International Trade

Kano, Nigeria – On a bustling day in northern Nigeria, Marian Shammah made her way to the Sabon Gari Market, one of the largest electronics hubs in Kano state.

The 34-year-old cleaner was in need of a refrigerator, but with rising costs and a meagre income, she saw the second-hand appliances sold at the market as a lifeline.

After locating the one she wanted, she paid the vendor 50,000 naira ($36) and took it home. But just a month later, the freezer collapsed.

“Only the top half of the refrigerator was working, and the freezer wasn’t working,” said Shammah.

Her food spoiled, her savings disappeared, and she was soon back in the market searching for another appliance.

Although Shammah could have bought a new local appliance for just over 30,000 naira ($30) more, she – like millions of Nigerians – believes second-hand products from America and Europe “last longer” than new products sold in Nigeria.

Observers say this trend is part of a larger crisis. Nigeria has become a major destination for the developed world’s discarded electronics – items often near the end of life, sometimes completely dead, and frequently toxic because they contain hazardous materials. When they break down, they add to landfills, worsening an already dire e-waste crisis on the African continent.

Around 60,000 tonnes of used electronics enter Nigeria through key ports each year, with at least 15,700 tonnes already damaged upon arrival, according to the United Nations.

The trade in used electronic goods is powered largely by foreign exporters. A UN tracking study between 2015 and 2016 showed that more than 85 percent of used electronics imported into Nigeria originated from Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, China, the United States, and the Republic of Ireland.

Many of these imports violate international restrictions, like the Basel Convention, an environmental treaty regulating the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous electronic waste to developing countries with weaker environmental laws.

Across West Africa, the Basel Convention’s “E-Waste Africa Programme”, a project focused on strengthening e-waste management systems across the continent, estimates that Benin, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Liberia, and Nigeria collectively generate between 650,000 and 1,000,000 tonnes of e-waste annually – much of it the result of short-lifespan second-hand imports.

Health risks

The United Nations describes e-waste as any discarded device that uses a battery or plug and contains hazardous substances – like mercury – that can endanger both human health and the environment. Several of the toxic components commonly found in e-waste are included on the list of 10 chemicals of major public health concern maintained by the World Health Organization (WHO).

According to the WHO, used electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) presents a growing public health and environmental threat across Africa, with Nigeria at the centre of the trade.

“Much of the equipment shipped as used electronics is close to becoming waste,” said Rita Idehai, founder of Ecobarter, a Lagos-based environmental NGO, warning that devices imported and sold as affordable second-hand goods often fail shortly after arrival and quickly enter the waste stream.

The consequences are far-reaching. Many imported fridges and air conditioners, for instance, still contain CFC-based and HCFC-based refrigerants such as R-12 and R-22 – chemicals banned in Europe and the US for causing ozone depletion or being linked to cancer, miscarriages, neurological disorders, and long-term soil contamination. These gases live for 12 to 100 years, meaning leaking equipment adds to a multi-generational environmental burden.

After these imported items stop working or fall apart, informal recyclers then dismantle the electronics with their bare hands, Al Jazeera observed. In Kano, the recyclers inhale poisonous fumes and manage the heavy metals without protection. Their work earns them a meagre 3,500–14,000 naira ($2.50-$10) per week, they said, and the after-effects linger – including persistent coughing, chest pain, headaches, eye irritation, and breathing difficulties after long hours of burning cables and dismantling electronic devices.

The health crisis extends into Kano’s communities.

Among casual recyclers and residents who live close to e-waste dumps, many report symptoms that range from chronic headaches and skin irritation to breathing issues, miscarriages and neurological concerns, according to health surveys done by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. These ailments are consistent with longtime toxic exposure, the researchers said.

Recent field assessments conducted by Nigeria’s Federal University Dutse also stressed that in and around Kano state, where the Sabon Gari Market is located, there are rising levels of heavy metals in soil and drainage channels.

Dr Ushakuma Michael Anenga, a gynaecologist at the Benue State Teaching Hospital and second vice president of the Nigerian Medical Association, warned that toxic exposure from informal e-waste recycling poses grave health risks to communities in Kano.

“Exposure to heavy metals and refrigerant gases in e-waste causes extreme brief and long-term health issues, generally affecting the breathing and renal organs,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Common casual practices like exposed burning and dismantling result in direct, high-level exposure for workers and nearby residents. Children and pregnant girls are particularly inclined due to the fact that those toxicants can disrupt development or even skip from mother to unborn baby, [while] recyclers who work without defensive equipment face repeated, frequently irreversible damage.”

Profits over protection

In Sabon Gari Market, second-hand electronics are advertised as less costly lifelines for households and poor business owners burdened by inflation.

Many customers say foreign-used home equipment appears sturdier and seems like better value for money than new imports from the developing world. Meanwhile, others are just looking for cheap options in difficult economic times.

“I usually go for second-hand or foreign-used electronics because brand-new ones are too expensive for me,” Umar Hussaini, who sells used electronics at the market, told Al Jazeera.

“Sometimes you can get them for half the price of new ones, and they look almost the same, so it feels like a good deal at the time.”

But the last refrigerator he bought stopped cooling after just three months. With no warranty or guarantee, the seller refused responsibility.

“For weeks, we couldn’t store food properly at home, and we ended up buying food daily, which was more expensive,” he said. “However, I have to buy another one again.”

For small business owners like Salisu Saidu, the losses can be even more devastating. He bought a used freezer for his shop, believing it had been serviced. Within weeks, it failed.

“I lost a lot of frozen food, which meant I lost money and customers,” he told Al Jazeera.

Around his neighbourhood, broken electronics are often dumped out in the street, sometimes emitting smoke or sparks.

“There’s also a lot of electronic waste piling up around,” he said, calling for tighter import controls, proper certification, and mandatory warranties to protect buyers from being sold what he described as “damaged goods disguised as fairly used”.

Bought as bargains, sold as burdens

At Sabon Gari Market, another vendor, Umar Abdullahi, is surrounded by imported refrigerators, air conditioners and washing machines stacked tightly together.

The products in his shop are advertised as “London use” or “Direct Belgium”, while he negotiates the sale of a double-door fridge for 120,000 naira ($87).

Abdullahi’s store is where Shammah returned after the refrigerator she bought failed. But he admits that much of what he sells to customers arrives unchecked.

“We buy them untested from suppliers in Europe, and we also sell them untested so we can make our profit,” he told Al Jazeera.

This despite the fact that international rules under the Basel Convention, as well as Nigerian environmental regulations, prohibit the shipment of material considered e-waste – with penalties including fines and jail terms.

Nwamaka Ejiofor, a spokesperson for Nigeria’s National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), said the country does not permit the import of e-waste. However, the entry of used electronics is allowed under regulated conditions.

“The importation of used electrical and electronic equipment is regulated and may be allowed only where such equipment meets prescribed conditions, including functionality and compliance requirements,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Nigeria applies a combination of regulatory, administrative and enforcement measures to ensure that imported used electronics comply with national law and the country’s international obligations,” she added, listing out measures including environmental regulations, cargo inspection and verifying that imported equipment is “functional”.

However, despite this, some traders find loopholes in the system, including declaring cargo they plan to sell as personal belongings or second-hand household goods to avoid scrutiny.

Although NESREA says enforcement has improved, critics say the steady flow of mediocre goods continues largely unchecked. Even dealers at Sabon Gari Market acknowledge that most appliances are sold “as is”, without certification or guarantees.

‘Loopholes’

Behind the second-hand electronics trade is a network of collectors and exporters who source discarded appliances across Europe.

Baban Ladan Issa, who ships used electronics from Ireland to Nigeria, said items are gathered from weekend markets, private homes that are replacing old gadgets, and contractors clearing out equipment from offices, hotels and hospitals.

“Some suppliers mix working and damaged goods together,” he told Al Jazeera, noting that while he tries to avoid faulty items, not all buyers do the same.

Once assembled, shipments worth millions of naira are sent to Lagos through ships then down to sellers in the market in Kano state, sometimes packed in containers or hidden inside vehicles to reduce inspection risks.

Shipping records seen by Al Jazeera showed consignments labelled as “personal effects”, a classification that can limit detailed checks at ports.

Chinwe Okafor, an environmental policy analyst based in Abuja, said the problem is systemic.

“Exporting nations regularly take advantage of loopholes by means of labelling nonfunctional e-waste as ‘second-hand goods’ or ‘for repair,’” she told Al Jazeera. “In some instances, research estimates that over 75 percent of what arrives in developing countries is truly junk.”

“This permits wealthy countries to keep away from highly-priced recycling at home while pushing unsafe materials into nations with weaker safeguards.”

Ibrahim Adamu, a programme officer with the NGO Ecobarter, added that mislabelling, poor inspection technology and corruption at ports make enforcement difficult.

“The highest profits are captured by exporters and brokers who arbitrage the gap between disposal costs in Europe or Asia and the strong demand for ‘tokunbo’ goods in Nigeria,” he said, using the local name for used imported electronics.

To forestall this, he said Nigeria “must reinforce border inspections” and implement a policy whereby producers and manufacturers bear financial responsibility. At the same time, “the international network has to adopt binding bans that [hold] manufacturers and exporters responsible”, Adamu said.

Little oversight, mounting risks

Although Nigeria has regulations governing the import of electrical and electronic equipment, enforcement gaps keep exposing markets like Kano’s Sabon Gari to ageing and near-end-of-life appliances, locals say.

Ibrahim Bello, a used electronics importer with a decade in the business, said many shipments that arrive from Europe are in less-than-ideal condition.

“Around 20 to 30 percent of the items we receive have issues when they arrive,” he told Al Jazeera. “Some are already damaged, while others stop working after a short time because they are old.

“That’s just part of the business.”

Retailer Chinedu Peter gave similar estimates. “From what I’ve experienced, maybe 40 percent of the electronics have some fault as they come,” he said, adding that environmental and protection checks don’t happen as they are meant to.

“Such a lot of items enter without special checks.”

Both men feel that clearer rules and certified testing systems will improve trust. But until then, thousands of ageing, unsuitable products will continue to flood Nigeria.

Shammah, back at Sabon Gari Market just weeks after her refrigerator broke, was once again searching through rows of stacked appliances, hoping her next purchase might last longer than the last.

“I don’t really trust these fairly used appliances again, but I still have to buy something because we need it at home,” she told Al Jazeera.

“This time I’m thinking … I can buy a new one from a proper shop, even if it takes longer, because I don’t want to lose my money again.”

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko gifted North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a gun after the two countries signed a friendship treaty during the Belarusian’s first official state visit.

The head of US Central Command says forces have struck Iranian coastal missile sites and infrastructure, degrading Tehran’s ability to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, as Washington vows to continue targeting its regional military capabilities.

Workers in India’s textile hub Surat are returning home after days without cooking gas, as an LPG crisis linked to Iran war disruptions halts supplies. Industries face shutdowns, while authorities invoke emergency measures to prioritise households.

Russian oil is emerging as a key beneficiary of the US-Israeli war on Iran, as countries scramble to charter tankers following United States President Donald Trump’s decision to temporarily ease sanctions, analysts say.

Following a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on March 10, Trump said the US would waive Russian oil-related sanctions on “some countries” to ease the shortage caused by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which in peacetime carries 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas from producers in the Gulf.

This week, it was reported that a number of tankers carrying Russian oil bound for China had changed course and were heading for India instead.

According to figures from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), Russia earned an additional 672 million euros ($777m) in oil sales in the first two weeks of the war on Iran, which began on February 28 when Israel and the US launched strikes on Tehran, killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials.

Iran has since struck back, launching thousands of missiles and drones towards Israel as well as US military assets and infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf countries. The war stepped up a level this week, when Israel bombed Iran’s critical South Pars gasfield, and Iran hit back with strikes on Gulf energy assets, including Qatar’s Ras Laffan Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility – the world’s largest.

This week, the average price of Urals oil – the Russian benchmark – was significantly higher than the pre-war price of less than $60, at around $90 per barrel.

Here’s more about who is buying Russian oil and which other nations might benefit from the oil crisis.

Why is Russian oil benefitting from the Iran war?

Iran’s effective closure of the Hormuz Strait, which is the only sea route from the Gulf to the open ocean, has “walled in” 20 million barrels of Gulf oil per day, George Voloshin, an independent energy analyst based in Paris, told Al Jazeera.

This has prompted the US to, at least temporarily, ease sanctions on shipped Russian oil to slow the ensuing energy crisis and potential global price collapse. The price of Brent crude, the international benchmark, has risen to above $100 a barrel since the closure of the strait, compared with about $65 before the war began.

Many analysts say a price of $200 is no longer “far-fetched”.

“Russia has emerged as a primary beneficiary of the Middle East conflict due to the massive supply vacuum created by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Voloshin said. “Global refiners are desperate for alternative medium-sour crudes, a need that Russia’s Urals grade specifically meets.”

He added that the US decision to grant a temporary reprieve for shipped Russian oil “has provided Moscow with a critical window to maximise export volumes and oil revenues, essentially allowing Russian crude to act as the world’s primary swing supply during the Iranian blockade”.

How has the price of Russian oil been affected so far?

The price of Russian Urals has surged significantly, experts say. As a result of US sanctions, the oil had been trading at below $60 a barrel for some time. However, while “Urals historically traded at a significant discount to Brent due to Western sanctions”, Voloshin said, “that gap has narrowed as demand outstrips supply”.

“Since the beginning of the year, the price of Russian oil is estimated to have risen by nearly 80 percent – most recently close to $90 per barrel – and consistently trading well above the G7 price cap of $60 as buyers prioritise energy security over regulatory compliance in a high-volatility environment,” he added.

Are ships changing course to deliver Russian oil to new buyers?

Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported that at least seven tankers carrying Russian oil had changed course mid-voyage from China to India, citing data from Vortexa, the data analytics group.

Then, Indian media quoted Rakesh Kumar Sinha, special secretary in the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, confirming that the Aqua Titan, a Russian oil-laden tanker originally destined for China, is now expected to arrive at New Mangalore port on March 21 having been chartered by Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MPCL).

India was the first country to receive a time-limited exemption from the US Treasury to import Russian oil that is already at sea, Voloshin said.

“There is clear evidence of a massive logistical redirection of Russian oil cargoes mid-voyage. Several tankers originally bound for Chinese ports have, indeed, switched trajectory to India. This shift is driven by India’s aggressive pursuit of discounted distressed cargoes to fill its strategic reserves and meet domestic demand, as well as the increased risk and insurance costs associated with long-haul shipments to East Asia via contested waters.”

Until recently, Trump had been strongly pressuring India to stop buying Russian oil, even slapping additional 25 percent trade tariffs on India last year in punishment for doing so. This was lifted earlier this year when Trump claimed he had received assurances from India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi that India would start buying US oil, or even Venezuelan oil seized by the US, instead.

Which countries are buying Russian oil now?

Indian media has reported that India’s purchases of Russian crude have surged in the past three weeks, since the war on Iran began and the Strait of Hormuz was closed.

“The primary buyers of Russian oil continue to be India and China, who together now account for the vast majority of Russia’s seaborne exports,” Voloshin said.

Turkiye is also a significant buyer, he added, now using Russian crude to stabilise its domestic market amid the gas shortages caused by the Israeli strikes on Iran’s South Pars field.

“Additionally, a shadow fleet of ageing tankers continues to move Russian oil to smaller, less-regulated refineries across Southeast Asia and the Middle East, often through complex ship-to-ship transfers designed to obscure the origin of the crude,” he added.

He said this shadow fleet is becoming the primary delivery mechanism for oil in several contested regions, meaning more buyers could appear. “Additionally, the degree of cooperation between the US and its European allies remains a wild card. If the EU continues to refuse participation in military operations near Iran, the diplomatic and economic pressure on the US to maintain the Russian oil reprieve will likely increase.”

Will Russian oil remain in demand if the US re-imposes sanctions?

If there is nowhere else to readily source oil, countries may continue to seek Russian crude even if the US reimposes sanctions, Voloshin said. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says the closure of the Hormuz Strait has caused a shortage of 8 million barrels of oil per day.

If that persists, “major importers like India may feel they have no choice but to continue buying Russian oil to prevent domestic economic collapse”, Voloshin said.

If secondary sanctions on Russian oil are reintroduced, he added, buyers may demand much lower prices to compensate for the increased legal and financial risks of dealing with Moscow. “At the same time, in the presence of a continued severe market disruption, the US is very likely to roll over [extend] current exemptions,” Voloshin said.

Which other energy-producing nations could benefit?

Two other major non-OPEC energy producers that could benefit are Norway and Canada, experts say. However, this will largely depend on their capacity to increase production.

“Norway has already signalled its intent to maintain maximum gas and oil production to support European energy security, primarily selling to EU nations seeking to replace lost Iranian and Russian volumes,” Voloshin said. “Canada is exploring ways to increase its export capacity to the US Gulf Coast. However, like Russia, its ability to significantly ramp up production in the short term is constrained by pipeline throughput and infrastructure bottlenecks.”

Iran’s strike on Qatar’s Ras Laffan gas facility will cut an estimated 17% of the country’s Liquefied Natural Gas export capacity for up to five years, officials say. The damage is a major blow to the global energy market, which could disrupt supplies to Europe, Asia and beyond.

Hundreds of tankers sit idle on both sides of the Strait of Hormuz as Iran has effectively closed the waterway, pushing oil prices above $100 – the highest since 2022, after the start of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Oil tanker traffic in the strait, through which one-fifth of global oil passes, has plunged after Israel and the United States launched attacks on Tehran on February 28. Asian countries, including India, China and Japan, as well as some European countries, source large portions of their energy needs from the Gulf. A disruption in supply will rattle the global economy.

With an aim to cushion from the shock, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has decided to release 400 million barrels of oil from emergency reserves, the largest coordinated drawdown in the agency’s history. But it has failed to push the prices down.

The agency had released about 182 million barrels after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to stablise the oil prices.

According to the agency, oil shipments through the strategic waterway have fallen to less than 10 percent of pre-war levels, threatening one of the most critical arteries in the global energy system.

IEA members collectively hold about 1.25 billion barrels in government-controlled emergency reserves, alongside roughly 600 million barrels in industry stocks tied to government obligations.

A large number in a massive market

The figure may appear vast, but it shrinks quickly against the scale of global energy demand.

“This feels like a small bandage on a large wound,” energy strategist Naif Aldandeni said, describing the world’s largest coordinated emergency oil release as governments scramble to steady markets shaken by war.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates world consumption of petroleum and other liquids will average 105.17 million barrels per day in 2026. At that rate, 400 million barrels would theoretically cover just four days of global consumption.

Even when compared with normal traffic through the Strait of Hormuz – around 20 million barrels per day – the released oil equals only about 20 days of typical flows.

Aldandeni told Al Jazeera that emergency reserves can calm panic in markets but cannot replace the lost function of a disrupted shipping corridor.

“The release may soften the shock and calm nerves temporarily,” he said, “but it will remain limited as long as the fundamental problem — the freedom of supply and tanker movement through Hormuz – remains unresolved.”

Oil prices reflect those anxieties. Brent crude ended trading on Friday at $103.14 per barrel, after surging to nearly $120 earlier as fears of disrupted production and shipping intensified.

Geopolitical risk premium

Oil expert Nabil al-Marsoumi said the price surge cannot be explained by supply fundamentals alone.

“The closure of the Strait of Hormuz added roughly $40 per barrel as a geopolitical risk premium above what market fundamentals would normally dictate,” he told Al Jazeera.

From that perspective, releasing strategic reserves serves primarily as a temporary tool to dampen that premium rather than fundamentally rebalance the market.

Prices above $100 per barrel are uncomfortable for major consuming economies already struggling to curb inflation and protect economic growth.

Recent EIA projections suggest global demand has not yet declined significantly because of the war, remaining close to 105 million barrels per day. The market pressure, therefore, stems less from falling consumption and more from fears of supply shortages and delays in deliveries to refineries and consumers.

Threats to oil infrastructure

The latest escalation could deepen those fears.

United States President Donald Trump said on Friday that the US Central Command (CENTCOM) had “executed one of the most powerful bombing raids in the History of the Middle East and totally obliterated every MILITARY target in Iran’s crown jewel, Kharg Island”.

He added that “for reasons of decency” he had “chosen NOT to wipe out the Oil Infrastructure on the Island”, but warned Washington could reconsider that restraint if Iran continues to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

CENTCOM confirmed the operation, stating US forces had struck “more than 90 Iranian military targets on Kharg Island, while preserving the oil infrastructure”.

Iranian officials have meanwhile warned they would target energy facilities linked to the US across the region if Iranian oil infrastructure comes under direct attack.

Kharg Island is not simply a military location. It serves as the primary export terminal for Iranian crude, making it a critical node in the country’s oil supply network.

If attacks move from obstructing shipping to targeting export infrastructure itself, the crisis could shift from a chokepoint disruption scenario to one involving direct losses of production and export capacity.

In such circumstances, the oil released from emergency reserves would act only as a temporary bridge rather than a lasting solution to lost supply.

Major oil companies such as QatarEnergy, the world’s largest producer of liquefied natural gas (LNG), Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Bahrain state oil company Bapco have shut production and declared force majeure, while Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil producer, and UAE state oil company ADNOC have shut down their refineries.

Limits of emergency reserves

Even under a less severe scenario – where maritime disruption persists but infrastructure remains intact — the ability of strategic reserves to stabilise markets remains constrained by logistics.

The US Department of Energy said the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve held 415.4 million barrels as of 18 February 2026. Its maximum drawdown capacity is 4.4 million barrels per day, and oil requires about 13 days to reach US markets after a presidential release order.

That means even the world’s largest emergency stockpile cannot flood the market with crude immediately. The release must move through pipelines, shipping networks and refining capacity before reaching consumers.

Aldandeni said the current intervention would likely produce only a temporary stabilising effect, while al-Marsoumi warned that prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz – or the spread of threats to other chokepoints such as the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea could quickly send prices further higher.

Vancouver, Canada – Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to unite Canadians around protecting the nation’s economy from the US are hitting roadblocks as he nears one year in power.

Indigenous peoples across Canada are increasingly divided over Carney’s aggressive push to expand resource extraction and projects on their ancestral lands.

Some experts question how his government can advance its agenda while respecting Indigenous rights enshrined in the country’s constitution.

March 14 will mark one year since Carney, former head of Canada’s central bank, was sworn into office.

After an election last year, his centrist Liberal party formed a minority government with the highest share of the popular vote in 40 years.

A key to Carney’s victory was his pledge to “stand strong” against US trade threats and grow Canada’s economic sovereignty, an assertive approach the prime minister has called “elbows up”.

“In the face of global trade shifts … we will build big and build fast to create a stronger, more sustainable, more independent economy,” Carney said in a statement on March 6.

Part of that push was to create a Major Projects Office to speed up approvals of economic developments, starting by fast-tracking 10 mega-projects.

They include two massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants and an open-pit mine in British Columbia, a nuclear plant in Ontario, a Quebec shipping terminal, and wind power in Atlantic Canada.

Those developments are worth 116 billion Canadian dollars ($85bn), the government estimates.

‘Our rights get pushed to the side’

Carney’s approach to the US trade war has gained support from Canadians, according to recent opinion surveys.

A March 3 poll of 1,500 citizens by Abacus Data found that 50 percent say Carney is protecting Canada’s core interests when dealing with Trump — compared with 36 percent with negative views.

“Whenever Canada is threatened, the protectionist nature of the state kind of re-emerges,” said Shady Hafez, assistant politics professor at Toronto Metropolitan University.

“Self-preservation of Canada becomes the priority.”

Hafez, a research associate with the Yellowhead Institute, is a member of the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation in Quebec.

He said there are growing concerns in his community and others about Carney’s push to accelerate mega-projects across the country.

“For that to happen, Canada needs land, and it needs resources,” Hafez said, “and it takes those lands and resources from us.”

Blowback was swift after Carney pledged to build a highly controversial oil pipeline to the west coast in a late November deal signed with Alberta, Canada’s oil powerhouse.

Carney’s culture minister swiftly resigned, decrying “no consultation” with Indigenous nations and “major environmental impacts”.

And the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), which represents more than 600 Indigenous chiefs, unanimously passed an emergency resolution opposing a new pipeline.

“First Nations people, we stand with Canada against Trump’s illegal tariffs, but not at the expense of our rights,” AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told Al Jazeera in an interview. “If you want to fast-track anything, you better make sure that First Nations are being included right off the bat.

“Trying to sideswipe or push aside First Nations people when there’s agreements between provinces and the feds — they have to remember that First Nations are here … and they are to be respected in their own homelands.”

The rights of Indigenous people in the country are enshrined in Canada’s constitution.

But too often, Hafez said, in the name of national prosperity, “Indigenous communities have to suffer.”

“Whenever there’s somewhat of an emergency, our rights get pushed to the side.”

But the resistance to the major projects push isn’t universal.

The First Nations Natural Gas Alliance praised Carney’s “much more aggressive” approach compared with his predecessor on developing energy resources.

But the group’s CEO, Karen Ogen, acknowledged there’s a “highly charged environment” on such issues.

“First Nations communities continue to face significant socioeconomic barriers”, stated the former chief of Wet’suwet’en First Nation. “LNG and natural gas development are not just an opportunity; they are a national imperative.

“Billions of dollars in procurement benefits and revenues are flowing to First Nations.”

Call for collaboration ‘on all major projects’

The trade war with the US has galvanised and united many Canadians — but with little acknowledgement of the impacts on Indigenous communities, said Sheryl Lightfoot, political science professor at the University of Toronto.

Lightfoot is vice-chair of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

“These projects, by many accounts, are advancing without full consultation or transparency”, she told Al Jazeera.

“It appears that economic or geopolitical pressures … are being used to justify bypassing Indigenous rights and environmental safeguards.”

But Canada’s Major Projects Office insists it will “seek input, hear concerns and ideas, and work in partnership moving forward” with Indigenous communities — and “will not be skipping over vital project steps including consultations with Indigenous Peoples,” an agency spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.

“We are unlocking Canada’s economic potential, while respecting our environmental responsibilities and the rights of Indigenous Peoples,”

A significant number of projects on Carney’s fast-track list are concentrated in British Columbia (BC).

Those include two liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals on the Pacific coast — LNG Canada and Ksi Lisims LNG — as well as the electric transmission line to power the sector, and a copper and gold mine.

BC is unique in the country because, historically, very little of its land was subject to treaties between the Crown and First Nations. Canada’s top court has repeatedly ruled in favour of First Nations rights and title in the westernmost province.

All four major projects in the province have proven divisive among the region’s Indigenous peoples — even though several have the backing of individual First Nations governments.

One of those is the massive Ksi Lisims LNG plant, in which the Nisga’a Nation is a direct partner.

Co-developed with Texas-based Western LNG, the mega-project will “benefit all Canadians,” said Nisga’a President Eva Clayton.

In 2000, her nation became the first in BC to reach a modern self-government treaty.

“We are co-developing the Ksi Lisims LNG project on land that our nation owns under our treaty,” she told a parliamentary committee on February 24.

“This project is expected to bring in 30 billion [Canadian] dollars [$22bn] in investment, create thousands of skilled careers, and strengthen Canada’s leadership in low-emission LNG.”

‘Elbows up’ meets opposition

But LNG is fiercely opposed by other nearby First Nations.

Tara Marsden is Wilp sustainability director for the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, traditional leaders of the 900-member Gitanyow community.

“We have a lot more concerns and evidence regarding impacts in our territory,” she said.

“The federal government has done zero consultation on their fast-track list and the projects that actually affect our territory.”

Gitanyow oppose the BC projects on the fast-track list as harming their interests.

She said Ottawa cannot ignore First Nations opposition, even if there is support from others like the Nisga’a.

“They have a right to develop in their own territories”, said Marsden. “But if you have maybe 20 to 30 First Nations whose territory would be crossed — and you get maybe three on board — that’s not a resounding consensus.

“They’re just trying to use this small handful of nations to steamroll over everybody else.”

If Canada truly wants to strengthen its sovereignty and economy, she said, it must do so alongside Indigenous people.

“This is something that First Nations across the country have been saying since Carney took the ‘elbows up’ approach,” Marsden said.

“The government has really just ignored that … and actually now back-stopping these mega-projects with taxpayer dollars.”

Free, prior and informed consent

McGill University economics lecturer Julian Karaguesian served for decades in the Department of Finance and Canada’s Embassy in Washington, DC.

He agreed that most Canadians support Carney’s attempt to boost the economy with “nation-building” projects.

“I think they’re a fantastic idea”, he told Al Jazeera. “But we’ve committed to consultations with First Nations, Metis and Inuit people.

“Once we’ve started compromising on economic and social justice … we can create bitterness. First Nations leaders understand the situation we’re in, and I think [Ottawa] can work with them.”

Even on projects endorsed by some First Nations, the international legal principle of “free, prior and informed consent” must still apply to other communities impacted, said Lightfoot.

That’s “not simply a procedural requirement” to rubber-stamp projects, she said.

“It is a substantive right, anchored in Indigenous peoples’ self-determination and their ability to make decisions about matters that affect their lands, communities, and futures.”

And that could risk slowing down Carney’s hopes to speed through projects if there is no Indigenous consensus — potentially tying more divisive ones up in the courts.

“Failure to include Indigenous knowledge and decision-making early in the process,” Lightfoot said, “can undermine the legitimacy and fairness of project approvals.”

Carney’s ratings among First Nations are “mixed,” says AFN’s national chief. One positive, she noted, is his openness to meeting Indigenous leaders raising concerns.

But with many of the prime minister’s economic hopes dependent on building “national interest” infrastructure on First Nations homelands, Woodhouse Nepinak said the relationship needs care.

“Carney is at a crossroads in his personal relationship with First Nations,” she said.

“And we understand First Nations rights are under threat in new ways by this government.”

Over the past two decades, China has quietly eclipsed the United States as the dominant trading partner in parts of Latin America.

But since taking office for a second term, United States President Donald Trump has pushed to reverse Beijing’s advance.

That includes through aggressive manoeuvres directed at China’s allies in the region.

Already, the Trump administration has stripped officials in Costa Rica, Panama and Chile of their US visas, reportedly due to their ties to China.

It has also threatened to take back the Panama Canal over allegations that Chinese operatives are running the waterway. And after invading Venezuela and abducting President Nicolas Maduro, the US forced the country to halt oil exports to China.

But on Saturday, Trump is taking a different approach, welcoming Latin American leaders to his Mar-a-Lago estate for an event dubbed the “Shield of the Americas” summit.

How he plans to persuade leaders to distance themselves from one of the region’s largest economic partners remains unclear.

But experts say the high-level meeting could signal that Washington is prepared to put concrete offers on the table.

Securing meaningful commitments from Latin American leaders will take more than a photo op and vague promises, according to Francisco Urdinez, an expert on regional relations with China at Chile’s Pontifical Catholic University.

Even among Trump’s allies, Urdinez believes significant economic incentives are required.

“What they’re really hoping is that Washington backs up the political alignment with tangible economic benefits,” he said.

‘Reinforcing the Donroe Doctrine’

Already, the White House has confirmed that nearly a dozen countries will be represented at the weekend summit.

They include conservative leaders from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Mexico and Brazil, the region’s largest economies, have been notably left out. Both are currently led by left-leaning governments.

In a post on social media, the Trump administration framed the event as a “historic meeting reinforcing the Donroe Doctrine”, the president’s plan for establishing US dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

Part of that strategy involves assembling a coalition of ideological allies in the region.

But rolling back Chinese influence in a region increasingly reliant on its economy will not be an easy feat, according to Gimena Sanchez, the Andes director at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a US-based research and advocacy group.

The US “is trying to get countries to agree that they’re not going to have China be one of their primary trading partners, and they really can’t at this point”, Sanchez said.

“For most countries, China is either their top, second or third trading partner.”

China, after all, has the second-largest economy in the world, and it has invested heavily in Latin America, including through infrastructure projects and massive loans.

The Asian giant has emerged as the top trading partner in South America in particular, with bilateral trade reaching $518bn in 2024, a record high for Beijing.

The US, however, remains the biggest outside trade force in Latin America and the Caribbean overall, due in large part to close relations with its neighbour, Mexico.

As of 2024, US imports from Latin America jumped to $661bn, and its exports were valued at $517bn.

Rather than choosing sides, though, many countries in the region are trying to strike a balance between the two powers, Sanchez explained.

Still, she added that the US cannot come empty-handed to this weekend’s negotiations.

“If the US is very boldly telling countries to cut off strengthening ties with China”, Sanchez emphasised that “the US is going to have to offer them something.”

What’s on the table?

Trump has already extended economic lifelines to Latin American governments politically aligned with his own.

In the case of Argentina, for instance, Trump announced in October a $20bn currency swap, meant to increase the value of the country’s peso.

He also increased the volume of Argentinian beef permitted to be imported into the US, shoring up the country’s agricultural sector, despite pushback from US cattle farmers.

Trump has largely tied those economic incentives to the continued leadership of political movements favourable to his own.

The $20bn swap, for instance, came ahead of a key election for Argentinian President Javier Milei’s right-wing party, which Trump supports.

Isolating China from resources in Latin America could also play to Trump’s advantage as he angles for better trade terms with Beijing.

A show of hemispheric solidarity could give Trump extra leverage as he travels to Beijing in early April to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Urdinez pointed out.

Then there’s the regional security angle. The US has expressed particular concern about China’s control of strategic infrastructure in Latin America and the critical minerals it could exploit in the region to bolster its defence and technology capabilities.

Bolivia, Argentina and Chile, for instance, are believed to hold the world’s largest deposits of lithium, a metal necessary for energy storage and rechargeable batteries.

The Trump administration referenced such threats in its national security strategy, published in December.

“Some foreign influence will be hard to reverse,” the strategy document said, blaming the “political alignments between certain Latin American governments and certain foreign actors”.

But Trump’s security platform nevertheless asserted that Latin American leaders were actively seeking alternatives to China.

“Many governments are not ideologically aligned with foreign powers but are instead attracted to doing business with them for other reasons, including low costs and fewer regulatory hurdles,” the document said.

It argued that the US could combat Chinese influence by highlighting the “hidden costs” of close ties to Beijing, including “debt traps” and espionage.

‘More aspiration than reality’

Henrietta Levin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, believes that many Latin American countries would prefer to deepen economic engagement with the US over China.

But in many cases, that hasn’t been an option.

She pointed to Ecuador’s decision to sign a free trade agreement (FTA) with China in 2023 after it failed to negotiate a similar agreement with the US under President Joe Biden.

Some US politicians had opposed the deal as a threat to domestic industries. Others had encouraged Biden to reject it due to alleged corruption in Ecuador’s government.

Critics, though, said the resistance pushed Ecuador into closer relations with China.

“ When Ecuador signed their free trade agreement with China a couple years ago, their leader actually made quite clear that they had wanted an FTA with the US and would’ve preferred that,” said Levin.

“But the US didn’t want to negotiate such an agreement, and China did.”

As a result, Ecuador became the fifth country in Latin America to ink a free trade pact with China, after Chile, Peru, Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

For Levin, the question looming over this weekend’s summit is whether the Trump administration will step up and provide alternatives to the economic engagement China has already delivered.

Options could include trade agreements, financing for new development and investments with attractive terms.

But without such offers, Urdinez, the Chilean professor, warns that Trump will face limits to his ambitions of checking China’s growth in Latin America.

“Until Washington is willing to fill the economic space it’s asking countries to vacate, the rollback strategy will remain more aspiration than reality,” said Urdinez.