international

Charity warns that shrinking humanitarian support could threaten efforts to support communities trying to rebuild lives after 1,200 days of conflict.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) has called for greater international support for Sudan, saying humanitarian needs are escalating while funding falls far short.

“Sudan is one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises, yet it is also one of its most overlooked” IFRC Special Envoy for Sudan, Derk Segaar, told reporters in Geneva after returning from the Sudan.

Sudan plunged into all-out war in April 2023 between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese military, leading to the deaths of at least 59,000 people, according to Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, a conflict monitoring group.

Aid groups say the figure is an undercount and the true number could be many times higher.

Segaar said while some aid is trickling into Kordofan and Darfur regions, the whole of Sudan has been devastated by the war, including Khartoum, where millions lack reliable electricity, clean water and healthcare, as cholera, malnutrition and floods pose additional risks.

He said 35 million people require humanitarian assistance, more than 9 million are internally displaced, and fighting has driven 4.5 million people out of Sudan.

Fighting

Speaking before a gathering of soldiers, Sudanese Army Lieutenant-General Yasser al-Atta on Monday said the military is advancing on all fronts with the aim of eliminating the RSF before the end of the year.

The location of the gathering was not specified.

“We are implementing the theory of advancing in all directions, with all fronts moving simultaneously, as happened during the recapture of Khartoum state,” al-Atta said.

“Before the end of this year, there will not be a single Janjaweed fighter,” he said, using a term to refer to the RSF, “or a foreign fighter, and we are determined to achieve that”.

Al-Atta’s remarks came days after the army and allied forces carried out a rapid operation in which they seized Bara, Jabra al-Sheikh, Um Sayala and other positions along a key road connecting Omdurman with el-Obeid in North Kordofan.

Sudan’s three Kordofan states – North, West and South – have witnessed continued fighting between the army and the RSF since October 2025.

Diplomacy

Meanwhile, the United Nations is ramping up efforts to get the stalled political process on track.

The UN says representatives from five international organisations, including the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the European Union and the League of Arab States held talks with Sudanese political parties on Monday.

“Building on exploratory consultations held in Addis Ababa in June, the Quintet engaged Sudanese civilian political leaders in recent days. Discussions continued on proposals and perspectives for advancing the political process, including through the establishment of confidence-building measures,” said UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq.

The UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for Sudan, Pekka Haavisto, is also talking with RSF leader General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo to discuss reducing escalation.

Hip Hop International, which turns 25 this year, brought some of the world’s best dance crews and choreographers to mainstream attention. Groups including Jabbawockeez and Quest Crew, and choreographers such as Parris Goebel (Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Justin Bieber) and Sienna Lalau (BTS, Blackpink, Ciara) all got their start through the group’s annual dance competition, which connected dance cultures in a pre-YouTube era through global shared artistry when breaking was a mostly underground activity.

This year’s weeklong contest concludes Saturday in Phoenix, when a new world champion will be crowned. Involving 3,000 dancers from 55 countries, the competition has grown to be among the largest in the world due to the efforts of founders Howard and Karen Schwartz, whose globetrotting history led to HHI’s current prominence in the dance world.

In the late 1980s, the Schwartzes were known as “the mother and father of aerobics.” The duo were pioneers of the aerobics craze that gripped the nation and helped create the National Aerobic Championship. ESPN followed the Schwartzes’ competitions, as did the Soviet Union, which was in the midst of the massive social, economic and cultural upheaval that culminated with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

B-Boy Vico from France was the winner of Hip Hop International’s World Battles in 2023.

(Steven Lam)

Soon after, the Soviet Union asked the Schwartzes to bring their aerobic champions to teach fitness and aerobics there, Karen said. So they did.

“We grew that,” Howard said, adding that the aerobics championship became “almost as big as what HHI is now. We were all over the world with it.”

The pair later transitioned out of aerobics but still had the desire to create communal experiences. While traveling, the Schwartzes went to Paris and saw kids breaking on the street. The seed of an idea was planted. It blossomed later on a trip to Tokyo, as they emerged from a subway.

“We were walking and we saw a group of dancers that were practicing in the streets, but utilizing a storefront window reflection where it became a mirror,” said Karen, who was struck by the creativity of the art form.

When the Schwartzes first began to establish HHI, they reached out to people who would lend credibility, including Don Campbell, creator of the street dance style Locking; Ken Swift, a longtime b-boy and member of the Rock Steady Crew; and Toni Basil, a member of the 1970s dance crew the Lockers (with Campbell) and singer of the ’80s hit “Mickey.”

Basil has since received HHI’s Icon Award and is often a judge during championship weeks and worldwide competitions. She is a stalwart ambassador of dance worldwide. The Lockers were the first group of dancers to travel outside of the “Soul Train” sphere to be seen on television as a singular act. They appeared on “The Tonight Show” and “The Carol Burnett Show,” and were among the first crews to legitimize the art form by making a living from it.

“I don’t know how Karen and Howard organize it,” Basil said of the HHI competitions, noting that so many “kids get to come to America. It’s a big deal. It’s their life. It’s incredible. And to be dancing morning, noon and night, that’s a serotonin-raising life. I mean, everybody’s high on dance.”

Basil touts the international expansion of hip-hop dance and says that “there’s no more important crew battles in the world than HHI. Period.” She also said that HHI’s penchant for group choreography in the U.S. has translated worldwide. Dancers like Goebel and Lalau have graduated from the HHI community to stand on global stages as choreographers and artistic directors with music’s biggest artists.

Goebel operates out of Auckland, New Zealand, in a dance studio she created called the Palace. Her large dance crew, the Royal Family, helped establish the mold of choreographer-dancer-musician after unprecedented success at the HHI competition.

“Definitely the Royal Family competing at HHI and winning three gold medals in a row gave us international recognition for the dance crew and in turn made the Palace well known as I had many crews coming of out my studio,” Goebel wrote in an email.

Lalau‘s classes during the competition week at the HHI championships are coveted events, and she has led numerous classes and groups for the Lab, a Los Angeles-based hip-hop dance crew and studio.

“As my career evolved, I realized HHI is about so much more than competition,” Lalau wrote in an email. “It’s a place where culture, community, and creativity come together. That mindset has stayed with me throughout my career. Whether I’m creating for an artist, building a cast, or teaching a class, I always come back to the idea that the strongest work comes from collaboration.”

In 2008 the Schwartzes’ success led to them serve as producers for the Emmy Award-winning “America’s Best Dance Crew,” an MTV dance competition series that ran for eight seasons. Success stories from the show include crews such as the Jabbawockeez, which has been a fixture in Las Vegas since its first-season win, Quest Crew, Snoop Dogg and Far East Movement.

“ABDC” shone a spotlight on background performers and treated its participants with respect. JC Chasez, a member of N*Sync who also served as a judge on the show and was a talent competition participant himself, wrote in an email that he was excited to be in the mix.

“I know a lot of shows are about the judges, but I thought ‘ABDC’ did a really good job at making sure the audience at home knew that the stars of the show were the dancers,” Chasez wrote.

Chasez, now a producer on the Broadway musical “Titanique,” also noted that “ABDC” alumni are everywhere.

“I’ve really been enjoying seeing crew members succeed … on different projects,” he said. “I was in New York for the Tonys, and some of the people in ‘Jellicle Ball,’ … had competed on ‘Dance Crew.’”

Now that it’s hit the 25-year mark, supporters believe HHI will continue to evolve along with hip-hop dance itself. Always looking forward while reaching back to keep the past alive.

Reinvention is necessary, Chasez said, because hip-hop music today no longer sounds like it did in the ’80s.

“And so as the sonics change and as the rhythms evolve, I think that’s where interpretations will continue to evolve as well because they are visualizing the rhythms that you’re hearing and telling a story in a unique way.”

Lalau said she expects the next 25 years will bring even more authentic creativity, but that she hopes “that we still prioritize the human side of dance [over tech advancements]. Hip-hop has always been rooted in community, connection and self-expression.”

“We really are so proud of a number of the things that we have been able to accomplish, because it’s made a difference,” Karen Schwartz said of herself and her husband, adding that it’s hard to stop and think about those things because they’re so busy thinking about the future.

“That’s the problem, actually,” Howard said. “We’re constantly, ‘What can we do next? What can make the experience better for everyone?’

“Our ultimate goal is of course to bring ‘ABDC’ back,” he said, “and we haven’t stopped trying.”

Until then, a new world champion will be crowned Saturday night, continuing a tradition that has become much more than a trend.

United States economic growth slowed in the second quarter of 2026 amid a growing deficit and increasing inflationary pressures.

US gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 1.5 percent between April and June. That is a sharp decline from 2.1 percent growth in the first quarter of the year, according to a Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) report released on Thursday.

A widening trade deficit is a key reason why GDP is slowing, as is a jump in petrol prices, experts say.

“It’s a classic supply shock. The combination of tariffs and oil price spikes is exactly what a macroeconomist would expect to happen,” Michael Klein, professor of international economic affairs at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, told Al Jazeera.

The US has increased purchases of goods like semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, and industrial equipment, according to BEA data. Business investment in equipment rose by more than 15 percent in the second quarter. Those are essentially the elements needed for the ongoing investment boom to support the growth of artificial intelligence (AI).

“Imports rose due to the investment and consumption driver, and so net exports were a drag on overall growth. Overall, the US is investing and consuming more but not producing more,” Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

Exports have not kept pace. The trade deficit in May grew to $77.6bn, a 42 percent increase from the month before, according to BEA data.

Exports tumbled by 3.2 percent to $317.7bn, and imports rose by 3.3 percent to $395.3bn.

This comes as countries around the globe seek to reduce their dependence on the US due to President Donald Trump’s tariff policies.

Among them is Canada, historically one of the US’s biggest trading partners. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has pursued new trade deals with China and Saudi Arabia in recent months, for example, as Trump has slapped steep tariffs on the country, threatened to annex it and called it the 51st state, and refused to renew a trade deal with Canada and Mexico.

Are US tensions with Iran a factor?

In the second quarter, energy prices fluctuated greatly over the past few months. For US consumers, that was mostly reflected in petrol prices. During the second quarter, US petrol prices hit $4.48 per gallon (3.78 litres) in May.

They later retreated to $3.96 per gallon by the end of June. But the reprieve was short-lived as a fragile peace deal failed to take hold, with petrol prices increasing throughout July after the deadline for data to be included in second-quarter GDP had passed. Prices have since moved back above the $4 mark.

Petrol prices drove inflation for much of the second quarter. Between March and April, petrol prices jumped 5.4 percent. The next month, they jumped another 7 percent. They eased between May and June, falling 9.7 percent as global benchmark prices pulled back.

According to analysis from Bank of America, discretionary spending surged in June, the final month of the second quarter, as spending on products outside of petrol jumped while fuel prices temporarily eased.

“With gasoline prices easing in June, total card spending excluding gas surged 5.6% YoY [year over year] – also the strongest growth since April 2022,” the report said.

How can the GDP recover?

US consumers have ramped up spending on prescription drugs, automobiles like light trucks, and new furniture. There was also increased spending in areas like restaurants and hotels, suggesting that consumers remain somewhat resilient.

But, says Fletcher School’s Klein, that spending is by high-income earners, a trend that indicates a K-shaped economy, which is when the wealthy thrive, while lower-income consumers and small businesses face tougher economic conditions.

“The continued consumption growth of those who are better off depends upon things like the stock market staying strong and housing prices staying strong, because people feel wealthier through the value of their house or their stock portfolios, so they’ll spend more. But by a number of measures, the stock market seems to be very highly valued,” Klein, who also authors the EconoFact economic analysis website, told Al Jazeera.

Overall, consumer confidence fell for the third straight month in July, according to a Conference Board report released on Tuesday. Consumers attributed the decline to “current business conditions”, and the organisation expects “little improvement” for the remainder of the year.

Business investment would also need to surge more broadly to lift the wider economy. While there has been a boom in the AI sector, other industries have not been as eager to keep their inventories stocked.

Klein says consistent trade policies would change that.

“The pervasive uncertainty in the economy will affect businesses’ decisions on hiring and investing. That can also contribute to the slowdown, because, in an uncertain environment, businesses don’t want to make decisions that have long-lasting consequences when they have little idea of what the future will look like,” Klein said.

Creating economic conditions that encourage consumers and businesses to spend would help drive up GDP in the coming quarters. However, uncertain trade policies and concerns about widespread layoffs, as has been the case in several tech companies, have made consumers more cautious with the pocket books.

“If people were more secure and felt that their jobs would be there next year; if they felt that things weren’t more expensive and they could afford to spend more. But those are not easy fixes, right? And talk is not going to change what people rightly perceive as a fraught situation,” Klein added.

Modern conflicts are not just waged by state sponsored armed forces. In the last two decades there has been a rapid growth in the international recruitment of Private Military Companies (PMCs), used for everything from protecting top-level diplomats from harm in the Middle East to defending resource mining sites throughout Sub-Saharan Africa.

These commercial security contractors are indispensable partners to states, NGOs and corporations the world over. The growth of privatized conflict presents structural issues for international law and diplomacy.

The Loopholes of Modern Legal Systems in War

Among the most consistent and frequent challenges to global peace and security is the glaring accountability vacuum relating to non-state actors. When a uniformed state soldier is found to have committed crimes they are subject to the rigorous legal structures of the military justice system, including the Geneva Convention. By comparison, PMC operators often exist in a legal grey area.

Host nations where such operators act, often experience a level of domestic instability where their own legal systems are overstretched, or politically weak to effectively take action against powerful private security forces. The nations routinely lack either the will or capacity to pursue legal action against heavily armed foreign PMC personnel. The home states of PMCs are never eager to prosecute for alleged offences committed abroad by the corporations which they sanction. This leads to an accountability vacuum.

Bringing the War-Zone Back Home

Attempts by domestic prosecutors to seek convictions for offenses such as murder or assault against their country’s PMC operators has led to lengthy and complex legal proceedings. Acts normally described a felony assault charge were made all the more difficult due to a defence team pointing to the hostile environment, self-defense and chain of command arguments during combat.

Diplomatic Fallout and Tensions

International Cooperation Needed for PMC Regulation

Chelsea are set to sign attacking midfielder Giulia Dragoni from Barcelona.

The 19-year-old spent the last two seasons on loan at Roma, and Chelsea have been tracking her progress for several years.

Dragoni has already made 24 appearances for Italy since her debut aged 16 and has experience in the Women’s Champions League with Roma.

She joined Barcelona in 2023 after graduating from Inter Milan’s youth academy.

It is understood Chelsea were attracted to Dragoni’s quality because of her versatility and ability to play across multiple attacking positions and in midfield.

She is set to become the club’s fourth summer signing as they seek to regain the Women’s Super League title following Manchester City’s success last season.

July 28 (UPI) — Chad has announced it is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, days after a U.S. official urged the central African nation to consider doing so and amid a concerted U.S. campaign seeking to dismantle the court.

In an official communique made public Monday, Chad’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it notified United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres of its decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the court, following what it described as an “in-depth examination” of its operations.

The ministry said the court’s effectiveness “has remained limited and uneven in light of the expectations that led to its creation,” alleging an anti-African bias and noting that its first nine investigations concerned situations in Africa. The ICC currently lists 17 situations under investigation.

Chad also highlighted that six of the seven people in the court’s custody are being prosecuted in connection with situations in Africa.

“Taken together, these objective factors explain the perception, widely shared among numerous states and their populations, that the court’s judicial activity has remained durably concentrated on the Global South in general and on the African continent in particular, which have consistently been victims of a form of political instrumentalization of the ICC,” the ministry said.

It called on the African Union and member stats to reconsider the future of what it called an “apparently biased system” and to strengthen the African judicial mechanisms instead.

The decision, which is to take effect in one year, comes amid an intensified U.S. campaign against the ICC following the court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a campaign seeking to “dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty.”

The United States is not a member of the ICC, and although the Trump administration has taken a more aggressive stance toward the court, the United States has long rejected the cour’s assertion of jurisdiction of U.S. nationals without Washington’s consent.

Four days before Chad announced its decision to withdraw from the ICC, Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Sabre Fadoul spoke with U.S. Under Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Frank Garcia Jr..

A statement from Chad said the call was made at the request of the United States. During the call, Garcia expressed the United States’ concerns about the ICC’s operation and requested that Chad review its membership, which Fadoul said Chad would.

“The United States welcomes Chad’s decision to withdraw from the ICC and join the growing number of nations reclaiming their sovereignty from this flawed institution,” the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs said in a statement.

“The United States will never surrender its sovereignty to an unaccountable global tribunal, and we are launching a comprehensive, whole-of-government campaign to end the ICC’s illegitimate overreach. We call on all other ICC members to withdraw from the Rome Statute.”

The announcement comes days after Venezuela announced it was withdrawing from the ICC.

Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger all announced their withdrawals from the court in June 2026.

Displaced Palestinians in Gaza cautiously welcome Israel’s approval for an international stabilisation force to enter the territory under the US-backed ceasefire plan. Residents hope the force can help rebuild Gaza and allow them to return home after months of bombardment and displacement.

The ISF, to be staffed by ‘friendly countries’, will operate in areas of the Palestinian enclave that are outside Israel’s military control.

Israel’s government has approved the entry of the International Stabilization Force (ISF), part of United States President Donald Trump’s 20-point “peace plan,” to Gaza.

An Israeli official reported on Sunday that Israel’s security cabinet had approved the key legal measures and that the force would operate “in full coordination with” the Israeli military, according to the Times of Israel.

There was no timeframe given for when the ISF, which will include 200 people from “friendly countries such as Uganda and Morocco”, according to the Reuters news agency, will be deployed.

The cabinet determined that Israel will have the authority to approve which countries can send forces.

Following the implementation of Trump’s deal, Israel dictates who can and cannot enter the Gaza Strip, along with how much aid and food can enter, in the wake of Israel’s two-year, genocidal war on Gaza.

Though a “ceasefire” between Hamas and Israel was agreed in October, reports of killings of Palestinians by the Israeli military occur almost daily.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health reports that 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since the deal was implemented, with 3,888 wounded.

The plan also called for an international “Board of Peace” to oversee the administration and reconstruction of the strip, for the creation of a National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) technocratic governing body, and for Hamas to disarm and Israel to withdraw from the strip.

Nickolay Mladenov, the director-general of the Gaza Board of Peace – which the vast majority of Western countries refused to join – welcomed the news.

The former Bulgarian foreign minister and defence minister said Israel enabling the deployment was “a critical part of the agreed framework for stabilising Gaza, supporting demilitarisation, and enabling the transition to effective Palestinian transitional administration” under the NCAG.

The cabinet’s approval comes a day before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to travel to Washington, DC in the United States.

Israel currently occupies close to 70 percent of Gaza. Its population of almost two million has been forced to live in a diminishing fraction of the strip, as Israel continues to move the “Yellow Line” it created to demarcate areas it withdrew to under the first phase of the deal.

The ISF will operate in the areas that are not under Israeli control.

The Question Islamabad Has Not Answered

On the night of 16 March 2026, Pakistani warplanes struck a walled compound in Kabul’s ninth police district. Afghan officials say more than four hundred people died. The United Nations mission in Afghanistan has independently confirmed at least two hundred and sixty nine deaths and some one hundred and twenty injuries. Islamabad’s account was simple: the site held ammunition and military infrastructure, and any civilian harm followed from secondary explosions rather than the strike itself. Four months later, Amnesty International published an investigation reaching the opposite conclusion, built not on Taliban testimony but on satellite imagery spanning three years, verified video, and independent geolocation of the wreckage. On 9 July, Amnesty asked Pakistan’s foreign ministry for the evidence behind its military target claim. As of publication, no response has arrived. That silence, more than any single photograph, is now doing the analytical work in this dispute.

A Conflict Escalating Since October

The Omid strike did not occur in isolation. Cross border hostilities between Pakistan and the Taliban administration have intensified since October 2025, and the UN mission in Afghanistan has documented more than seven hundred and fifty civilian casualties in the first three months of 2026 alone, spread across a series of Pakistani air operations against targets it describes as militant infrastructure. The Omid center, a drug rehabilitation facility expanded after 2021 to house roughly two thousand patients, was neither obscure nor newly built. Its treatment programs featured in a 2023 Al Jazeera documentary, and signage identifying the site as a medical facility was visible above its main gate. This is the backdrop against which the competing claims about the March strike have to be weighed. It is a theatre where verification has become as contested as the fighting itself, and where each side’s evidentiary standard has become a proxy for its wider legitimacy claim.

How Open Source Evidence Reshaped the Dispute

The strongest version of Pakistan’s position would rest on operational intelligence unavailable to outside observers: a genuine military use of the site that satellite imagery and testimony could not capture, perhaps weapons storage concealed within a facility that also treated patients. That is a coherent claim in the abstract, and cross border conflicts involving non state or quasi state administrations often do see dual use of civilian infrastructure. The problem for Islamabad is not that this claim is inherently implausible. It is that four months of opportunity to substantiate it, including a direct written request from an investigating body, has produced silence rather than documentation.

Set against that silence is a body of evidence that does not depend on Taliban cooperation. Amnesty’s investigators analysed satellite imagery of the compound from April 2023 through 15 March 2026, tracking the site’s physical layout and, in imagery from just three days before the strike, the presence of large numbers of people in the patient and administrative areas. A video recorded in 2025 and verified by the organisation shows the interior housing arrangements for patients. Separately, and this is the detail that most changes the analytical picture, broadcast journalists reviewing Pakistan’s own released strike footage identified at least four buildings struck with guided munitions, while a conflict researcher affiliated with the open source investigation group Bellingcat independently geolocated the strikes to the rehabilitation center’s buildings using imagery unconnected to either Amnesty or the Taliban administration.

This matters because it breaks the framing in which the dispute is simply Pakistan’s word against an adversary regime’s word. Geolocation from Pakistan’s own footage and independent satellite analysis are not Taliban sources, and they are not filtered through UNAMA’s access constraints in Afghanistan, real as those constraints are. A rigorous critique of Amnesty’s methodology would need to engage with this layer of evidence directly rather than treating the investigation as resting solely on interviews inside Afghanistan. It does not.

None of this settles the question of what Pakistani planners believed they were targeting at the moment of the strike, which is a distinct question from what the site actually was. Precision guided strikes can be aimed at accurate coordinates built on flawed intelligence, and an honest accounting of the incident would distinguish between deliberate targeting of a known medical facility and a targeting failure rooted in faulty threat assessment. Pakistan’s silence forecloses that distinction rather than resolving it in its own favour. A government confident in a genuine intelligence failure, as opposed to a deliberate strike, has strong incentive to say so, since the reputational and legal exposure of the two scenarios differs sharply. The absence of any account, four months on, is itself informative.

There is a genuine access problem in Afghanistan that deserves acknowledgment rather than dismissal. Restrictions on UN personnel operating inside the country, including limits on female staff, have long constrained what any investigating body can independently confirm through interviews on the ground. That constraint is real and worth stating plainly. But it is analytically distinct from the evidentiary chain that actually carries this case, since satellite archives, geolocation of released military footage, and broadcast forensic review do not depend on access to Afghan territory at all. Conflating the two, treating a legitimate critique of ground level access with a wholesale dismissal of imagery based verification, is where the strongest version of Pakistan’s defence collapses into a weaker one. Under international humanitarian law, the burden of demonstrating that a strike met the tests of distinction, precaution and proportionality sits with the party that carried it out, not with the investigating organisation. Silence does not discharge that burden. It simply leaves the imagery based record as the only account on file.

The Stakes Beyond One Strike

This dispute reaches well past the fate of one investigation into one strike. Pakistan is not a party to the Rome Statute, and the UN Security Council has shown no appetite for a binding inquiry into cross border strikes in Afghanistan, leaving no institution with the authority to compel either side toward resolution. Into that vacuum, open source verification, satellite archives, independent geolocation, forensic review of released military footage, has effectively become the closest available substitute for enforcement, even though it carries no legal power to compel compliance or impose consequences. How this case resolves, or fails to resolve, will help set the operating norm for a growing number of asymmetric conflicts in which a state conducts cross border strikes against a non state or quasi state administration controlling the affected population. If credible, independently corroborated evidence of civilian harm at a protected medical site produces no formal accountability, the lesson other militaries draw from this dispute will be that silence is a survivable strategy, and that the proportionality and precaution requirements of international humanitarian law can be managed through delay rather than compliance. That is the systemic risk this case actually tests, well beyond the question of what happened at one rehabilitation centre in March.

Three Paths From Here

Three trajectories are plausible over the coming months, none of them mutually exclusive in sequence.

The likeliest path, on available evidence, is continued silence accompanied by informal briefings to allied capitals disputing Amnesty’s methodology without engaging its strongest evidentiary points, particularly the independent geolocation. This preserves ambiguity domestically while avoiding a formal admission that could carry legal exposure under international humanitarian law. It is a moderately likely outcome, on the order of an even chance or somewhat better given precedent in comparable disputes involving other militaries.

A less likely but plausible path is a formal Pakistani rebuttal that engages directly with the satellite and geolocation evidence, offering an alternative account of what the imagery shows or asserting an intelligence failure rather than deliberate targeting. This would be the more legally cautious route and would represent a meaningful shift from the current posture. Call this a modest possibility, distinctly less likely than continued silence but not remote.

The least likely path in the near term is a referral to an international investigative mechanism with independent access, given both Pakistan’s incentive to avoid binding scrutiny and the Taliban administration’s own resistance to international access inside Afghanistan, which cuts against any process requiring cooperation from both sides. This remains a low probability outcome absent significant diplomatic pressure from third parties with leverage over Islamabad.

The clearest near term indicator to watch is whether Pakistan’s foreign ministry issues any substantive written response to Amnesty’s evidentiary request before the anniversary of the strike in March 2027. A specific, documented reply, even one contesting the findings, would mark a break from the pattern observed since March. Continued non response through that date would itself be a data point confirming the first scenario.

The Precedent Being Set

What is being tested in Kabul is not only one contested strike but the durability of official denial once satellite archives, geolocation researchers, and broadcast forensic review become standard evidentiary tools in conflicts fought behind restricted access. For Western policy planners, the operative signal is the widening gap between what open source verification can now establish and what official statements are willing to confirm, a gap increasingly shaping how allied governments calibrate cooperation. For investors reading South Asian risk, cross border escalation between Islamabad and Kabul remains an active, under priced variable, with legal exposure now harder for militaries to contain through silence alone. For rights and development organisations, the case is a template for how methodology itself becomes the battleground before accountability is even reached.

Silence was once a viable strategy for governments awaiting the news cycle to move on. Satellites do not move on.

Tariffs apply to Canadian wine, hockey sticks, cement, and other products, sparking fears of escalating trade tensions.

US President Donald Trump will impose new 50 percent tariffs on many Canadian goods, claiming “discriminatory treatment” by Ottawa against US alcohol, automobile and dairy products.

The tariffs, ordered by Trump on Monday, will take effect in 30 days and cover a range of items, including wine, hockey sticks, and cement, according to a White House fact sheet.

Trump, who saw many of his tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year, is using an untested legal provision for the new duties: Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The latest duties will not apply to energy, potash, and goods already impacted by sector-specific tariffs, the White House said.

Crucially, however, they will hit products covered under the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement (USMCA).

The tariff announcement quickly raised concerns of escalation among some businesses.

While Trump has slapped sweeping duties on US trading partners since returning to the presidency last year, the orders generally exempted goods entering his country under the North American free trade pact.

His latest actions threaten to further strain ties with the second-largest US trade partner and come just days after he threatened Canada with increased tariffs over a wave of wildfire smoke that descended on the US.

The White House, in announcing the new tariffs, said Canada was one of only two countries – along with China – to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs last year.

It also took aim at the fact that most Canadian provinces have stopped buying US alcohol, boycotting the products over Trump’s tariff threats and repeated calls for annexation of Canada as America’s “51st state”.

“Canada has taken US alcohol products off Canadian shelves, given better market access to dairy products from the European Union, and has put a cap on US vehicle exports to Canada from companies reshoring to the United States,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer charged in a statement.

The tariff announcement aims to “hold Canada accountable for its retaliation and discrimination”, he added.

July 10 (UPI) — Canada and the state of Michigan on Friday announced that a long-planned new bridge linking Ontario and Detroit will open at the end of July, 14 years after construction started.

The $4.4 billion Gordie Howe International Bridge between the two cities is set to open on July 27 and is set to offer improved transit on what leaders from Canada and Michigan called one of the busiest transportation corridors in North America.

The mile-and-a-half-long bridge includes new ports of entry on either side, with Canada and the United States establishing a 15-year economic development fund that has been tied to profits from crossing tolls.

President Donald Trump earlier this year threatened to prevent the bridge from opening over disagreements with previously existing trade agreements, his administration’s tariff regime and objections to Canada making trade deals with China.

“The Gordie Howe International Bridge has always been a great deal for our state,” Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a statement.

“Thousands of Michigan workers built this critical bridge, which will speed up auto production, lower costs, ease traffic, strengthen agriculture and give people on both sides of the border better-paying jobs and brighter futures,” she said. “This bridge is a testament to the enduring partnership between Michigan and Canada.”

The bridge project originated with the state’s then-Republican Gov. Rick Snyder agreeing to the six-line bridge because it would alleviate congestion accommodate future travel and create new transportation capabilities between U.S. and Canadian manufacturing regions.

Canada’s minister for housing and infrastructure, Gregor Robinson, hailed the completion and impending opening of the bridge as “strengthening one of the world’s most important trade corridors.”

“This nation-building project is a testament to what Canada can accomplish when we come together with a shared vision,” Robinson said in a statement.

“The Gordie Howe International Bridge will create new opportunities, strengthen our economy and bring economic benefits on both sides of the boarder for generations,” he said.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A South Florida airport officially changed its name Thursday to the President Donald J. Trump International Airport.

Signs for the Palm Beach International Airport have been removed as new signage goes up.

“Because an entire airport transformation doesn’t happen overnight, you’ll notice a combination of both our classic look and our new brand elements coexisting while traveling through the terminal over the next several weeks,” airport officials said in a Facebook post.

“Trump Force One,” a Boeing 757 owned by the Trump Organization, was the first plane to arrive at the airport under its new name, shortly after 5 a.m. The president’s son, Eric Trump, was one of the passengers. The Trump family regularly uses the West Palm Beach airport when they visit President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in nearby Palm Beach. A stretch of road from the airport to Trump’s estate was renamed Donald J. Trump Boulevard earlier this year.

“There is no person who has done more for Florida and our country, and no one more deserving of this incredible honor,” Eric Trump posted on X. “As a son, and someone who flies out of this airport nearly every day, I will forever be proud to see the initials ‘DJT’ on my boarding pass.”

Although the name change took effect Thursday, the three-letter airport code will change from PBI to DJT on Aug. 18.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation earlier this year that made the name change possible. Changing the airport’s name is expected to cost as much as $5.5 million for new signs, branding and other updates.

Keegan Collett, who was departing the airport Thursday morning on his way to Cincinnati, said he was surprised to see the new name. He said he doesn’t think Trump deserves to have an airport named after him but isn’t necessarily bothered by it.

“At the end of the day, it’s just the name of an airport,” Collett said. “There’s bigger things. I feel like it’s just more of a distraction. Why even worry about it?”

In Dandridge, Tenn., Thursday morning, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty and Rep. Tim Burchett attended a ceremony to rename the I-40 Bridge in East Tennessee to the Donald J. Trump Bridge.

Bessent said ahead of the ceremony that “no one is more deserving” of the honor than Trump.

Trump received 82% of the vote in Jefferson County, where Dandridge is located, in the 2024 election.

Dame Sarah Storey, Great Britain’s most-decorated Paralympian, has retired from international competition with immediate effect.

The 48-year-old cyclist has opted not to compete at Los Angeles 2028 to focus on helping improve Para-sport.

The 19-time Paralympic champion feels the sport has “stalled somewhat” since the London 2012 Games and that many areas “still need attention”.

“The years between each Games haven’t been utilised well enough to create the momentum that I and others hoped to see,” she said.

“I see this as a critical stage; there are many areas of Para-sport that still need attention, and that is something that has played a big part in my decision.

“I fully believe that I can have a greater impact off my bike, rather than chasing a 10th Games and possibly further titles.

“I’m excited to be part of a future where we inject the momentum that is needed to ensure the future is bright for all Para-athletes.”

Storey started her career as a swimmer and competed at four Games before switching to cycling, winning a total of 30 Paralympic medals across nine Games, including four golds at London 2012.

World Athletics president Lord Coe, who was chairman of London’s organising committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, said: “Para-sport was an enormously significant part of London 2012 and I remain extremely proud of what we were able to deliver.

“However, the issues that Dame Sarah raises upon her retirement resonate with me hugely – sport must continue to take those small but steady steps forward to ensure that what has gone before is not wasted.”

The British Paralympic Association has been approached for comment.

Since last week, the world’s attention has been set again on Venezuela just like six months ago.

Of course, the differences between the events of January 3rd and the terrible disaster of June 24th could not be more stark, even if both evenets have massive implications for the country’s future.

Most coverage coming from international media these days has highlighted two things: first, the terrible devastation seen in worst-hit areas like parts of Caracas and especially in La Guaira State (formerly known as Vargas); and second, that many are complaining about the official response and even calling it “negligent”, like in this report from BBC News correspondent Yogita Limaye.

Interestingly enough, in recent months there has been a reopening to the presence of foreign reporters in the country, a shift from the heavily restricted access during the Maduro years. A larger number of reporters and media crews arrived in the last few days. They have been mostly allowed to do their job (unlike Sky News’ Trump 100 podcast, interrupted by government officials while recording), but they’ve been facing their own set of specific challenges.

Earlier this week, NGO IPYS Venezuela offered a summary of some apparent restrictions from the Communication and Information Ministry to international media workers, like indicating that they could be mobilized to affected areas only through State-authorized buses and establishing a schedule for those trips from the Media Center established at La Carlota Airport in Caracas.

One person quoted in the summary is British freelance journalist Catherine Ellis, who’s covering the disaster for Al-Jazeera and UK weekly magazine The Spectator while also doing some radio interviews for other outlets. She has worked in Venezuela since 2023 and, before that, volunteered for an NGO in Colombia and Spain, helping Venezuelan immigrants. It was Ellis who published on X a picture of the buffet the regime was offering to foreign correspondents while thousands of people were thirsty and hungry.

At the time of writing, several international reporters told Delcy Rodriguez during her recent press conference what they’ve seen firsthand. She minimized those criticisms against the official response and pointed her finger at “media matrixes created in laboratories” (matrices de opinión is a popular term in Venezuela to describe artificial narratives in journalism or social media). 

Caracas Chronicles interviewed Ellis earlier this week to discuss what she recently witnessed.

How has it been for you and other international correspondents to cover the disaster on the ground? Have there been any limitations by government officials and particularly from the Communication and Information Ministry?

The experience so far as a journalist in terms of getting in and communicating with the Ministry has been quite strange in some ways. It needs to be said that it has been much more open than it usually is. Quite often, if I come to Venezuela, I can’t really do any reporting or get a journalist visa; they give very few journalist visas, and it’s particularly hard for freelance journalists when you’re not a fixed employee for a certain media outlet. But this time they let journalists in. They’re letting foreign journalists in without visas. On one hand, it’s been much, much better. This time journalists are actually allowed into the country, and access is not restricted, although we don’t know how long that will go on for. Communications have been terrible and completely lacking to the point of being almost non-existent. 

How was your experience with the bus trip to La Guaira the day after registering at La Carlota airbase in Caracas? 

We took the bus on June 28, the day after we registered in La Carlota. They told us they would take us there, and we left for La Guaira an hour and a half late. No problem, that happens sometimes, but there was no communication about what was happening. The following day was the worst because I arrived early thinking it might leave on time, only to wait for two hours with no explanation at all. Then we knew from other journalists that the trip was cancelled and access had been suspended for 48 hours for journalists. No one on the logistics team provided any explanation. They just said: “we are not in charge of it, we don’t know.” One person told me: “you have to be patient, you have to wait… This is a complex situation, and things don’t move quickly.”

How are you and your colleagues doing your work in the disaster area? 

We were completely given free rein… We were taken to a Misión Vivienda place, but we could go wherever we wanted, so I spoke to people from that place, and some were very critical of the government. I went to other buildings around, which were either for retired people or just normal apartment buildings, and I spoke to lots of people. I was very, very free to speak to people. So much that I missed the bus and the Guardia (Nacional) took another journalist and me to the next site to speak to people. 

Have there been any issues involving the police, the military, intelligence services or local officials?

Some people have been helpful, and some haven’t in terms of the authorities. In La Guaira, generally, no one stopped me from doing anything. Police and military pulled me away from a building because they were excavating to take bodies out, but to be honest, that was more for health and safety reasons, and I did understand. I went to the hotel in Caracas where the Venezuelan deportees were supposed to arrive after they got back, and the hotel collapsed. It was full of SEBIN agents. We weren’t allowed to pass because of “security reasons.” When I started to take photos, I was told off by SEBIN. That was interesting. 

Genuinely, I have to say the police and military have not stopped me speaking to anybody or stopping doing anything. And to be honest, some of them haven’t really been around. I think it’s because, as you wear the pink armband (identifying as foreign press), they know you’re press, that you’ve been approved, but getting to the hotel where the deportees were was impossible.

How has the relationship been with the civilians in the area? How do they react to the presence of the media?

Civilians have been brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Everybody is very, very open to talking. Venezuelans are incredibly warm and open people. I have no problem chatting to people. If I see people who are visibly, incredibly upset, who have family (members trapped) in buildings, it’s not the right time to talk to them.

Sometimes, I’ve approached them very sensitively, and people have shared their stories, described the people they have lost, told about what they’re lacking or what they need. Some people openly criticize the government, but others who have criticized the government then say they don’t want their names used, and others are not thinking about politics. They’re just in shock.

How has the relationship been between international correspondents and Venezuelan journalists?

Venezuelan journalists are incredibly helpful. I think there has been a lot of solidarity between all journalists, between Venezuelan and international journalists and among the international journalists themselves. I’ve been speaking to people from the US, Canada, Argentina, parts of Europe, and they all want to help each other. 

On a critical note, there have been a couple of international journalists who either pushed me out of the way at certain sites because they want to film or come up to me when I’m interviewing people and taking my interviewees. This isn’t a show, people have lost (their) lives. I would encourage the international press to have a heightened level of sensibility and respect for all Venezuelans and all affected by this crisis.

Have you noticed the difference between how you see the situation on the ground, how it is covered outside, and how it is covered inside, how the government is presenting it? 

From what I’ve seen, Delcy and the government are trying to project an image of solidarity with the international community, thanking and praising them for being here and helping Venezuelans in their time of need. But not necessarily announcing tangible and concrete steps of what they’re actually putting in place. Someone put it to me like this: “The government has been very visible, key figures have been very visible in terms of presence on social media and even visiting sites, but there has not been enough concrete information about donation centers, about what’s happening next, about actually managing the actual crisis.”

How have people in La Guaira been coping?

A lot of people are still in shock. It’s very hard to process, but everybody seems to be very grateful to everyone who is helping them, either members of their own community or the international rescue teams. Some people have said, “Other governments are helping us more than our own government.” 

I think the most important thing to emphasize, which is non-political, is that people are saying “Venezuelans are helping Venezuelans, they’re helping each other.” Someone said to me the other day, “We are a family, this is what we do, we help each other, we won’t give up, and you know, keep going.”

I spoke to a guy who came from Valencia. He had three kids back home and said, “I couldn’t bear to think of my own kids lying somewhere like that and no one going to find them,” so he came on his way, he got lists from people, and he came so he can help with the search and rescue. 

There’s definitely a lot of shock. A lot of kids are still scared and adults feel that any movement or anything, not just aftershocks, mean something is going to happen again. People are getting through by supporting each other.

Is the aid arriving properly? Have you seen aid being delivered?

There’s so much aid everywhere. In Caracas, I’ve seen so many trucks coming in. The problem is that I can’t exactly say what’s happening to the aid. Some aid is getting through, but there seem to be a little bit of bottlenecks or bureaucracy; I don’t know the full reasons… It’s getting through to some people but isn’t getting through to other people, and they’re running out of some things. People want proper accommodation also. Definitely, in a lot of places there are now international NGOs setting up food points as well.

– 

Just yesterday, while covering relief efforts taking place at Parque del Este, Ellis was approached by a couple of suspicious looking fellows. This was the exchange:

I was in Parque del Este tonight speaking to volunteers and affected families camping there. I was chatting to one family when two men came over to look what was going on then left. I started helping the family move their stuff to the road (I was carrying the cat!) as they were moving somewhere else. The two men called me over, asked me if I was a journalist, to which I said yes and showed them my wristbands. Asked more questions, who I was, where from, what I was doing. I asked who they were, as they still hadn’t introduced themselves by this point. One (the politer one) said they were intelligence police, asked what I was doing, so I said speaking to the family etc. Asked if I knew them, I said no. Then asking qus like my age, which was weird as one had my passport which has my DOB. Took photos of my passport. Asked where I lived, said I didn’t want to give that info. I asked why they wanted to know all this, they said for security and that people were taking children, so I asked if they thought I was taking kids. They said no. I told me they were asking me because I was a journalist and there was not a real free press. One was fairly polite and said they didn’t want to make me uncomfortable. I said they already had. Eventually they gave me it back. It’s ok to check who someone is, check they have a wristband which you now should have in the park – but I did, and I showed them, so why the need for questionning and taking photos of my passport? And why was the first qu, are you a journalist? Does everyone who enters the park get that level of treatment?

It doesn’t take much for chavismo to step back into its old ways.

WASHINGTON — President Trump did not like what he saw. So, once again, he picked up the phone.

Trump said Monday that he called FIFA President Gianni Infantino after he disagreed with the World Cup referee who gave a red card to U.S. men’s soccer team star Folarin Balogun. The discipline, which Trump called “very unfair” and a “stain” on the World Cup, would have barred Balogun from playing in Monday’s elimination game against Belgium.

“I asked for a review because I didn’t think it was a foul,” Trump told reporters during an event in the Oval Office. “I am good at this stuff. I didn’t think it was a foul. I thought it was two great athletes that crashed into each other and got entangled.”

Trump said he initially didn’t know “what the hell a red card was” or what it meant. “When I found out, I said, ‘You gotta be kidding!’” he said.

Trump’s involvement in soccer’s disciplinary process created an international uproar.

UEFA, European soccer’s governing body, said FIFA “crossed a red line” with the reversal. Belgium’s football association appealed the ruling, which FIFA denied during a hearing Monday. Belgian coach Rudi Garcia mocked the decision as an April Fools’ joke.

“This decision clearly raises many questions,” Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot said in a statement Monday, according to the New York Times.

“If a phone call really is what explains this incomprehensible decision, it would amount to undermining the most basic rules of soccer and sports,” added Prévot, a former soccer referee.

Trump’s close relationship with Infantino also has drawn new scrutiny.

In December, Infantino presented Trump with the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, an award the governing body created after Trump was passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize. That decision is now the subject of an ethics complaint, backed by members of the European Parliament, who argue it compromised FIFA’s political neutrality.

Trump said he did not ask Infantino to reverse the call. But that was the outcome reached by FIFA’s disciplinary committee, which, in 64 years, has reversed a red-card penalty only once during a World Cup tournament.

The episode serves as a reminder of a pattern of behavior the president has exhibited when he doesn’t get his way, regardless of the rules of the game. For Trump, a deal-maker who has described the world as “a casino,” often pushes the boundaries of long-standing norms.

After FIFA reversed course, Trump called the decision “brilliant” and said Belgium can now “be really proud” if they were to beat the U.S. team on Monday night.

“The other way, if they beat us, we’ll say, or I’ll say it was rigged, just like the election was rigged in 2020, but I won’t get into that,” Trump said.

Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist and co-author of “How Democracies Die,” said Trump’s action are “perfectly consistent with how Trump has behaved on the world stage.”

“He has no interest in or no respect for any kind of international rules or norms,” he said.

Levitsky said the events illustrate the Trump administration’s worldview, one that, he argues, revolves around the ethos that “if we’re strong enough, we can leverage our way to whatever the hell we want.”

As examples, he pointed to the administration’s military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and efforts to acquire Greenland, both of which have led to diplomatic tensions.

Trump also has a history of using phone calls to pressure officials to reach an outcome he wants.

In a 2019 call, he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rival, a moment that became the catalyst of his first impeachment. And after losing the 2020 election, he pressed Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes,” the margin he needed to flip the state, a move that ultimately led to a criminal indictment.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino presents President Trump with the FIFA Peace Prize in December.

(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

Trump defended his call with Infantino to reporters and appeared to downplay how much it may have contributed to the red card penalty being reversed.

“I can’t tell [Infantino] what to do, and I don’t believe he made the decision,” Trump said. “I think it was a committee that made the decision, and they made the right decision, because No. 1, it wasn’t a foul, and you want to see a game with your best players.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who was in the Oval Office when Trump acknowledged the call with Infantino, made reference to the Peace Prize as he thanked Trump for “getting rid of the ridiculous red card” ahead of the knockout game.

“There was a reason the FIFA trophy sat here for as long as it did,” Cruz told Trump.

Infantino, for his part, issued a statement Monday insisting that the decision came from FIFA’s independent disciplinary committee and that he told Trump the case would be decided by the body. Bill White, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, also defended Trump, saying he “would never interfere with the inner workings of FIFA.”

Norman Eisen, co-founder of Democracy Defenders Action, said Trump’s decision to get involved in soccer’s disciplinary process is a “classic example of achieving a right outcome through wrong means.” He added that he believes the Trump administration and FIFA showed to be “two of the most corrupt entities around.”

“Like many Americans who are following the World Cup and rooting our team on, I thought it was a bad call,” Eisen said. “But I would never have chosen to bring that about in this fashion.”

Levitsky argued that given the popularity of the World Cup, which hundreds of millions of people around the world are tuning into to watch, Trump is opening himself up for more scrutiny on the global scale.

“People across the world who don’t give a damn about politics are following the World Cup, and they’re seeing the United States behave this way, taking what it can take at the expense of others unfairly,” he said. “Of course it is going to hurt the U.S. image abroad.”

When Stokes was away from the England team for the second Test, he played for Durham and said returning to his county rekindled a love for the game. He confirmed he will continue to play domestic cricket.

“Being back at Durham, when I wasn’t playing in the second Test, I found a new lease of life for the game, but unfortunately I just couldn’t get that feeling back this week,” said Stokes.

“I’m very excited about the next part of what I get to do. Going back to playing for my boyhood club Durham, I’m comparing this week to that week – right now I am buzzing, but there have been moments this week that have been really tough and it just adds to everything and it makes it clear that I’ve made the right decision.”

Stokes said he made the retirement decision when he was putting on his pads to prepare to bat in England’s first innings at Trent Bridge on Saturday.

He told former captain Joe Root and vice-captain Harry Brook on Saturday evening, then revealed the news to the rest of the team on Sunday morning.

“It’s been an interesting four or five weeks, maybe six months in general,” added Stokes. “There are all kinds of emotions when this day comes – relief, happiness, excitement, sadness. Everything that you go through.

“It’s the best thing that I’ve ever been asked to do, captaining England. It is the greatest honour to have on your shoulders but there is also another side to it that people don’t see, only those closest to you see it.

“My family, my wife, they see the bits where it does drain you and it does affect you negatively.”

England test captain Ben Stokes will retire from international cricket after the ongoing test match against New Zealand.

England captain Ben Stokes has made the dramatic decision to announce his imminent retirement from international cricket midway through the deciding third test against New Zealand.

“This is my last two days as your captain and my last two days representing England,” Stokes told his England teammates inside the dressing room on Sunday at the start of play at Trent Bridge on Day 4, in a video released on social media by England Cricket.

The match is headed to a fifth and final day on Monday, with the series on the line at 1-1.

The shocking announcement came 15 minutes before the tea break. Stokes picked up a wicket moments later and was given a standing ovation as he led England off at the end of the session.

“The reasons can wait [about] why,” Stokes said in his dressing-room speech. “But I’ve had many trips to the well before for this team, and I’ve got one more trip to do.”

Stokes, 35, one of the world’s best known cricketers, has represented England for 15 years, the peak surely coming in 2019 when he starred for England in its wild win over New Zealand in the 50-over World Cup final at Lord’s.

He was also a key player in England’s T20 World Cup-winning team in 2022, the same year he became test captain.

Stokes has decided to quit international cricket during a series when he made front-page news after being dropped by England for the second test amid an investigation following a night out with teammate Gus Atkinson after the first test at Lord’s.

The two players were in a London nightclub when an England team security official was reportedly struck by a rugby player from English club Saracens.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) dropped Stokes and Atkinson, and later said they had “breached specific contractual obligations” and were given a written warning. The sport’s independent oversight panel – the Cricket Regulator body – said after its investigation that there was “insufficient evidence to establish that any regulatory breach occurred”.

Stokes was recalled for the third test.

ECB chairman Richard Thompson said Stokes is “one of England’s greatest ever cricketers and one of the defining figures of his generation.”

“His performances under pressure, his relentless competitiveness and his ability to produce the extraordinary when it matters most have given me and millions of other fans memories that will endure forever,” Thompson said.

“Beyond his remarkable achievements on the field, his performances have inspired many youngsters to embrace cricket with positivity and belief. We are losing a batsman, a bowler, a captain and a talisman.”

England captain Ben Stokes has made a stunning announcement to end his international career at the conclusion of the ongoing third Test against New Zealand.

All-rounder Stokes, one of the finest cricketers to ever play for England, was in the middle of a bowling spell at Trent Bridge when a statement was released confirming his intention to end a 15-year international career.

The 35-year-old missed England’s second Test after being involved in an incident in a London nightclub.

Before his return to the leading the team in Nottingham, he referred only to leading the team “this week”.

China has added 10 United States-based companies to its export control list and barred government procurement from nearly 50 US companies two weeks after the Pentagon blacklisted some of China’s best-known companies for their alleged ties to the Chinese military.

China’s Ministry of Commerce announced the export order on Monday, barring Chinese companies from exporting “dual-use” items that can be used for civilian or military purposes to the US firms.

The list of companies includes rare-earth mine operator MP Materials Corp, rare-earth magnet maker USA Rare Earths, and US defence contractors specialising in fields such as aerospace, drones, synthetic-aperture radar, and shipbuilding and repairs.

Under the order, “foreign institutions and individuals worldwide are also prohibited from transferring or providing Chinese dual-use goods to them” while ongoing export transactions must be suspended immediately.

The Commerce Ministry said the export ban had been issued to “safeguard national security and interests and fulfil international obligations such as non-proliferation”.

China’s Ministry of Finance on Monday separately barred Chinese government procurement from 46 companies, including subsidiaries of major US defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Atomics and General Dynamics. US-funded, locally registered companies, however, have been given an exemption by the ministry.

Experts described Beijing’s orders as a retaliation, albeit a largely symbolic one, against the US after the Pentagon in early June added about 80 Chinese companies and their subsidiaries to its list of “Entities Identified as Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States”.

The designation means the Pentagon either believes the companies are owned or controlled by the Chinese military or they are “military-civil fusion contributors”, a term for commercial companies that contribute to China’s military development despite their civilian status.

The updated list includes Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Holdings, search engine giant Baidu and electric automaker BYD, some of China’s largest and best-known companies.

While the order does not bar US companies from doing business with them, it does impact US defence contractors and their future supply chains.

“We can interpret this as a tit-for-tat response, and that fits into China’s playbook any time we’ve seen escalation from the US side in terms of trade and investment tools,” said Nick Marro, global trade lead analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

China-based supply chain consultant Cameron Johnson said the Commerce Ministry’s order mirrors US semiconductor export controls designed to keep the most advanced chips out of Chinese hands.

“They basically say it doesn’t matter where or who you are, you are bound by this regardless of circumstance,” said Johnson, who is also a senior partner at the Shanghai consultancy Tidal Wave Solutions. “Organisations or individuals in any country or region are prohibited from transferring dual-use materials that originated in China.”

He said Beijing’s orders in practice may be hard to enforce and many of the companies named in those orders have already moved their supply chains out of China or begun to “de-risk” their operations there.

Johnson said the wide scope of companies included in Washington’s and Beijing’s directives could be a sign of more to come and may signal a new front in the US-China trade war.

“This is probably just the beginning of the back and forth,” he said. Last year, after returning to the White House for a second term, US President Donald Trump reignited the US-China trade war, leading Washington and Beijing to impose escalating rounds of tariffs on each other.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a trade truce in October, which was extended during a summit between the two leaders in Beijing in May.

Despite promises to “enhance economic cooperation” during the meeting, observers like Singapore-based geopolitical analyst Steve Okun predicted the goodwill may be short-lived.

“The US’s recent closure of chip export loopholes and China’s continuing addition to its export bans show the national security lane remains active in both capitals regardless of the diplomatic niceties at the recent Trump-Xi summit,” Okun told Al Jazeera.

“There is no ‘truce’ in the US-China trade war. Expect further actions from both sides as well on export controls and investment restrictions,” he said.

As Colombia comes down from the ecstasy-filled high of its recent win in their 2026 World Cup opener, a sadder, and much darker reality is beginning to set. On June 21^st, 2026, Colombians will vote in a historic runoff election that will not only hurt Colombia but will have serious effects on the future of Venezuela. 

No matter the outcome, Colombia will be worse off, as both Iván Cepeda and Abelardo De la Espriella are a study on how a democracy can offer voters a choice between two particular brands of terrible.

The first-round of the election provides a clear insight into the current state of Colombian civil society. Like many presidential systems, Colombia structures its presidential elections in a two-round system.  If no candidate surpasses 50% of the vote in the first round, as happened on May 31st, a second runoff election is called between the first and second placed candidates. That runoff is this Sunday, June 21^st. Moderate and moderate right-wing candidates Sergio Fajardo and Paloma Valencia achieved historic electoral lows for centrists with 4% and 6% of the vote respectively, whilst the radical extremes of the political scale rejoiced in victory. 

The biggest surprise was undoubtedly Abelardo de la Espriella´s first round victory, with the self-anointed “Tiger” garnering 43.7% of the vote to first round favourite Iván Cepeda´s 40.9%. With a mere 600,000 votes separating the candidates and about 3 million votes being contested, both can win the election. 

Cepeda, who is President Gustavo Petro’s hand-picked heir, initially questioned the results alongside the controversial president, and only accepted them on June 7^th, a week after the election. With his institutional backing, that delay matters. All in all, Colombians ran to the extremes, which provided a clear data-backed picture of just how polarized Colombian civil society is.

Whoever gets sworn in Bogotá on August 7^th2026, will have more operational influence over Venezuelan affairs than any other head of state in the hemisphere, apart from Trump.

Regardless of the result in the June 21^st runoff, the Colombian elections will have a lasting effect on the future of Venezuela and could be the catalyst for very different answers to the question of the country´s political future. 

First and foremost, Colombia is the country that has received the largest number of Venezuelan migrants, with approximately 3 million Venezuelans calling the country home. Since January 2025, Colombia has been hosting the diaspora without US funding and support. Furthermore, part of the the 2,219 kilometre-long border between both countries is controlled by the Colombian Guerrilla ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional), who lost key ally and facilitator Nicolás Maduro on January 3^rd and is currently massing on the Colombian side.

Bogotá’s diplomatic influence and posture is one of the few international players that can have significant effects on whether interim dictator Delcy Rodríguez will eventually push for elections in Venezuela. 

All in all, whoever gets sworn in Bogotá on August 7^th 2026, will have more operational influence over Venezuelan affairs than any other head of state in the hemisphere, apart from the self-proclaimed most popular man in Venezuela, Donald Trump.

Now, it’s time to get down to brass tacks, the who is who. Inside trash can number one we find Iván Cepeda. Cepeda’s personal arc is worryingly similar to that of the Rodríguez siblings in Venezuela. His father was a radical Left politician murdered by far Right paramilitary groups. That fuelled Cepeda’s deep hatred towards the Colombian political system and institutions. A career senator and politician, Cepeda is probably the smartest mind in Colombia’s hard Left. He is also an admirer of Hugo Chávez, and strong critic of former president and kingmaker Álvaro Úribe. Cepeda’s followers will frame him as a left-wing moderate, but he is not. He is Petro without the cocaine, prostitutes and charisma, running on continuing the Total Peace framework that has seen record numbers of cocaine production in the country, and bolstered the rearming of the ELN. His commitment to governmental continuity will no doubt hurt Colombia, starting with the fact that current policies have driven down Foreign Direct Investment in Colombia by 30% from a 2023 peak.

De la Espriella is a one-man band who won the first round through violent speeches, AI anthropomorphic videos of himself as a tiger, and evangelical networks.

Furthermore, his delay in recognizing the electoral results provides an interesting insight on how Cepeda could interact with institutions that he finds inconvenient. A man who questions clean elections certified by international observers has no business rewriting constitutions, a key pillar on his first-round electoral campaign, which he recently dropped in a pathetic attempt to attract centrists and moderates. Cepeda’s rhetoric and language is extremely divisive. He frames every political opponent as an oligarch, every private enterprise as an exploiter, every security operation as state violence whilst analysing the deep social gaps and concerns the country must navigate. Rather than seeking to solve them, Cepeda weaponizes them to further divide the Colombian population.

But Cepeda’s rottenness is not counterbalanced by a knight in shining armour, but by a different but equally foul-smelling individual. We find Abelardo “The Tiger” de la Espriella inside trash can number two. The part-time attorney, part-time rum maker, aspiring opera singer, fashionista with terrible taste is one of the most questionable figures in the Colombian public sphere. A criminal defence attorney, who became famous for being the lawyer and fixer for chavista allies like Alex Saab and paramilitary leaders, has found a new “passion project” in his expanding list of questionable side hustles: becoming the president of Colombia. De la Espriella comes in as a true outsider who has no congressional or political backing. He is a one-man band who won the first round through violent speeches, AI anthropomorphic videos of himself as a tiger, and evangelical networks.

Abelardo’s rhetoric only serves to perpetrate a never-ending cycle of violence. The anti-democratic claims that he will literally “gut leftists,” his active endorsements of states of exception and support for arbitrary concentrations of power within the presidency, his promise to open ten CECOT-style mega prisons, and his constant disregard and attacks against human rights are problematic. 

His “security agenda” is not offering any coherent security policy. On the contrary, he’s seeking to create a permission structure for state-sponsored political violence, dressed as law and order. His policy against the ELN of all-out war has no institutional backing, and risks triggering considerable escalation. Events like the April 25^th bombing can serve as a prelude of what an empowered ELN can look like. 

De la Espriella’s polarization is of a different flavour to Cepeda’s, but equally problematic. Instead of using social and class divides, the Tiger weaponizes the us-versus-them mentality along the lines of patriots and enemies. In a country with such a tragic and saddening history of political violence, that rhetoric has a body count attached to it.

Cepeda’s attitude will likely be lukewarm and soft on Venezuela, dragging his feet on any meaningful action such as Venezuelan migrants in Colombia or elections in our country.

At the end of the day, either candidate will face serious problems to govern, and will bring a myriad of conundrums for Colombia, but how do their stances translate into the Venezuelan question? On one hand, Iván Cepeda has constantly framed the operation to extract Nicolás Maduro as violation of sovereignty, a position which lacks any diplomatic nuance, and at the same time provides strong insights into how Cepeda will behave towards Venezuela and how much pressure he´ll exert on Venezuela to call for elections. The Total Peace Framework will provide the ELN with the political umbrella to consolidate in the border region, stacking an unpredictable situation on top of an already volatile powder-keg in Venezuela. Calling Cepeda a “friend” of Maduro or Delcy is not accurate, but he is the regime’s useful neighbour. His attitude will most likely be lukewarm and soft on Venezuela, dragging his feet on any meaningful action like his predecessor Gustavo Petro such as Venezuelan migrants in Colombia or elections in our country.

On the other hand, analysing Abelardo’s impact on Venezuela must begin with the fact that he was the leading defence attorney for Alex Saab between 2013 and 2018, the same years Saab ran Maduro’s sanction-busting operation. Although his divisive rhetoric claims forceful actions, his personal history and contacts in his rolodex prove that rather than full force, there is a clear entanglement with the chavista operation. De la Espriella also has no real plan for the domestic situation with refugees, and his ultra-nationalist stance could cause serious problems for foreign populations in Colombia. Furthermore, his full force campaign against the guerrillas can drive the ELN back over the Venezuelan border.

A small “silver lining” does exist. On one hand, Cepeda has stated that he will try to push for regularization mechanisms in Colombia. On the other, Abelardo’s ties to the International Right and Donald Trump can transform him into a key figure to push for a decisive presidential election and as a source of pressure on Delcy.

Colombia’s role as a key interlocutor with Venezuela is undeniably at risk regardless of who wins the presidency. Because the region and Venezuela needed a Colombian president that could be a genuine bridge between Washington and Caracas, between the Venezuelan diaspora and integration, between the ELN and disarmament, and for the ever-divided poles of the Colombian population. But rather, on June 21, the country was forced to choose between ideological blindness dressed in progressive language, and maximum pressure dressed over an obvious conflict of interest. Venezuela might again pay the price for someone else’s terrible choices.

Daiki Kaneko had only 24 hours before his World Cup journey took him to Dallas, where his home country’s squad will take on Sweden.

The Japanese soccer fan was making the most of it on Tuesday in Inglewood, snapping pictures of SoFi Stadium before taking in a different kind of monument: a space-age, two-story branch of the chicken chain Raising Cane’s, complete with a 308-square-foot screen, a mirrored dog sculpture and a massive halo hovering around the exterior.

For Kaneko, 25, who lives in the Tokyo suburbs, it was the perfect encapsulation of American grandeur.

“All this for chicken,” he said. “I love America.”

Inglewood is already diverse — most residents are Latino or Black, and nearly a third are immigrants. But during the World Cup, it’s looking more like the United Nations. English, Japanese, Swiss, Iranians, Paraguayans, Bosnians, Belgians and others are flocking to the city of about 102,000, where eight matches are being played at SoFi Stadium.

Though visitors from abroad may not have heard of Inglewood until now, they’re soaking up the vibes of a city that has long been a major sports and entertainment hub, home to venues such as the Kia Forum and Intuit Dome, and a crucible of Black culture, immortalized in hip-hop songs by artists such as Tupac Shakur and Dr. Dre.

“We’re an international city now,” Mayor James Butts said.

Butts said locals were already proud of what the city has become, but the World Cup has put the celebratory feelings over the top.

“We have people from so many different countries migrating to Inglewood, and there’s an explosive sense of community pride,” he said.

Bartender Elijah Gonzalez, left, mixes a drink at the Nile Bar in Inglewood while customers watch a World Cup soccer preview.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

City officials are doing everything they can to embrace the spirit of the tournament, including speeding up permits so small businesses and neighborhoods can hold World Cup gatherings and watch parties, Butts said. During the U.S.’s opening match against Paraguay on June 12, the city hosted the Wood Cup, a block party on Market Street that brought in more than 5,000 people.

Businesses across the city are embracing the tournament as well, vying for a piece of the roughly $17 million the city expects to haul in. For a few weeks, concerns about skyrocketing housing costs and gentrification, brought on by the city’s increasing popularity as a place to settle down, are taking a back seat to the sheer fun of international soccer.

The supersized Raising Cane’s had its grand opening on June 11, the first day of the tournament. During the USMNT’s opening match, Cinepolis, a luxury movie theater down the road from SoFi Stadium, turned into a global sports hub, according to CEO Luis Olloqui.

Maddy Daversa, a bartender at the Meeting Spot, a restaurant near the stadium, said 2,000 people poured in when the Americans played Paraguay.

“I was selling beers for five hours straight,” she said. “It was crazy.”

Daversa said the restaurant is usually closed on Mondays but opened in hopes of getting some spillover fans from the Iran-New Zealand game at SoFi.

“Every table was full,” she said. “We’re taking advantage.”

Tuesday was an off day for Inglewood, with no games at SoFi. But the energy was still palpable, with locals sporting soccer jerseys and tourists popping up across the city.

“I just want to be where the fans are,” said David Meier, a Swiss fan in town for his home country’s match against Bosnia-Herzegovina on Thursday.

Meier, 45, plans to explore L.A. via bars, restaurants and watch parties, taking in every game that his schedule will allow before heading north of the border to Vancouver, where Switzerland will face Canada on June 24.

“Everyone has been so kind,” he said. “Soccer and beer turns strangers into friends.”

Flags from countries competing in the World Cup are on display at Manchester Boulevard and South Market Street in Inglewood.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The energy carried over to Market Street, a historic shopping district about a mile from SoFi Stadium. Businesses set up signs, posters and international flags to lure locals and tourists alike, while the Miracle Theater hosted a watch party for the match between France and Senegal.

Owen Smith, who co-owns the theater with his wife, Mariana, said a Senegalese friend who grew up in France asked if he would be willing to show the game on the big screen. A day later, fans of both teams assembled inside, snapping photos in front of a giant inflatable World Cup trophy in the lobby.

“The Miracle is a cultural event theater. It’s about accommodating the community,” Smith said.

Benyam Woldegiorgis, who co-owns the Nile Bar on Market Street, is showing every single World Cup match — all 104 of them.

“It brings in business,” he said. “Usually it’s just football, basketball and baseball, but now we’re adding soccer to the mix.”

Dionte Johnson, owner of the streetwear store Kingsrowe, partnered with Adidas to hold a watch party for the U.S. team’s opener and said the turnout was massive, bringing in loads of Mexico fans who are local residents, even though their team had already won their opener the day before.

“The downside of the World Cup is that tickets are so expensive, so a lot of locals can’t go check out the games themselves. That’s why we’re hosting events,” Johnson said. “The games are in our backyard, so this is something people have had on their calendar for a long time.”

Homeowners are cashing in as well, with some renting out their places on Airbnb for a small fortune, figuring that crashing on a friend’s couch or booking a hotel room elsewhere is well worth the lofty payouts brought by World Cup demand.

Across L.A., hotel demand lagged compared with initial expectations, but short-term rental prices still jumped 56% compared with typical rates, and more than 70% of rentals were booked by December 2025.

In Inglewood — especially for rentals walkable to SoFi Stadium — prices became dizzying.

David Orenstein and his wife, Peggy, run an Airbnb across the street from SoFi Stadium. It usually rents for $400 per night, but for the U.S. team’s opening game, it went for $3,000.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Peggy Orenstein and her husband, David, own a home steps from the stadium that typically rents for $400 a night on Airbnb. For the U.S. team’s opener, the nightly rate shot up to $3,000.

For other matches, the four-bedroom house is going for $1,200 to $1,500 a night. Orenstein said the high demand and international crowds are a teaser for what’s to come.

“Next up is the Olympics,” she said. “This is a great learning lesson for what we can expect.”

EASYJET is launching 13 new routes from the UK including to lesser-known destinations.

The routes include the airline’s first international destination from a tiny UK airport.

EasyJet will launch a route between Newquay Airport in Cornwall and Geneva in Switzerland – which will be its first international route from the airport.

The route will launch on January 16, 2027 and operate once a week on Saturdays until February 27, 2027.

Among the 12 other routes being launched are new routes from London Luton to Kittila in Finland launching on November 24 and Strasbourg in France launching on November 29.

Flights to Kittila will operate twice a week, on Tuesdays and Saturdays whereas flights to Strasbourg will operate four times a week on Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays.

Read more on travel inspo

ALL IN

I found the best value all inclusive London hotel… just £55pp with free food & booze

STAYCAY

Our travel experts’ best-kept-secret UK holiday spots for summer – from £37 a night

London Southend will get new flights to Edinburgh, Scotland operating twice a week from October 25 on Thursdays and Sundays from £23.99 per person.

From Birmingham you will be able to fly to Copenhagen in Denmark, twice a week on Mondays and Fridays, launching on November 16 and costing from £31.99 per person.

Or if you live near Manchester, you can head to Cairo in Egypt from November 9 – the only direct route from Manchester to the ‘Sphinx’ airport.

The route will operate twice a week on Mondays and Fridays, with flights costing from £131.99 per person.

Liverpool will get two new routes including to Kittilä in Finland and Reykjavik in Iceland.

Flights to Kittila will start on November 25, departing twice a week on Wednesdays and Saturdays with tickets costing from £30.99 per person.

On the other hand, flights will head to Reykjavik from November 2, taking off on Mondays and Fridays, with flights costing from £43.99 per person.

And Newcastle will get several new destinations including Barcelona in Spain, Berlin in Germany, Copenhagen in Denmark, Hurghada in Egypt and Rovaniemi in Finland.

Flights to Barcelona will be the first to launch on October 25, operating twice a week on Fridays and Sundays and costing from £28.99 per person.

Hurghada flights will then start on October 27 twice a week on Tuesdays and Saturdays, costing from £121.99 per person.

Copenhagen flights will launch on November 5, followed by Berlin on November 20 and then Rovaniemi on November 25.