under DOGE, which disrupted Tesla’s operations. Meanwhile, Tesla’s electric vehicles have struggled to maintain market share amid a surge of Chinese EVs dominating Asian and European markets. This fierce competition has led to weakened demand, production slowdowns, and mass layoffs. The company is currently laying off more than 10% of its global workforce—its largest reduction in four years—underscoring declining sales and the ongoing failure to deliver an affordable EV in the face of a price war with Chinese rivals. In addition, Tesla reported a gross profit margin of just 17.6% in Q4, the lowest in over four years.

Sustainability is a myth to Musk.  

The situation deteriorated further when the United States, under the Trump administration, withdrew from the Paris Agreement, casting fresh doubts on Musk’s environmental commitments, especially given his newly acquired role within the administration. Tesla has long branded itself as a green tech pioneer committed to zero-emission vehicles and the reduction of carbon emissions. The company’s stated goal is to operate fully carbon-neutral factories to help create a more sustainable future. However, this commitment was called into question in 2022 when Tesla was removed from the S&P 500 ESG Index. Established in 2019, the index evaluates companies based on their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. Tesla’s removal prompted Musk to publicly denounce ESG as a scam, citing examples of tobacco companies receiving higher ESG ratings than Tesla, despite its focus on clean energy innovation. S&P justified the decision by pointing to allegations of racial discrimination and a failure to maintain a healthy workplace environment. In response, Tesla issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to equity and non-discrimination, after which it was eventually reinstated.

Tesla’s ESG Commitment and Consumer Trust

Musk’s dual role as both the head of multiple tech companies and a government bureaucrat places him in a difficult position, torn between saving his company and navigating political criticism. On one hand, Tesla’s poor ESG record with S&P has made Musk skeptical of ESG initiatives; on the other, public trust in Tesla’s electric vehicles, which are projected to play a key role in future sustainable innovation, is at risk. Without substantial reform, the divestment movement could continue to grow. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement signals a loosening of domestic environmental policies, including the blocking of EV subsidies, increased fossil fuel production, and a backlash against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Following the U.S. withdrawal, many investors divested from their holdings, indicating a decline in ESG funds, with an estimated outflow of up to 6.1 billion US dollars in the first three months of 2025, after 4.3 billion US dollars had already been withdrawn in the last quarter of 2024.

The U.S. policy towards environmental issues directly contradicts Musk’s goals for Tesla as a leader in sustainable technology and creates serious challenges for the company in fulfilling ESG commitments. Trump’s open support for Musk amid the #TeslaTakedown controversy, even going so far as to call the protests a form of domestic terrorism, has only damaged Tesla’s reputation further. Trump also praised Musk’s budget-cutting measures, especially the termination of DEI-related contracts. This endorsement has triggered a decline in Tesla’s stock and raised investor concerns about Musk’s political entanglements with the Trump administration. Additionally, Tesla’s long history of overpromising and underdelivering, such as missing production targets or releasing products that differ sharply from initial announcements, has damaged its credibility and fueled accusations of greenwashing. Societal skepticism toward Tesla’s commitment to sustainable innovation continues to grow.

Blurred Lines Between Politics and Business

Elon Musk’s resignation from DOGE marks a crucial step toward repairing Tesla’s reputation, which had noticeably declined in early 2025. This move signals a renewed focus on Tesla’s core mission, including the return of customers who had grown skeptical of the company’s commitment to sustainable innovation. It underscores the difficult reality that balancing dual roles as a politician and a business leader is inherently vulnerable to conflicts of interest and that one must be prioritized to meet customer expectations effectively. Musk’s involvement with DOGE indicated that he placed political ambitions, particularly those aligned with Trump, above Tesla’s fundamental goals. Trump’s strong influence shaped policy decisions that reflected his controversial and dismissive approach to criticism, which conflicted with Tesla’s values and threatened the company’s commitment to sustainability.

Sustainable leadership is essential for building authentic commitments that resonate with the public, and the #TeslaTakedown movement serves as a clear wake-up call for Musk. Ultimately, only by drawing a clear line between business and politics can Tesla rebuild public trust, regain its competitive edge, and chart a sustainable path forward.

ASEAN nations have been closely observing the trajectory of US-China relations and have expressed their apprehensions vis-à-vis the uncertainty arising out of Trump tariffs. Leaders of Singapore and Malaysia have been particularly vocal in expressing their apprehensions.

While speaking at the opening of the 46th ASEAN Summit held at Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian PM, Anwar Ibrahim, referred to the imposition of tariffs by US President Donald Trump. Said the Malaysian PM:

‘Indeed, a transition in the geopolitical order is underway, and the global trading system is under further strain with the recent imposition of US unilateral tariffs,’

How ASEAN countries have benefited from the China+1 strategy

Here it would be pertinent to point out that ASEAN nations have also benefitted from the China+1 strategy of Western companies. Through this strategy, Western companies have been keen to reduce their dependence upon China and have been shifting to several ASEAN countries. Companies have moved from China not just to Vietnam but to other ASEAN nations like Indonesia and Malaysia as well.

Impact of China-US thaw on ASEAN

While many would have thought that ASEAN countries would heave a sigh of relief after the China-US agreement signed in Geneva, via which the US reduced tariffs against China from 145 percent to 30 percent. There has been a mixed reaction to the same, given the possibility of companies redrawing their China+1 plans.

Malaysia’s interest in BRICS+

Another important impact of Trump’s policies has been ASEAN countries seeking entry into multilateral organizations. Indonesia entered BRICS as a member in January 2025.

Malaysia, which entered BRICS as a partner country in October 2024, has also applied for full membership. Two other ASEAN countries, Vietnam and Thailand, also entered BRICS.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan, while commenting on the ASEAN nation’s interest in joining BRICS:

‘Malaysia’s desire to join BRICS represents its effort to uphold policies and identity as an independent and neutral country, striking a balance with great powers and opening up new business and investment opportunities,’

Malaysia shares close economic ties with China as well as the US and the EU. Malaysia’s bilateral trade with China in 2024 exceeded $200 billion ($212.04 billion). The ASEAN nation’s trade with the US was estimated at $80.2 billion in 2024.

The Malaysian PM, Anwar Ibrahim, had earlier proposed an ‘Asian Monetary Fund’ as an alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In recent years, Malaysia has been pushing for “de-dollarization,” or trade in non-dollar currencies, with several countries.

Anwar Ibrahim’s Russia visit and discussion of BRICS+

Apart from several other bilateral issues, the role of Malaysia in BRICS+ was also discussed during the recent meeting between Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the former’s Russia visit. The Malaysian PM thanked Putin for his role in facilitating Malaysia’s entry into BRICS+. The Russian president, on his part, welcomed the entry of Malaysia and other ASEAN nations as partner countries into BRICS+ during Russia’s chairmanship of BRICS+ in 2024.

During the meeting of Australian PM Anthony Albanese and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto during the former’s Indonesia visit, one of the issues that was discussed was Indonesia’s entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and OECD. The CPTPP—earlier the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—was initially conceived by former US President Barack Obama. During US President Donald Trump’s earlier presidency, the US had pulled out of TPP. While the organization did face a setback after the US exit from the CPTPP — members like Japan and Australia, which are wary of China’s growing clout in the Indo-Pacific, have been playing a key role in giving a push to economic linkages. Two other ASEAN countries—Malaysia and Vietnam—are already members of the CPTPP.

The Indonesian president thanked Australia for its support for Indonesian into the CPTPP.

The Australian PM, while commenting on his support for Indonesia’s entry into CPTPP:

‘I assure you, Mr. President, of Australia’s support for your joining the OECD as well as your accession to the CPTPP.’

The Australian PM also reiterated Indonesia’s strategic importance in the context of the Indo-Pacific.

Indonesia’s important role on the global stage

Indonesia has robust ties with both China and the US and seeks to use multilateral platforms for further enhancing its clout, as several middle powers have done in recent years. Indonesia has sought to present itself as an important voice of the Global South and as an important link between the G7 and G20.

ASEAN-China-GCC

On the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit, the first ASEAN-China-GCC Summit was held for the first time. The Malaysian PM dubbed this as extraordinary. Anwar Ibrahim also said:

‘I am confident that ASEAN, the GCC, and China can draw upon our unique attributes and shape a future that is more connected, more resilient, and more prosperous.’

Conclusion

In conclusion, the interest of countries like Malaysia and Indonesia in entering multilateral organizations is driven by the changing geopolitical situation in ASEAN and beyond. These nations need to be deft and nimble and can not afford to have a zero-sum approach towards the same. The recent ASEAN Summit is a strong illustration of how ASEAN member states are seeking to diversify their relationships by seeking entry into important multilateral blocs. Apart from this, one point that is evident from the recent ASEAN summit was that ASEAN as a grouping is also seeking to strengthen ties with groups like the GCC.

In the world of international relations, foreign aid is not simply about altruism. It is a very complex thing, as Carol Lancaster points out in her fundamental work, Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, and Domestic Politics: Aid is not just about pure altruism or even pure development. It is also about a country’s diplomacy, its domestic politics, and other broader strategic interests. In today’s evolving global landscape, this diplomatic element has increased even further. Today, the world is no longer dominated by one or just two superpowers, but rather a new multipolar order has taken shape, giving rise to a phenomenon or concept that we can call “competitive aid.”

Aid is no longer about who gives more, but rather about a high-stakes game in which countries use it to compete, gain advantage, and consolidate their influence in a country or region. Under these conditions, what does this increased competition mean for recipient countries? Does it really lead to better outcomes for developing countries? Or is it just creating a mess of fragmented efforts, redundant projects, and inappropriate prioritization by geopolitical shifting rather than actual development needs?

Foreign Aid Diplomacy in the New Global Era

To better understand “competitive aid,” we can recall where foreign aid diplomacy came from. For decades after World War II, especially during the Cold War, aid was largely a Western affair, with the United States in the lead. The narrative was often about rebuilding war-ravaged economies or, most importantly, preventing the spread of communist ideology. Aid is a key component of soft power, building alliances and promoting a particular vision of the global order.

Jump forward to the 21st century; the situation seems completely different. We have seen the rise of new economic giants, most notably China, as well as increasingly influential players such as India, Brazil, and the Gulf states. These are not just new faces on the list of donor countries. They bring very different philosophies, historical experiences, and, most importantly, strategic interests. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a very clear example. It is a massive infrastructure financing project that often offers large-scale loans on easier political terms than the approach of traditional Western donors. On the other hand, the European Union emphasizes human rights and good governance in its development cooperation. Meanwhile, US aid often ties its assistance directly to national security concerns, such as stabilizing an unstable region or securing vital supply chains. This diversity of donors, each with their own geopolitical strategies, has undeniably increased competition for aid.

The Dynamics of “Competitive Aid”

So, what exactly does “competitive aid” look like on the ground? It is a complex form of diplomacy where development projects are likened to pawns on a global chessboard. Donor countries are not just writing checks; they are actively competing for influence by offering what they expect to be the most attractive terms, the most impactful projects, or the most strategically aligned visions. The most prominent example of this competitive dynamic is seen in the global scramble for infrastructure development and connectivity. China’s BRI, launched more than a decade ago, has poured massive investment into roads, railways, ports, and digital networks across the continent. While Beijing insists that it is purely about economic growth and trade, it is hard to disregard the undeniable geopolitical implications of expanding China’s economic reach and gaining political influence as a result. A simple example is the Hambantota port project in Sri Lanka. While the project has economic aspirations, its handover to Chinese control due to Sri Lanka’s debt problems has sparked a heated debate on “debt trap diplomacy” and potential strategic leverage for Beijing.

In response, Western powers did not remain silent. The G7’s “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment” (PGII) and the EU’s “Global Gateway” are a direct response and counter-response. These initiatives explicitly aim to provide a “value-based” alternative to infrastructure financing, emphasizing transparency, environmental sustainability, and fair labor practices. It is a clear competition over who will build the next big highway or port, with recipient countries finding themselves persuaded by many different parties offering favors.

However, competitive aid goes beyond just concrete and steel alone. It is also fiercely played out in efforts to gain access to resources. Donors might sweeten the aid package with agreements that guarantee access to vital minerals—for example, cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo or lithium in Latin America—or other important energy supplies. This could manifest as direct investment in extractive industries or broader development programs designed to stabilize strategic resource-rich regions. And let’s not forget the drive to grow political influence and shape the international norm. This can involve financial support for democratic institutions, judicial reform, or civil society groups, all aimed at promoting the donor country’s preferred governance model. Sometimes, it is more transactional in nature, with aid subtly or overtly linked to the recipient country’s support for the donor country’s position on international forums, such as votes in the UN or alignment on key geopolitical issues. This competition is not just about physical assets; it is about hearts, minds, and diplomatic solidarity.

So, what does all this competition mean for aid effectiveness and how it is coordinated? To be honest, it’s a double-edged sword that offers both exciting possibilities and significant headaches for recipient countries. On the one hand, a diverse donor landscape can be a good thing. With many players offering aid, recipient countries may find themselves in a stronger bargaining position. They can potentially negotiate better terms, more flexible loan conditions, or projects that are truly aligned with their own development plans. This is a bit like a “buyer’s market” for development, which, in an ideal world, could lead to more aid flows and faster progress. Just imagine a country in need of a new national railroad, perhaps getting attractive bids from Chinese, European, and American consortiums, allowing them to choose the best fit. This competitive pressure may even encourage donors to be more responsive to local needs.

However, the drawbacks of competitive aid are often greater, creating real challenges for aid effectiveness. First, when donors focus primarily on their own strategic interests, it often leads to a lack of coordination that is ultimately underwhelming. Donors may ignore existing national development strategies or multilateral coordination mechanisms and prefer to work bilaterally to maximize their own visibility and influence. This can result in fragmented aid efforts, where projects are undertaken in isolation, without synergy or a cohesive approach to a country’s overall development. Imagine a scenario where multiple donors fund separate, unconnected health clinics in the same district, rather than collaborating to build a comprehensive and integrated healthcare system. This duplication of efforts and resources is simply very inefficient and certainly wasteful.

Second, competitive aid can easily lead to misplaced development priorities. Recipient countries, desperate for funds, may feel pressured to accept projects that primarily serve the donor’s strategic agenda, even if it is not the most urgent or beneficial for themselves. This can result in the infamous “white elephant” projects with large-scale infrastructure that look impressive but are economically unfeasible or poorly integrated into the local economy. They become more about donor prestige than real development goals. And then there is the obvious risk of an increased debt burden. While the “debt trap diplomacy” narrative (the idea that China deliberately traps countries in debt to seize assets) is the subject of ongoing academic debate, the reality is that large, non-transparent loans from multiple sources can pile up very quickly. If these projects do not generate sufficient economic returns, recipient countries can find themselves trapped in ongoing debt and forced to divert critical resources from social services to debt repayment.

Finally, this competitive dynamic could erode multilateralism and established international development norms. If powerful countries consistently prioritize interest-driven bilateral aid over collaborative efforts through multilateral bodies, it will undermine institutions designed to promote coordinated, principles-based development. This could erode trust, create parallel aid structures, and make it harder to address global challenges that truly require collective action, such as climate change or future pandemics, which demand a united front. The recent decline in official development assistance (ODA) from some traditional donors, partly due to domestic refugee costs and shifting geopolitical priorities, further underscores how fragile the aid landscape is in this competitive environment.

A Path Forward: Navigating the New Aid Landscape

It is clear that foreign aid diplomacy has undergone a profound transformation. What was once a tool for post-war reconstruction has become a central player in today’s complex geopolitical arena. The rise of new global powers has undeniably ushered in an era of “competitive aid,” where development assistance is increasingly becoming a strategic asset in the pursuit of influence and advantage. Despite the tempting promise that this competition might offer more choice and leverage to recipient countries, fragmentation, duplication, distorted priorities, and the continuing shadow of debt present formidable obstacles to proper and long-term development.

So, where do we go from here? Responsibility certainly lies on both sides. For recipient countries, it is crucial to develop strong strategic planning capacity and sharpen their negotiation skills. This is not just about receiving money but rather about ensuring that foreign aid actually serves their national development agenda rather than being a mere pawn in a larger geopolitical chess game. For donor countries, while national interest will always be a driving force, there is a strong argument for a renewed commitment to coordination, transparency, and adherence to internationally agreed principles of aid effectiveness. In conclusion, moving beyond a purely competitive mindset towards a more collaborative approach to foreign aid diplomacy is very essential. It’s not just about being generous. It is about how to effectively address global challenges together and build a more just and prosperous world for all. The shifting balance of power demands not only new strategies but also a careful re-evaluation of the purpose and practice of foreign aid itself.

Within the context of an enduring relationship dating back to May 1975, the establishment of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as a regional bloc with an aspiration of transforming the elongated region along the Atlantic coast and stretching across the Sahel-Savanna bordering the Maghreb. ECOWAS sets out its broad operations incorporating politics, economy, security, social, and culture. The long-term goal is ensuring regional economic sovereignty and political unity among its twelve countries of West Africa.

Today, ECOWAS’s 50 years of its existence represent its marked achievement. It has lagged with issues of fostering strategic solidarity and commitments to its expected goals of sustainable economic transformation. As the regional bloc marked its 50th anniversary in May 2025, ECOWAS had a few achievements to show to the public but faced remarkable and daunting challenges, and these have raised questions about its future.  

On the stage of its aggrandizement, on May 26, ECOWAS officially launched activities commemorating its 50th anniversary in Praia, the capital city of Cabo Verde. The ceremony brought together high-level dignitaries, including the Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Cabo Verde, Miryan Vieira; the Acting Resident Representative of the ECOWAS Commission in Cabo Verde and Executive Director of ECREEE, Francis Sempore; the Director of the Multinational Maritime Coordination Centre for Zone G; members of the diplomatic corps; representatives of various municipalities; and ECOWAS officials in Cabo Verde.

Francis Sempore emphasized the importance of the golden jubilee, noting that “this 50th anniversary is a remarkable milestone — a time not only for celebration but also for reflection. As we mark five decades of regional cooperation and solidarity, we must redouble efforts to strengthen integration and foster collaboration for a brighter, united future in West Africa.”

Miryan Vieira commended ECOWAS for its continued presence and impact in Cabo Verde. Referring to the promotion of sustainable energy, she underlined the immense growth potential of the ECOWAS region and further called for a “people-centered approach” to regional integration that prioritizes human development and inclusivity.

The final launch was preceded by a press conference at the ECOWAS Representation in Praia. It is most important to remember here that ECOWAS’s golden jubilee commemorations aimed to deepen citizens’ connection to the regional vision, promote shared values, and inspire the next generation of West Africans to contribute to a more integrated and prosperous community.

Despite its excellent aspirations and objectives, regional security has been one of the main obstacles in the region. ECOWAS has seemingly been losing its decades-old credibility primarily due to its approach in ensuring regional peace and stability. The overarching combined narratives starkly pointed to this as its major weakness. The ultimate failure to comprehend the neocolonial goals of foreign powers has created deep cracks in ECOWAS.

According to our monitoring, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, on 29 January 2025, declared withdrawal from the bloc. The three French-speaking West African countries, currently governed by military juntas, have formed the Alliance of Sahel States, citing sovereignty concerns and dissatisfaction with ECOWAS’s responses to political and security developments. As the Sahel region continues to grapple with instability and conflict, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger sought other alternatives, and foreign powers are competing to explore and control the abundant mineral resources of these countries in West Africa.

The regional bloc still looks for mechanisms to resolve the security crisis. It has persistently come under fierce criticism; it slackens on its primary responsibilities. Some experts have called for staff changes, attributing them to deep inefficiency. In fact, its reputation has been at stake, and most probably, it needs new dynamic faces at the Secretariat in Abuja, Nigeria.

On May 16th, the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC) and the ECOWAS Mediation and Security Council (MSC) held their second joint consultative meeting at the AU Headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, which served as a strategic platform to strengthen cooperation on governance, peace, and security within the frameworks of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), the African Governance Architecture (AGA), and the AU’s Master Roadmap to Silence the Guns by 2030.

Opening the session, Ambassador Harold Bundu Saffa, Chair of the AU PSC for May 2025, welcomed the symbolic significance of holding the meeting and called for a deeper AU–ECOWAS cooperation built on mutual trust and joint responses to emerging challenges such as climate-related security risks, digital conflicts, and youth-led peace initiatives.

In his remarks, Ambassador Musa Sani Nuhu, Chair of the ECOWAS MSC, stressed the urgent need to intensify regional cooperation amid rising insecurity across the continent. He cited threats such as unconstitutional changes of government, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and humanitarian crises. “Africa stands at a defining moment in its history,” he stated. “It is vital that we engage in open and constructive dialogue to identify synergies and build a strong, united response to the challenges we all face.”

For his part, Ambassador Abdel-Fatau Musah, ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, emphasized the need for inclusive and responsive governance, as well as stronger regional solidarity. “History will not remember our communiqués, but the peace we built, the lives we protected, and the future we dared to imagine together,” he said. Musah, however, advocated for the full involvement of youth and women in peace processes and urged Member States to make subsidiarity a practical foundation for trust and cooperation.

In his keynote address, Ambassador Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, highlighted the importance of long-term institutional partnerships and regular consultations to secure regional peace and foster economic integration. “The AU PSC and ECOWAS MSC must work hand-in-hand on peace and security issues in West Africa,” he stated, commending ECOWAS’s leadership and achievements over its 50-year history, especially in conflict prevention and peace support operations.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the African Union and ECOWAS reaffirmed their strong commitment to strengthening their partnership in addressing the continent’s peace and security challenges through preventive diplomacy, mediation, and joint peace support operations, guided by the principles of subsidiarity, complementarity, and comparative advantage. Nevertheless, there is hope, most probably in the near future, to overcome these existing development roadblocks and make way for practical strategic development, as the countries in the region have both abundant human and natural resources under the umbrella of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

A pilot has been hailed a “hero” after he took revenge on a woman who sprinted to the front of the plane as soon as it landed, despite the seatbelt sign still being on

A pilot has been praised as a “hero” for his tongue-in-cheek response to an impatient woman who dashed down the aisle to be the first off the aircraft. A fellow traveller recounted on Reddit how the woman leapt from her seat the moment the plane touched down and bolted towards the exit.

Ignoring the illuminated seatbelt sign and the cabin crew’s requests to sit down until the aircraft had come to a complete stop, she made her way to the front. The passenger posted: “The woman in the back unbuckled and darted to the front of the plane to get off first.

READ MORE: Award-winning gut health brand cuts 25% off ‘life changing’ bloating-busting sachet

“She did not make any eye contact and felt that she was special. I’m talking about going from the very last seat on the plane, down the whole row, and past first class, basically standing at the little kitchen thing in the front.

“The seat belt sign was still on and we were still rolling down the runway. The flight crew had asked her to return to her seat until we reached the gate but she was not even responding.”

After the gruelling eight-hour flight, all eyes were on the woman as passengers watched the drama unfold. That’s when the captain decided to address the situation with a bit of humour.

The passenger continued: “Suddenly the captain announced we had a special guest onboard and he would be coming out to greet them after we were settled at the gate,” they added. “The woman stood there awkwardly until we did the whole rolling into the gate thing, and whatever planes do when they land, for about 15 to 20 minutes. Everyone sat there waiting to see what the captain was talking about.

“Eventually, the captain came out and asked the lady to please move back a little to get to his special guest, then a little more, then a little more. He was looking from row to row trying to find a specific person.

“Everyone is watching and looking around to see who it could be.” The pilot continued to guide her back one row at a time until she reached the very rear of the aircraft.

“Finally, as they neared the back of the plane, he asked her to sit for a moment while he fetched the intercom from the rear. He said: ‘Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to announce our special guest sitting in seat 42C. Let’s give her a round of applause’.

“The whole plane erupted with laughter and applause. I loved every moment of that.” Reflecting on the pilot’s clever manoeuvre, one user commented: “That pilot is a hero to the people.

Another added: “I was hoping that the special guest was a federal marshal coming onboard to arrest the woman for refusing to follow safety-related commands given by members of the flight crew.”

One passenger contributed: “Sometimes when a plane is late arriving, there are people who have a connecting flight that will be very tight to make.

“They need to disembark quickly to stand any chance at their connection. The best way to handle that is to inform the stewardess and they can make a general announcement.

“Of course, sometimes people ignore that announcement and block the aisle for those people anyway.”

Jordan Thomas didn’t want to just research and write about fire, he wanted to see it up close, and he has turned that experience into the exceptional new book, “When It All Burns.” A specialist in the cultural forces that shape fire, Thomas joined the Los Padres Hotshots, a crew that might be viewed as the Navy SEALs of firefighting. He spent 2021 battling wildfires extreme and treacherous even by the standards of these globally warmed times.

A first-person account would be compelling enough, especially given Thomas’ gift for terse, layered expository writing. But Thomas has more on his mind here. He alternates sequences of harrowing action and macho team-building with deep dives into the ecology, science, economics and, most important, Indigenous cultural practices related to fire. In Thomas’ hands these subjects are interconnected, and his writing brings new heat to an ubiquitous subject.

If you live anywhere near Los Angeles, you may very well prefer not to read “When It All Burns.” But you should. Just this last January, a series of wildfires ravaged the region, fed by gusting Santa Ana winds, drought conditions and low humidity. Projected damage from the fires had ballooned to more than $250 billion in damages in January, The Times reported. At least 30 people were killed in the fires, with economic ramifications expected to stretch into the unforeseeable future. “When It All Burns” was written well before any of this happened, and it sometimes carries the force of prophecy. The fire next time has already burned, though there will surely be more.

Thomas sets the table early on: “In the past two decades, wildfires have been doing things not even computer models can predict, environmental events that have scientists racking their brains for appropriately Dystopian technology: firenados, gigafires, megafires. Scientists recently invented the term ‘megafire’ to describe wildfires that behave in ways that would have been impossible just a generation ago, burning through winter, exploding in the night, and devastating landscapes historically impervious to incendiary destruction.”

In other words, it’s only going to get worse. As a member of the Hotshots crew, Thomas hacked away at undergrowth with a chainsaw as the firefighters made their advance, and he found himself fascinated by the subculture of people, mostly men, assigned to combat these otherworldly infernos. But the education and knowledge he carries also makes him deeply ambivalent about the very nature of fire suppression.

Author Jordan Thomas.

(Sari Blum)

For centuries, Indigenous peoples the world over have used controlled fires, or “cultural burning,” for any number of purposes, from agriculture to reducing the risk of uncontrolled fires. But such practices didn’t jibe with increasingly modern economies, and colonialists, especially in North America, saw burning as both barbaric and a threat to industrialized capitalism. Fire surpression was more than a byproduct of Native American genocide, it was part of the master plan: “In California, fire had always connected people to their food, and Americans set about its suppression with unprecedented brutality.” Researchers who tried to bring this history to light often had their work suppressed like one more controlled fire. And as the practice declined, wildfires entered the breach.

As you might expect, life as a Hotshot is fraught with medical risk: Hotshots tend to work sick and injured, loathe to pass up the overtime and hazard pay on which they depend. As Thomas writes, “The precarious lives of Hotshots are one flashpoint in an expanding field of self-reinforcing social and environmental crises. Scientists call this a sacrifice zone — a place where low-income people shoulder the burden of industrial misconduct.”

Every time “When It All Burns” threatens to get dry, like a combustible piece of brush, Thomas brings it back to his own firefighting travails, and the cast of Hotshot characters who showed him the ropes, berated him and bailed him out.

The two Los Padres leaders are Edgar, a stern drill sergeant-type who rides everyone with equal venom, and Aoki, just as demanding but with more of a shaman-warrior demeanor. Aoki conducts Thomas’ job interview as the two men hike a steep hill; Thomas eventually has to decide between asking questions, which takes up oxygen, or concentrating on the task at hand.

“At a certain level of physical suffering, the pain becomes almost comedic,” he notes, as he assesses his condition before hiking a mountain to carry an injured firefighter back downhill. “My feet were torn and oozing within my elk leather boots, and every inch of my skin was a rash of poison oak. Hours before I had been incapacitated by muscle cramps.” And moments later: “The only antidote to the discomfort was to return to the level of exhaustion where the body becomes numb.”

“When It All Burns” is one of those books that immerses the reader in the nuances of a world most of us know only through the lens of tragedy and destruction. Thomas’ visceral, crystalline prose only adds fuel to the fire.

Vognar is a freelance culture writer.

ACTRESS Madeline Brewer makes a splash — in a dress made from a Sun front page.

Redhead Madeline, 33, star of Netflix hit You, wore it for Behind the Blinds magazine.

2

It features a January 1986 edition of The Sun — the first printed at Wapping.

The style resembles the John Galliano newspaper dress worn by Sex and The City star Sarah Jessica Parker in the popular series.

Madeline starred alongside actor Penn Badgley in popular series You.

In the fifth and final series, which is now streaming, viewers will see Joe embarking on an affair with a young woman named Bronte, played by Madeline.

They meet after she gains employment at his bookstore but it soon becomes clear that she has an ulterior motive after she developed suspicions that Joe was responsible for the death of her close friend.

Penn has led the show since its inception on the streaming service but has shied away from getting down and dirty on-camera for the past two series.

However, he has since decided that in order to give the show a “proper conclusion,” he needs to head back to the bedroom to spice things up for the final series.

2

• @behindtheblinds. Madeline is wearing @vetements_official on the cover. She’s captured by @foxhunter & styled by @orettac. Shot for Behind The Blinds Magazine.

The intricate and multifaceted matters of normative relations among the nations of the Northeast Asian countries, even though they are entangled in specific issues stemming from territorial disputes, challenge a well-established norm and order of diplomatic relations. One of the problems is the matter of Dokdo Island’s ownership, which was disputed by the authorities of South Korea and Japan. With its significant historical and geopolitical implications, this dispute is a key factor in the region’s diplomatic landscape. On the other hand, with another matter of dispute, China and South Korea still have an issue with the overlapping territory of the exclusive economic zone. The problem is currently exacerbated by China’s installation of aquaculture facilities in the Provisional Measures Zone (PMZ), a move that has significantly heightened the tension in the region and underscores the need for resolution. This territory is located off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula, making it a complex challenge to maintain Korea-China’s diplomatic relations.

At the same time, China and Japan confronted another issue similar to the South Korean dispute. Both of them claim the Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands. The controversy also concerns the island’s ownership and reflects each country’s historical and cultural perspectives. Japan’s government called the island the Senkaku Islands, while China’s authority named the islands the Diaoyu Islands.

Amid the tariff oppression, which refers to the imposition of high tariffs on Chinese goods by the Trump administration, China has to face two different challenges. In one position, China has to stand against the high-handed Donald Trump’s ruling, which is seen as aggressive and unfair, but in the other position, China also struggles to bring a solution with its nearest neighbor countries in Northeast Asia, where the territorial disputes add a layer of complexity to the already well-established relations.

China’s authority realizes the crucial role of Japan and South Korea, which act as part of the US’s allies in Asia. Their relationship is strategic for the US and makes sense for China, as their connections become part of the US’s long history. This is in stark contrast to China’s past, when it was the US’s opponent during the Korean War. However, China might be letting Japan and Korea connect to the US as allies because they were China’s nearest neighbors in Northeast Asia, which could share and maintain a partnership without causing overwhelming disruptions. The mutual respect and relationship between China, Japan, and South Korea is a beacon of hope, offering a promising and positive outlook for the region’s future.

China and the US, as two economic powerhouses, often find themselves at odds. However, it’s important to note that their relationship is not solely defined by geopolitical tensions. The two countries are deeply intertwined economically, with significant trade and investment ties. This economic interdependence, which is further underscored by their influence in the G20 forum and their status as major trading partners with Korea and Japan, is a complex web that cannot be easily untangled. Despite China’s efforts to diversify its economic relationships, it continues to value the US’ political, legal, and justice systems and its socio-economic structure. The significance of these financial ties cannot be overstated, as they play a crucial role in shaping the geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia.

Despite the unfortunate geopolitical situation, the Chinese government’s steadfast commitment to resolving the interrelations crisis is unwavering. China’s Foreign Minister Spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, clarified that the construction of the aquaculture facilities, a point of contention, did not violate any previous agreements. The Chinese government’s decision to send its delegation, led by Hong Liang, Director-General of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for in-person dialogue with a South Korean representative is a clear demonstration of this commitment. The recent meeting between Hong Liang and Kang Young-Shin, Director-General for Northeast and Central Asian Affairs at the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on 23 April 2025, is a promising step towards potential progress. This progress in the dialogue instills optimism for the future and underscores the potential for a peaceful resolution, providing a ray of hope in an otherwise complex situation.

The dialogue of top government officials presents a pivotal platform for resolving the prolonged standoff initiated by both countries in 2019. The potential for a mutually accepted agreement in the Yellow Sea dispute dialogue is not just a beacon of hope but a realistic possibility that should inspire optimism. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that the outcome of this dialogue may not necessarily mirror the outcome of the Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. The Yellow Sea dispute dialogue, which encompasses territorial claims and maritime rights, remains crucial in Northeast Asian geopolitics.

Nevertheless, the Yellow Sea dialogue’s resolution couldn’t significantly affect how the Japan-South Korean government resolves the entire Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. Beyond territorial claims, this dispute symbolizes the intricate historical and cultural relations between Japan and South Korea. Diplomatically, South Korea and Japan have made substantial progress in finding a solution, presenting various evidence and approaches to ensure a fair judgment for both. However, as of the end of 2024, the problem remains in a stalemate without a final resolution. This situation underscores the critical need for a nuanced approach in international relations, where tact and understanding can pave the way for resolution, highlighting the importance of understanding the complexities.

The past geopolitical landscape in Northeast Asia is deeply entrenched in a long and complex history, notably Japan’s occupation of Chinese territory, South Korea, and some Southeast Asian countries. This historical context, with its layers of complexity and depth, is an undeniable part of the current geopolitical landscape. The Chinese can never forget this dark period, even though Japan and China have officially tightened diplomatic relations to construct a prospective and reliable Asia. Similarly, South Korea may never forget what Japan did in the past. Indeed, Koreans have not entirely forgiven what Japan did. This historical backdrop underscores the depth of the issues and the need for a nuanced approach to diplomatic relations in Northeast Asia. It’s not a matter of simple solutions but of understanding the intricate web of history, culture, and politics that shapes these relations. This complexity and depth of the problems in the region necessitate a nuanced approach, making the audience feel the weight of the issues at hand and the importance of understanding the historical and cultural context. Only by understanding this context can we hope to navigate the complexities of Northeast Asian geopolitics.

South Korea is also determined not to be left behind in economic and diplomatic relations with others. Therefore, today, Korea actively seeks intense cooperation with China and Japan regarding global security, trade, and cultural exchange, and fosters candid cultural and financial enhancement. This intense cooperation includes regular high-level diplomatic dialogues, joint security exercises, and collaborative economic initiatives. South Korea recognizes it cannot stand alone without China and Japan, as they are pivotal neighbors in Northeast Asia.

The governments of Northeast Asian countries are acutely aware that the US-China trade war significantly impacts the global economic landscape. This trade war, which has led to economic uncertainties and geopolitical tensions, has also influenced the diplomatic relations and security strategies of countries in the region. Despite the region’s bleak history, it is becoming increasingly clear that the countries in Northeast Asia are not isolated entities but deeply interconnected and interdependent. South Korea’s sustainable diplomatic relations with China and Japan are crucial for its global standing and security. By collaborating with these countries, South Korea can strengthen its position in the international community and ensure its protection in the face of global challenges, including those arising from the US-China trade war. The trade war has forced countries in the region to reassess their economic and security strategies, leading to a more interconnected and interdependent Northeast Asia. This reassessment includes a shift towards diversifying trade partners and strengthening regional security alliances, highlighting the region’s adaptability and resilience in the face of global challenges.

Northeast Asian interdependence underscores the need for peaceful and constructive relations among these countries and their collective influence on the worldwide community. The economic and diplomatic ties between South Korea, China, and Japan are not just about mutual benefits and shared security and prosperity in the region but also about the potential for increased economic growth and enhanced security. This collaboration offers reassurance about the potential benefits of these ties and the collective strength they can bring, reassuring the audience about the future and the positive outcomes that can be achieved through such cooperation.

Disclaimer: The Author wishes to reiterate that this article reflects his views and does not represent any institution. He also wants to emphasize that he takes personal responsibility for the content and accuracy of the information in this article, and any decision made based on this information is the reader’s responsibility.