international

BRITS could soon head to Europe from an unused train station thanks to Government backing.

The UK Government has today backed plans for cross-channel rail services to Europe via Stratford International Train Station.

Stratford International finished construction back in 2006 with four platforms, however the two platforms for international services have never been used.

In order for the international platforms to open to services, work will need to be done to aid the flow of passengers through the station as well as implementing new security technology.

The station would be able to handle around 250 to 300 passengers at a time.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “Today’s Budget is a really positive and significant day for London. At its heart is a new devolution revolution.

Read more on travel inspo

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

BOOK IT

20 ultra cheap girly hols – UK trips, city breaks & all inclusive stays from £59

“After lobbying on the issue for many years, I’m delighted that the Government will help us to bring cross-channel rail services to Stratford International – making this station truly international for the first time.

“It will open up huge opportunities for jobs, investment and tourism.”

Last week, it was revealed that the station is set to undergo a £20million project to launch trains to France by 2030.

One in three trains to and from France could stop at the station under the new plans.

It’s predicted that the stop would add five to eight minutes to the overall journey time.

And in the future trains could stop at Brussels, Rotterdam and Amsterdam as well as other destinations in Germany and Switzerland.

The Mayor added that billions is also set to be invested in “transformational infrastructure projects such as the West London Orbital, the Bakerloo Line Extension and the Euston knowledge quarter project, supporting tens of thousands of new homes, jobs and economic growth”.

Trade and security are expected to be on the agenda as delegations and leaders from dozens of African countries gather in Moscow for a two-day summit with Russia.

The third instalment of the Russia-Africa Summit will run through October 28–29 and will be chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the current African Union chair, Burundian President Evariste Ndayishimiye.

Russia has boosted security and trade cooperation with African nations as it grapples with Western sanctions imposed in response to its war against Ukraine.

So who will be attending and what is at stake?

Here’s what we know.

What is the Russia-Africa Summit?

The Russia-Africa Summit is a two-day diplomatic and economic meeting being held in Moscow on Wednesday and Thursday.

Leaders and delegations from 48 African countries are meeting to discuss bilateral cooperation spanning politics, defence and technology.

This high-profile forum is the third of its kind. The first summit took place in October 2019 in Sochi, marking an unprecedented turn in Russian-African relations.

What’s on the agenda for the summit?

The event’s official theme is Developing Mutually Beneficial Cooperation and “unlocking the potential of every African country”.

More than 40 sessions and about 100 speakers will cover trade, investment, technology transfer, food and energy security, healthcare, education and youth exchange.

There will also be a business programme, culminating in a plenary session.

Who is attending?

Representatives from 48 African countries will participate, as well as 22 heads of state, according to Kremlin presidential aide Yury Ushakov. Heads of state from 17 countries attended the last summit in 2023.

Fewer leaders came to the last two summits, compared with the first gathering in 2019, when 43 took part, a decline which Moscow blamed on Western pressure.

Russian President Putin is scheduled to meet with his Egyptian counterpart Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

The guest list includes leaders closely tied to Russia’s growing security role in Africa, including Burkina Faso’s Ibrahim Traore and Niger’s Abdourahamane Tchiani.

Kenya’s William Ruto, Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and Namibia’s Netumbo Nandi-Ndatiwah are also expected, as well as Sudan’s Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed al-Menfi, the chairman of the Presidential Council of Libya.

What is the relationship between Russia and Africa like?

Russia has gained far more influence in Africa through security than trade, according to a report by the African Security Analysis group (ASA), a security consultancy.

Russia’s security presence has risen significantly in the region. In 2023, Russian forces, mostly from the Wagner Group, operated in only a few African countries, but the ASA now counts Russian missions or troops in at least nine countries.

Trade between African countries and Russia has exceeded $28bn. It was estimated to be about $16.8bn in 2019, when the first summit was held. But trade is mainly concentrated in a few countries and overshadowed by that of China and the European Union.

Russia’s strongest ties to the continent are in energy, fertilisers, defence and nuclear power, where the state-owned firm Rosatom has signed a string of agreements.

Russia has been an essential supplier of fertilisers and wheat to many countries in the region.

In 2023, Russia exported 200,000 tonnes of grain to Mali, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Eritrea and Zimbabwe. 

Why does this summit matter?

This is the first summit since 2023, so it will be an indicator of how far the relationship has developed and where it is heading, analysts say.

A final declaration and a Russia-Africa Partnership Forum plan should be adopted by the end of the Summit to cover 2027-2029.

Analysts have said that meetings on the sidelines could be more important than the main event, as talks between African delegations and Russian defence officials can illustrate where Moscow plans to expand its military ties.

The recruitment of Africans to fight in Ukraine could also be a growing problem for Moscow, as it has already caused diplomatic concern in countries such as Kenya.

Amnesty International has used the run-up to the summit to raise the issue of Africans being recruited to fight with Russia.

In an open letter, the directors of Amnesty’s African section urged leaders attending the summit to demand that Moscow end what the group describes as deceptive and coercive recruitment of Africans to fight in its war in Ukraine.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un waved to crowds as he crossed a newly opened bridge linking his country with China, Chinese state media reported. The Yalu River Bridge is seen as a strategic link in expanding trade ties between the two nations.

A MAJOR airport is about to spend billions on a huge upgraded terminal.

Not only that, but British Airways is launching the new route in January with year-round flights every day.

Melbourne Airport has announced its one step closer to its $4.5 billion (£2.35million) International Terminal expansion.

New designs show off expanded check-in, arrivals and departure areas.

It will have a larger check-in hall with high-tech, common-user systems and expanded baggage claim with additional carousels.

Five additional aircraft stands will accommodate more flights.

STAY CHEAP

Bargains at Butlins & manor stays… incredible value UK hols from £2.50pp a night

HAPPY HOLLY-DAYS

The 8 UK holiday parks opening for Christmas this year with £6.62pp stays

Throughout the International Terminal will be windows to maximise natural light for a calming atmosphere.

There will also be more retail, dining and lounge options as well we improved waiting areas for passengers.

Works will coincide along the construction of Melbourne Airport’s third runway.

Stats revealed that in January, more than 1.26million passengers travelled through the international terminal which was their busiest month on record.

Just last month the airport opened its new Pick up and Drop off zones for Terminals 1,2 and 3 and a new pedestrian bridge linking passengers to the terminals.

For anyone who lands and immediately wants a slice of Australia, the famous “kangaroo spotting trail” is right next door to the airport at Woodlands Historic Park.

British Airways is launching its Melbourne route on January 9, 2027 – flights will operate year-round from London Heathrow, via Kuala Lumpur, on a daily basis.

Flights will take off from Heathrow at 9.10pm and land in Kuala Lumpur at 6.05pm the following day.

The plane will then take off again at 7.45pm and land in Melbourne the following morning at 6.40am.

Return flights will start on January 11, taking off each day at 4.35pm and landing in Kuala Lumpur at 9.35pm.

The flight will then take off from Kuala Lumpur at 11.15pm and land back at Heathrow the following day at 5.20am.

Return flights will cost from £1,130.

Melbourne is well-worth the visit too being Australia’s second-largest city.

It was recently named the world’s best city by Time Out for its food scene, art and culture scene nightlife.

There’s the lively arts scene in Fitzroy which also has vintage shops, record stores and cosy cafes.

The city often hosts major sporting events as well, such as Formula One, and the flights are in time for the Australian Open.

Bianna Golodryga, a longtime international anchor and senior global affairs analyst for CNN, is leaving the network.

Golodryga, the co-anchor of the CNN International program “One World with Zain Asher,” announced her departure Thursday in a post on X. She will make her final appearance on the network Friday, according to a CNN representative.

“After nine wonderful years at CNN, I’ve decided to leave for an opportunity that I couldn’t pass up,” Golodryga said. “I’m grateful for the experiences, friendships and support from fabulous colleagues during my CNN years. Exciting news to share very soon!”

Golodryga’s exit comes three days after Christiane Amanpour, the network’s best-known international journalist, stated her intention to leave CNN next June.

The departures unfold as CNN insiders consider their future under Skydance, which absorbed the network as part of its $111-billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

In the short term, CNN and Skydance’s CBS News are operating independently under their current leadership. But consolidation is expected at some point with international bureaus being an expected early target. There is also anxiety among the CNN rank and file over how involved CBS Editor in chief Bari Weiss will be in the combined operations.

Weiss has been a polarizing figure at CBS since Paramount acquired her contrarian digital news site the Free Press last year and gave her oversight of the network’s storied news division. She has made major changes at “CBS Evening News” and the top-rated newsmagazine “60 Minutes,” where several correspondents were fired after accusing her of pushing them to add right-wing talking points to their stories.

Golodryga, 48, arrived at CNN as a contributor in 2017 and joined the network full time two years later. She previously served as co-host of “CBS This Morning,” and was an anchor for Yahoo! Finance. She also worked for ABC News as a correspondent and co-anchor of the weekend edition of “Good Morning America.”

Golodryga, who immigrated to the U.S. as a refugee from the Soviet Union in 1980, is the co-author of a young adult novel, “Don’t Feed the Lion,” which dealt with antisemitism.

MOVE over St Pancras – there’s a new kid on the block for rail services to Europe.

Lord Sadiq Khan has revealed plans to launch trains to Europe from Stratford International Station within the next four years.

Despite its name, the station has never had international services, but according to The Standard, the station is set to undergo a £20million project to launch trains to France by 2030.

One in three trains to and from France could stop at the station under the new plans – being a stop on services, rather than a new origin or destination station.

It’s predicted that the stop would add five to eight minutes to the overall journey time.

Sadiq Khan told The Standard: “We’ve been working closely with the Government to make Stratford International truly ‘international’ for the first time – opening up new opportunities for jobs, investment and tourism, while connecting one of the UK’s fastest-growing economic centres directly to Europe.

Read more on travel inspo

SO FLY

Our fave beach hols under 5 hours from UK with Caribbean dupes & £2 bottles of wine

BOOK IT

20 ultra cheap girly hols – UK trips, city breaks & all inclusive stays from £59

“It’s time to unlock the full potential of this station and help write the next chapter in Stratford’s remarkable success story as we continue building a better, greener, more prosperous London for everyone.”

If trains to Europe did launch at Stratford International Station, around five million people in and around London would have better access to international rail services.

Services could run to Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam and Amsterdam.

And eventually, there could be trains to Germany and Switzerland as well.

The current plans are also backed by a number of businesses as well as the train drivers’ union Aslef.

Stratford International finished construction in 2006 with four platforms.

However, the two platforms for international services as well as the area for international passengers have remained abandoned for the past two decades.

In order for the area to open, more work would need to be done including making the flow of passengers through security more efficient.

The station would be able to handle around 250 to 300 passengers at a time.

Meanwhile, Virgin is set to launch services from London St Pancras also by 2030, competing with Eurostar.

Christiane Amanpour, CNN’s chief international anchor whose intrepid reporting became a symbol of the network’s global reach and influence, announced Monday she will end her 43-year run in June.

Amanpour, 68, told colleagues in a memo she will step away from her eponymous daily CNN program at the end of the year. She will continue her Saturday program, “The Amanpour Hour,” until May before exiting the following month.

Amanpour was one of CNN’s first breakout stars, traveling the world to report on global hot spots and helping build CNN’s strong reputation for international coverage, especially in war zones. She was front and center as the network delivered images of the first Gulf war, the Bosnian war and conflicts in Rwanda, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Iran.

Amanpour’s announcement arrives as CNN faces uncertainty under new ownership. Skydance absorbed the network as part of its $111-billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. International bureaus are expected to be the first place where CNN and Skydance’s CBS News are expected to consolidate resources. Deliberations over editorial direction are likely to be intense.

There have been reports of internal strife at the London bureau at CBS News over the tone of its Middle East coverage since Bari Weiss, a strong supporter of Israel, took over as the network’s editor in chief last year. Weiss replaced Claire Day, a longtime veteran of the network, with Shayndi Rice, a former Wall Street Journal editor, overseeing all of the network’s international operations.

In a memo to staff obtained by The Times, CNN Worldwide Chairman and Chief Executive Mark Thompson said he has discussed Amanpour’s future for several months. “Like so many CNNers who will hear the news today, I’m very sorry to see her go, but I’ve come to accept that this is the right time for her, both personally and professionally,” he wrote.

Amanpour did not offer a reason for her departure, devoting most of her memo to thanking the production crews who worked with her over the years. She said she will continue to co-host “The Ex-Files,” a podcast she co-hosts with her ex-husband Jamie Rubin, a former journalist who served in the State Department during the Clinton administration.

Amanpour was born in London and raised in Tehran. Her family fled Iran in 1979 during the Islamic Revolution. She arrived at CNN in 1983, working as a news desk assistant in Atlanta and then at its New York bureau with the ambition of becoming a foreign correspondent.

Amanpour’s reporting from war zones and ability to land interviews with global leaders made her one of the most recognizable journalists in the world. During her time at CNN, she served as a contributor to the CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes.” She also served as anchor of the ABC News Washington roundtable program “This Week” from August 2010 to December 2011.

Amanpour’s work has been recognized with 16 News and Documentary Emmy Awards, four Peabody Awards, two George Polk Awards and three DuPont-Columbia Awards.

The Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) exchanged artillery and missile fire from their positions in Khartoum, Omdurman and Bahri, while a UN official warned that famine is threatening the country.

Army forces bombed RSF sites in the Riyadh neighbourhood and Sports City, south of Khartoum.

From their positions east of Khartoum, the RSF launched artillery shelling, targeting army camps in the capital and the General Command.

This comes as the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by Abdel Aziz Al-Hilu, resumed its bombing of the city of Kadugli, the capital of South Kordofan State, after having ceased for weeks.

SPLM bombed the city with artillery and Katyusha rockets from the east and north.

In South Darfur state, about 80 people were killed over the last three days in the tribal conflict between the Beni Halba and Salamat tribes near the city of Buram. The conflict between the two tribes has broken out several times and led to the death and injury of dozens.

A UN official has warned that the ongoing conflict could mean more than six million people face the threat of famine.

The deputy head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHOA) in Sudan said that the general situation in the country is catastrophic.

READ: Sudan medics warn that cholera and dengue fever are spreading

Sudanese medical sources reported that 18 people died and 265 were infected with cholera in the state of Gedaref, bordering Ethiopia, while medics warned of an outbreak of cholera and dengue fever across the country with the start of seasonal rains and the effects of the war on the health system there.

The Sudanese Medical Association reported that 3,398 cases of dengue fever were recorded in the states of Gedaref, Red Sea, North Kordofan and Khartoum from mid-April to mid-September.

The war has forced more than 4.2 million people to flee their homes and about 1.2 million to cross into neighbouring countries.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio is to visit India in the coming week, but he will not set foot in the capital, New Delhi.

Instead, on Monday, Rubio will hold talks with Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar in Mumbai, India’s financial hub, and then visit an oil refinery in Jamnagar in the western state of Gujarat, according to a statement from the US Department of State.

His itinerary sparked a political storm after the US ambassador to India said Washington expected Jaishankar to travel to meet Rubio, prompting opposition leaders to accuse the government of allowing India’s top diplomat to be “summoned” on home soil.

The spat comes as relations between the two countries are strained over trade, tariffs and India’s purchases of Russian oil.

So why is Rubio avoiding New Delhi, and why has it caused such upset? Here’s what you need to know:

What is Rubio doing in India?

He plans to discuss trade, energy and investment.

Rubio is arriving on Sunday from Samarkand, Uzbekistan, where he has been meeting with five Central Asian states at the C5+1 summit.

In India, he is due to meet senior officials to discuss the US-India strategic partnership and energy cooperation and hold talks with business leaders, the State Department said.

Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal appeared to confirm the agenda, stating on Friday that the Mumbai talks would cover energy, trade and investment, defence, and critical and emerging technologies.

In Jamnagar, Rubio is to visit the world’s largest single-site refinery, operated by billionaire Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries, and attend a reception hosted by the Ambani family, according to The Hindu newspaper.

Why isn’t Rubio going to New Delhi?

No official reason has been given.

Rubio was in the Indian capital in May for a meeting of foreign ministers of countries in the Quad, a group consisting of the US, India, Japan and Australia.

The State Department has framed his upcoming trip around energy and investment, and the second stop on Rubio’s India visit, Jamnagar, is one of the world’s most important energy hubs.

The visit also comes as fuel prices bite in the US before next month’s midterm elections.

Reliance, an energy, retail and telecommunications conglomerate, also sits at the centre of Washington’s wider oil diplomacy.

Business Standard, an Indian financial daily, said the Jamnagar stop was significant because Reliance is the biggest buyer of Venezuelan crude oil besides the US at a time when Washington has been urging India to buy more.

Since US forces seized Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January and took essential control of the country’s oil industry, the US government has marketed Venezuelan oil to buyers abroad.

Reliance is also investing in a new refinery in Texas, the first to be built in the US in 50 years, which Trump hailed as a $300bn deal when he announced it in March, Business Standard reported.

What did the US ambassador say, and why has it caused upset?

Speaking at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in New Delhi on Thursday, US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor said Rubio would meet Indian government officials in Mumbai, and Washington “expected” Jaishankar and others from New Delhi to travel there to see him.

Earlier in the week, however, Jaiswal had not confirmed the trip or explained why Rubio was skipping New Delhi, telling reporters the Indian government would announce it “at the appropriate time”, The Hindu newspaper reported.

Jairam Ramesh, a general secretary of the opposition Indian National Congress party, wrote on X that the ambassador’s statement was “quite extraordinary”.

Rahul Gandhi, leader of the opposition in parliament’s lower house, also took to X to comment, writing on Friday that Rubio had “summoned his employee to Mumbai”.

Congress MP Pawan Khera went further.

“A foreign government summoning India’s External Affairs Minister on Indian soil is a new low, even by the Modi Government’s standards,” he wrote on X, referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Why are US-India relations strained?

Mainly because of Trump’s tariffs and Russian oil.

In August last year after a round of trade talks broke down, the US hit most Indian goods with a 50 percent tariff. Under a framework the two sides agreed in February, that rate fell to 18 percent, however.

Since then, negotiations have stalled.

This month, Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the talks had “plateaued”, according to The Hindu.

On Thursday, Trade Minister Piyush Goyal said the “first tranche” of a deal was in its final stages but India would not sign until its exporters had an edge over rivals such as Bangladesh, Vietnam and Indonesia, according to the Reuters news agency.

Other points of friction have emerged.

Last week, US Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling announced that his department was suspending eight companies – including the Indian IT giants Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro and HCL – from a labour certification scheme that is a key step for employers seeking green cards for their foreign staff.

Sameer Lalwani, a senior fellow in the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote this week that Indian public opinion of the US has hit a record low, citing US engagement with Pakistan and the US-Israel war on Iran, which he said had pushed India back towards Russian oil.

Despite that, he argued, defence and technology cooperation has quietly deepened, and bilateral trade grew by almost 12 percent in 2025 to nearly $240bn.

In his view, “perceptions of the political relationship have deteriorated faster than its strategic foundations.”

A sanctions law had threatened to make matters worse.

Last month, Trump signed the Lindsey O Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, which could impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on goods from the five largest importers of Russian oil or gas.

India, one of the world’s biggest buyers of Russian oil, had warned Washington that new tariffs could hurt bilateral ties. Trump signed an executive order seeking to waive the sanctions on Friday as he tries to ease high oil prices before the November 3 US elections.

Major deals include Proofpoint’s acquisition of Varonis Systems, International Paper’s European packaging business attracting private equity bids, CCC Intelligent Solutions being acquired by a consortium led by GTCR, Galderma acquiring ZO Skin Health, Bumble’s buyout by Ithaca Holdings, IonQ’s acquisition of Elisity, STERIS acquiring Xodus Medical, Amazon’s negotiations to buy Decart AI, and Softbank’s interest in Allied Universal.

Follow updates, including toss and team news, from our live text commentary stream of the series decider.

The Savannah Bananas embarked on their first so-called world tour five years ago. It included only one stop — in Mobile, Ala.

As the unique brand of baseball entertainment known as Banana Ball expanded into a six-team league, the tours have grown in size and scope but never actually ventured out of the United States.

That will change next year. The 2027 Banana Ball Championship League tour will visit 79 stadiums across 74 cities, including the first-ever international stops. Four teams will travel to Mexico, with the Bananas playing the Texas Tailgaters in Monterrey on Feb. 5 and 6 and the Party Animals taking on the Loco Beach Coconuts in Tijuana on Feb. 12 and 13.

The tour swings to Canada in late summer, with the Bananas playing the Indiananapolis Clowns in Toronto on Aug. 14 and 15 and the Tailgaters facing the Party Animals in Winnipeg on Aug. 26 and 28.

“We got a lot of criticism over the years. ‘It’s not a world tour, you’re playing in one city! It’s not a world tour, you’re playing in seven cities in the southeast!’” Banana Ball creator and owner Jesse Cole said Thursday on ESPN2. “But we saw where we could go, and we’ve always had a vision to create 1 billion fans, one fan at a time. And over the last two or three years, we’ve heard from a lot of different countries all over the world.”

The Savannah Bananas, featuring Banana Ball creator and owner Jesse Cole in his signature yellow suit and derby hat, perform onstage during the 2026 ESPY Awards in New York.

(Mike Coppola / Getty Images)

Cole said he expects the 2027 tour to draw an estimated 4.3 million fans.

“Everything we do is do one experiment and then see where it can go,” he said. “And this crazy experiment of Banana Ball has gone some places we never imagined.”

Another new stop next year will be Dodger Stadium, where the Bananas will play the Firefighters on April 23 and 24. The same teams also will face off at Angel Stadium on July 2 and 3, marking the third consecutive year the Bananas have played at the venue.

The schedule reveal show included a number of announcements, including the debut of a concept called Banana Ball 360 on June 26 at Notre Dame Stadium. Two baseball fields will be set up on opposite ends of the stadium, with the game taking place on each during alternating innings.

“I do believe that fans at that show are going to be able to see things they’ve never seen before, and also every single seat is a great seat,” Cole said. “And that was the idea.”

Also announced were a new Disney-produced film documenting the growth of Banana Ball, which will premiere June 12 at Atlanta’s Truist Park, and the league’s third cruise, “Bananaland at Sea + Puerto Rico,” in January 2028. The cruise will depart from the Port of Miami and will feature a Banana Ball game at Hiram Bithorn Stadium in San Juan.

India host West Indies in the final match of the tour on Saturday with an all-time classic T20 series level at 2-2.

Who: India vs West Indies
What: Twenty20 International cricket series
Where: M Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru, India
When: Saturday, October 17, at 7pm (13:30 GMT)
How to follow: Al Jazeera Sport will have all the build-up from 11:30 GMT before our live text commentary stream

India host West Indies in the decisive T20 International series finale on Saturday after one of the most compelling white-ball tours in recent memory.

The five-game series is level at 2-2 before the match in Bengaluru after record-breaking feats by the tourists that have pushed the T20 World Cup holders to the limit.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at what has become a must-not-miss showdown.

How did West Indies tour of India begin?

The teams played a three-match One-Day International to begin the white-ball tour, which saw India take an unassailable lead after opening eight-wicket wins in Thiruvananthapuram and Guwahati.

After posting a mammoth 351-7 off their 50 overs – thanks largely to KL Rahul’s 129 off 87 balls – in New Chandigarh, India would have felt they had enough on the board to claim the third match, too.

Enter West Indies captain Shai Hope. The opener hit 162 off 143 balls in an unbeaten knock that led his side to a five-wicket win.

It was the West Indies highest ODI run chase.

How did the India-West Indies T20 series begin?

India put the disappointment of the closing defeat in the ODI series behind them by claiming an eight-win win, with 5.2 overs to spare, in the first T20 of the series.

Despite fifties from Hope and Sherfane Rutherford, West Indies were bowled out for 171, with Naman Dhir taking three wickets for the hosts.

Hope then hit an unbeaten 102 off only 45 balls in the second match to lead West Indies to their highest successful Twenty20 run chase.

Hope hit nine sixes and six boundaries as the West Indies finished with 252-4 in reply to India’s 249-5.

India restored their series lead in the third match, but only via a narrow 14-run victory.

After being bowled out off the last ball of their innings, India posted 223 – led by Abhishek Sharma’s 69 off 30 balls.

Arshdeep Singh claimed three wickets as West Indies were restricted to 209-7.

What happened in the last India-West Indies T20?

It was time for the Hope show again in the fourth game of the T20 tour, as the wicketkeeper-batter hit his second century of the series.

The tourists struck 247-3, having been put in, with Hope hitting an unbeaten 102.

His nine sixes and four fours were a record tally for a West Indies batter in a T20 International.

The total was the second-highest first innings score in T20s against India, trailing England’s 257-3 in Southampton this year.

Opener Sanju Samson’s 56 off 23 balls set India off to a good start, but Keemo Paul’s five-wicket haul led West Indies to a 24-run series levelling win.

What did Shai Hope joke about his Player of the Match awards?

Hope joked after the fourth T20 that he was worried he may ⁠have to fork ⁠out excess baggage fees after picking up his third Player of the Match award on their tour of India.

“To be honest, they are a bit heavy, and we have got to look at the luggage weight,” he quipped after the win.

“I think we are going to have some problems going back home.”

Predicted India team lineup

Abhishek Sharma, Sanju Samson (w), Ishan Kishan, Shreyas Iyer (c), Tilak Varma, Naman Dhir, Nitish Kumar Reddy, Axar Patel, Prince Yadav, Mayank Yadav, Arshdeep Singh

Predicted West Indies team lineup

Shai Hope (c and w), Jewel Andrew, Shimron Hetmyer, Rovman Powell, Sherfane Rutherford, Romario Shepherd, Roston Chase, Shamar Springer, Keemo Paul, Shamar Joseph, Gudakesh Motie

As China and North Korea cut the ribbon on New Yalu River Bridge this week, officials described the new border crossing in momentous terms.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang said the 3km (1.9-mile) bridge, which links China’s Dandong and North Korea’s Sinuiju, would “vigorously promote” trade and “strengthen emotional bonds”.

North Korean Premier Pak Thae-song expressed his belief that the crossing would “accelerate the advance for the prosperity of the two countries” and “add fresh vigour” to their economic cooperation.

Analysts on China-North Korea ties are much more circumspect.

While the bridge is a concrete symbol of China and North Korea’s efforts to revitalise relations that have waned from their Cold War-era peak, the prospects for trade are hindered by obstacles ranging from international sanctions to a North Korean leadership that prioritises security above all else, experts say.

“It reflects China’s renewed effort to strengthen its relationship with North Korea at a time of changing regional alignments,” Phillip Park, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, South Korea, told Al Jazeera.

“But whether this leads to substantially deeper economic integration, greater North Korean dependence, or a significant shift in Pyongyang’s strategic orientation remains an open question.

“The bridge could facilitate trade and logistics, but it does not remove international sanctions,” Park added.

China, whose troops fought alongside Pyongyang in the 1950-53 Korean War, has long been North Korea’s most crucial economic benefactor.

China accounts for as much as 95 percent of official trade with the secretive country, which is among the world’s most diplomatically and economically isolated states.

Before the four-lane New Yalu River Bridge officially opened on Thursday, road and rail freight between Dandong and Sinuiju, the main route for China-North Korea trade, travelled exclusively via the ageing Sino-Korean Friendship Bridge.

Opened in 1943, the bridge, which has a single-lane road and a rail track, can only carry vehicles weighing a maximum of 20 tonnes.

Jae-woo Joo, a professor of Chinese foreign policy at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, said the new bridge could “tremendously” boost trade between the sides, including the transfer of components banned under sanctions against Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programmes.

“It is therefore really significant to open this bridge with China,” Joo told Al Jazeera.

After coming under strain from North Korea’s nuclear weapons tests in the mid-2000s, Beijing-Pyongyang ties have warmed under Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

At Xi and Kim’s most recent meeting in June, their seventh summit since 2018, the leaders pledged to enhance cooperation in areas spanning trade, defence, agriculture, law, science and technology.

Analysts have, in part, cast Beijing’s deepening engagement with Pyongyang as a response to the latter’s growing ties with Moscow, which have included the deployment of thousands of North Korean troops to the front lines of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Last month, North Korean and Russian officials opened the first road bridge linking their countries across the Tumen River.

North Korea and China’s two-way trade grew 25 percent in 2025 to reach $2.74bn, according to figures from China’s General Administration of Customs.

Bilateral trade has continued to grow in 2026, jumping nearly 20 percent to reach $1.5bn in the first half of the year, putting it on track to reach its highest volumes since the COVID-19 pandemic.

But while growing, trade remains relatively minuscule in the context of global commerce.

With China’s overall trade hitting $6.36 trillion in 2025, North Korea’s contribution to the total was a little more than 0.04 percent.

Official trade between the neighbours also remains substantially below its 2010s heyday.

Trade hovered around $5-6bn throughout much of the decade, peaking at $6.45bn in 2013.

Economists have offered explanations for the slowdown that range from tightened sanctions to China’s waning reliance on imports amid its efforts to boost economic self-reliance.

Christopher Green, a senior consultant for the Korean Peninsula at International Crisis Group, said the new border crossing’s significance should not be overstated, considering that China-North Korea trade “is fundamentally driven by politics”.

“Lack of cross-border transit routes is not the main obstacle,” Green told Al Jazeera.

“If the bridge opening signifies a political desire on both sides to give political cover to rising trade volumes, then a boost to trade should follow,” Green said, describing ties up until now as “steady-as-she-goes” economic engagement.

“Time will tell. But the key is the politics of national security, not economics.”

As much as officials have hailed the New Yalu River Bridge as a reflection of Chinese-North Korean cooperation, the project had a long and torturous road to completion.

Construction began in 2011 and was finished on the Chinese side in 2014.

But North Korean authorities only completed roads and customs facilities on their side of the river this year following repeated pauses in construction amid tensions with Beijing.

“The 12-year delay certainly suggests that economic cooperation is more conditional than the language of friendship might imply,” Marco Mari, a PhD researcher at Bocconi University in Italy who studies China-North Korea economic ties, told Al Jazeera.

“The bridge can facilitate supplies and economic activity, while Russian support gives North Korea alternatives that diminish Beijing’s leverage,” Mari added.

“This does not necessarily imply broader economic reform or a comparable improvement in ordinary people’s lives.”

Weiqi Zhang, an associate professor at Suffolk University who studies relations between North Korea and China, said the history of China-North Korea economic ties is littered with abortive projects, such as the Hwanggumpyong Special Economic Zone, a North Korean-Chinese development near Dandong.

“There were cases, like the Hwanggumpyong Special Economic Zone – established by China and North Korea – where China built infrastructure on its side, but North Korea didn’t even pave the road on their side,” Zhang told Al Jazeera.

“One reason is that, unlike its neighbours, North Korean government doesn’t really pay much attention to trade for economic development,” Zhang said.

“International trade is used by North Korea more like a foreign policy tool.”

With China wishing to demonstrate its “indispensability” as a trade partner and North Korea eager to strengthen their economic ties, trade is likely to grow, said Edward Howell, a lecturer in international Relations at the University of Oxford.

Even so, economic engagement will be subject to political considerations, Howell said.

“North Korea will obviously want to avoid facing any Chinese influence to change its economic model, but Pyongyang will want to reap the economic benefits of trade with its principal economic benefactor,” Howell told Al Jazeera.

ANOTHER UK train station could soon be made international in a predicted £1.3billion tourism boost.

There are now plans to put Stratford on the map by making it the second international stop in London, along with St Pancras.

Despite its name, Stratford International currently only operates domestic services.

The move would make Stratford the second international rail stop in London, along with St Pancras.

An application has now been submitted for a Business Rate Retention Zone (BRRZ) in the area.

A Business Rates Retention Zone allows local councils to reinvest money into local economic development, like expanding the train station.

FARE PLAY

UK begins rollout of ‘American-style’ ticket gates across train stations

LAST ORDERS

‘Vertical drinking’ ban row continues as Sadiq Khan urged to ‘do more’ for pubs

The London Mayor’s officials are meeting with train operators, authorities in Paris and commercial bodies to get backing for the plan.

Speaking to The Standard, Sadiq Khan said: “The case for creating a Stratford International worthy of the name is clear and compelling.

“The popularity of international rail continues to grow in London, which is why my team and I have been lobbying for cross-channel rail services from Stratford for many years – and I’m hoping that our efforts are close to paying off.”

He explained further: “Over the last few months, we’ve been working closely with this new Government to make Stratford International truly ‘international’ for the first time and we’re now within touching distance of getting our plans over the line.

“The data shows that bringing international services to Stratford would bring in an additional £1.3bn in tourist spending for the UK.

“Stratford has become one of Europe’s largest and most successful regeneration projects, and I believe with the arrival of cross-Channel services, the future of East London will be even brighter still.”

This is not the only proposal that has been made for Stratford – Sir Richard Branson‘s rail company Virgin Trains have confirmed they are interested in the station too.

A Virgin Group spokesperson previously said the company is: “looking forward to exploring additional stops, including Stratford International.”

Several people have been injured in another attack on an international airport in the Saudi capital Riyadh, reports say, days after Yemen’s Houthis claimed to have carried out strikes on the hub.

King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh was evacuated after a loud blast was heard on Saturday, two international news agencies have reported.

More than a dozen ambulances were seen rushing to the airport, according to Reuters, citing an eyewitness. Saudi authorities have not commented, while the airport told passengers to check with their airline before travelling there.

The US embassy said it was “aware of attacks on King Khalid International Airport” and urged American citizens to avoid the airport and surrounding areas.

The attack comes a day after authorities said three Saudis including a pilot were killed in two attacks on the airport by the Iran-backed Houthis the day prior. Another three people were killed in Houthi attacks on two Saudi airports on 6 and 7 October.

A source at a local hospital told news agency AFP that dozens of people had been wounded in Saturday’s attack.

“I saw 401 hit, I saw injured in front of my eyes. Everyone was running,” an eyewitness who said they had been at gate 401 in the domestic terminal told AFP.

While there has been no official confirmation of an attack, western embassies in Saudi Arabia have warned their citizens away from the airport.

Several Gulf airlines said they had cancelled their flights to and from the airport. with Kuwait Airways citing the “security situation” there.

All flights to Riyadh have either been diverted or cancelled, aviation tracker Flightradar shows.

Doctors had been asked to report to hospitals to address the situation, a medical source told AFP.

“We were told we are dealing with a ‘serious emergency situation’,” the medical source told the agency.

The suspected attack comes during a marked escalation in renewed fighting between Yemen’s Saudi-backed government forces and the Houthis, who control most of the country’s north-west.

The Houthis say they are targeting Saudi Arabia over its support for government forces in Yemen’s civil war.

The conflict worsened after the Houthis seized strategically important stretches of the Red Sea coast in a rapid offensive.

That included the port of Mokha on the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which is the narrowest point of the Red Sea and a chokepoint for global shipping. Yemeni pro-government forces have since said they had “secured” the strait at the southern end of the Red Sea.

A Saudi-led coalition was formed in 2015 after Arab countries joined forces to stop the Houthis taking over Yemen from the country’s internationally recognised government.

A temporary ceasefire was brokered in 2022 after years of air strikes and ground fighting led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, triggering one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

But the informal truce began to unravel in July.

The Houthis announced a “maritime embargo” against Saudi Arabia and began missile and drone attacks on Saudi airports, oil facilities and tankers in the Red Sea. They said they were retaliating against what they described as a years-long Saudi blockade and for an air strike on Sanaa airport.

King Juan Carlos I summons party leaders after the failed 1981 coup. From left to right: Santiago Carrillo (Communist Party), Agustín Rodríguez Sahagún (Defence Minister), Adolfo Suárez (Prime Minister), Juan Carlos I, Felipe González (PSOE) and Manuel Fraga (People’s Alliance, later PP).

(“Gosh, no! Not another hyper-comparative article about two distant political conflicts…” Apologies. We’ll try to make it a fun read).

More often than not, our intellectual circles have felt tempted to look at alien historical episodes in a never-ending search for resolute answers that shed light on our present. In 2023, when Maduro flirted with attacking US-supported Guyana, some revisited the Falklands War as a sign that a serious military incursion would be a fatal mistake that would lead to the dictatorship’s downfall. Then came the road to the 2024 presidential election; many feared (rightfully, in the end) that the country would plunge into the “Nicaragua scenario” if the dictator refused to recognize his defeat. Others momentarily wondered if enough external pressure could give way to a Guatemala-style transfer of power and a weak transition government.

The days of terror seem to be behind us, yet there’s no progressive reformer like Raúl Alfonsín steering the wheel of justice. Instead, Donald Trump gave us the Pizza Hut scenario. Here, Delcy Rodríguez has become the poster girl of the MAGA international franchise. Here, too, US geopolitical ambitions and business interests at times seem to be competing with the need for free elections and a democratic regime.

Is Rodríguez our Mikhail Gorbachev, trying to open the economy and political system just enough while attempting to save the chavista State from outright collapse? What if chavismo is already dead and she’s the Yeltsin of the Caribbean, the feeble leader who will give away the country’s riches to oligarchs in an arbitrary fashion, laying the ground for a new form of autocracy?

Or might Delcy be the chavista version of Adolfo Suárez, the not-so-brilliant and obscure but highly charismatic Francoist insider? Suárez finished the job after a remarkable run, surviving a period of meagre political support, declining approval rates and a coup d’etat that could have killed him. The comparison now sounds like an insult to the Spaniard. Like Gorbachev in today’s Russia, Suárez has become a sort of mythical statesman abroad while Spanish right- and left-wing critics dispute his legacy.

There are genuine similarities between the process currently unfolding in Caracas and the outset of Spain’s democracy, as well as room for gross contrasts. While 2026 has been insane for Venezuelans, Spain exactly fifty years ago was astonishing due to the speed at which Suárez acted in unilaterally dismantling the regime from within the regime. The dictator was finally gone, and as soon as he had the chance, the new King ordered a politician without strong ideological convictions to establish a full parliamentary democracy.

Suárez took office in June 1976. The Law for Political Reform, meant to pave the way for a new democratic legislature (with the King acting as a key enforcer), was through six months later. Spain held general elections within a year. That was just the start. What followed was a sequence full of the raw materials that tend to feed these history-making episodes: secret meetings and grand bargains between rivals and strange bedfellows, journalists acting like hinges, political violence, and leaders who soon become overwhelmed by their own decisions and actions.

How the transition worked out

When scholars praise the atmosphere of consensus that defined Spain in the 1970s, they generally speak of the close cooperation between regime reformers and opposition moderates in devising broad agreements that fastened democracy, fundamental rights and regional autonomy with the recognition of the monarchy. In doing so, these figures refused to address legal and moral responsibilities for the violence left by the Civil War and four decades of military rule (more on this later).

The spirit of the Transición is best encapsulated by the political partnership between Suárez and Santiago Carrillo, leader of the Communist Party (PCE) and the most prominent figure in a scattered opposition. Much like María Corina Machado this year, Carrillo was a key veto player in the transition’s inception. Suárez had the power; democracy just couldn’t be without the legitimacy carried by Francoism’s utmost rival. The government legalized the PCE only after it abandoned Marxist-Leninist doctrine and Republican (“anti-Spain”) symbols. As Javier Cercas recounts in the brilliant Anatomy of a Moment, the duo protected each other’s backs amid hardline pressures, in a climate of growing economic hardship and political violence where ETA and Far Right violence threatened to destabilize their project.

In Spain’s first elections since 1936, Suárez won and the renewed PSOE of a young Felipe González managed to eclipse the old-looking communists. Once the new democratic parliament was settled, Suárez and representatives from major parties signed the Moncloa Pacts, then framed as a national agreement to save the economy. Parallels with Venezuela’s Puntofijo Pact are there: the political class came together on monetary policy and wage regulation; welfare and public spending; and fundamental freedoms for citizens, workers and members of the press. An amnesty for political prisoners followed. In 1978, Spanish voters overwhelmingly voted to approve a new consensus constitution.

As is only natural during these processes, the position of Suárez before Francoist remnants in the State became untenable. Time exposed the true nature of his goals: he eventually crossed all the red lines of the inmovilistas, wiping out Franco’s ultra-conservative and nationalist institutions. Far Right groups, elites, the military and even newspapers plotted to jeopardize the transition and restrain its main characters. However, much of the groundwork for political action and breakthroughs was laid by domestic and outside backers who had an unequivocal pro-democracy stance.

In the Francois legislature, King Juan Carlos appointed his personal tutor and advisor, Torcuato Fernández-Miranda, as president. In the diplomatic arena, regional leaders and international actors favored Spain’s democratization and European integration. Willy Brandt, Francois Mitterrand and even Carlos Andrés Pérez encouraged PSOE’s social-democratic turn and the rise of González. Meanwhile, Carrillo had the endorsement of fellow Eurocommunists that had broken with the Soviet Union.

However, royal and international support were neither constant nor salient enough in the Spanish case. Domestic variables and the consequences of political opening made Suárez grow weaker in 1979, and his government could have fallen apart. In Venezuela, where the level of tutelage in place is more decisive than in Spain back then, the approach of the United States remains gradual and its supervision restrictive for opposition actors. The speed of reforms also seems to be contingent on the diverse interests of the Trump administration. Unlike in Spain at this stage, elections don’t appear to be around the corner, and new policies and initiatives are either limited in scope or yet to show results.

The transition’s key omissions

When comparing the Spanish transition with the Venezuelan process, significant details reveal mistakes whose lessons should serve to prevent their repetition. The transitional justice model, the control of the security forces, and the polarization that affects public opinion after decades, are some of the aspects that can be adjusted to learn from what Spain did well. However, we must keep our eyes open regarding the issues left unresolved.

Six years after Franco’s death and following many important reforms, the Spanish government did not have control of its security apparatus. As a result, a group of Guardias Civiles led by Antonio Tejero, stormed the Congress of Deputies on February 23, 1981, taking Suárez, Carrillo and the entire government hostage while tanks occupied the city of Valencia. The coup failed, but it became clear that the nascent democracy was fragile and that military, police and political elements were able to undermine it. Just like Venezuela in the early sixties.

A change in government, even one negotiated and backed by the US, does not guarantee control over the Venezuelan armed forces. During the transition process, the loyalty of the military must be built and put to the test. There is no guarantee that Venezuela will not experience an episode like Spain’s 23-F; the only way to ensure otherwise is to include representatives of the military high command at the negotiating table from the very beginning.

Then we have the famous Pact of Forgetting. As the opposition basically got everything it wanted, la Transición did not establish any special justice mechanisms. Reconciliation was built on a pacto del olvido, an implicit agreement between regime reformers and a large part of the opposition that consisted of not judging the past, not establishing truth commissions, and adhering to a logic of equivalency between the Two Spains: the Republican Left and the Nationalist Right, the losers and the winners of the Civil War.

The “pact of forgetting” is far from what we Venezuelans aspire to. The victims of Francoism were unable to access mechanisms for reparations during the first 25 years of democracy. Later, the Ley de Memoria Histórica (Historical Memory Law, LMH) and the Ley de Memoria Democrática (Democratic Memory Law, LMD) were enacted to fill that void. The reality is that justice came too late, was biased, and failed to meet international standards on truth, memory, and non-repetition.

One only needs to take a close look at the 1977 Amnesty Law. It passed almost unanimously; its original intent was a genuine desire to bring closure. However, the same law granted amnesty to those who were politically persecuted as well as to “authorities, civil servants, and law enforcement officers” for violations against the rights of Spanish citizens. To an extent, these are the same flaws that have been criticized in the Venezuelan amnesty law enacted in January 2026.

Forgetting and silence created wounds in Spain that were not fully healed and vulnerable to political manipulation throughout this century. A 2008 study found that 55.7% of those surveyed stated that the victims of the dictatorship had not received the recognition they deserved. That sense of injustice has fueled the narrative promoted by the Spanish Left that the transition was a “deal” between elites rather than a pacted rupture with the regime.

Venezuela’s amnesty law bears the same risk and exacerbates it by ordering the destruction of records and criminal histories. Erasing the evidence that will one day be needed to reconstruct the patterns of repression is the opposite of reconciliation. The construction of memory is the only thing that can guarantee that in 2050, Venezuelans will not be having the same disputes that Spain continues to have about Franco. For our process to move toward transformation, we must establish special justice mechanisms that include both reparations and forgiveness. Without this, at best, the next generations will be prone to forgetting.

Coming to terms with post-chavismo

It’s important to make a clarification regarding our case. Today, chavismo is not a force that polarizes the country, capable of winning elections like Suárez did, but a political elite that faces widespread rejection. That does not mean it will disappear from the political landscape. On the contrary, the mere fact that chavismo continues to rule may hint that it will remain part of public life. Eventually, the heirs of chavismo could try to reframe the legacy of Chávez, “saving” him from the discredit brought on by Maduro-era atrocities. The Maduro-Flores faction and a few other figures will likely be erased from chavismo’s new narratives. They will be portrayed as a deviation from chavismo’s original ideas. They will try to bring in new faces, and perhaps Diosdado Cabello will hand over the PSUV to some new figure, such as Héctor Rodríguez and a crop of young, “converted democrats.”

Yet the suffering caused by the chavista project cannot be so easily erased from the memories of millions of Venezuelans who endured hunger, exile, repression and imprisonment.

The wounds that remain fresh among Venezuelans can be as deep as those borne by the older generations in Spain, who faced the destruction and trauma of armed conflict. Like Franco, Chávez and Maduro spent two decades trying to build a “new man” through the military and partisan occupation of public life. However, the nature of the crimes and mismanagement in 21st-century Venezuela is different from that in Francoist Spain, where thousands of dissidents were systematically persecuted and killed. Like in Cuba and the USSR, economic and social devastation has been so severe that it led to mass starvation and exodus. Our remaining task and the lesson learned from what was lacking in the Spanish transition, is to build a historical memory focused on ensuring that anything resembling that does not happen again, and that whoever wants to enter the political arena can do so according to the rules of democracy.

Bonus: Delcy vs. Suárez

Adolfo Suárez became prime minister in 1976, having emerged from the very structures of Francoism and State-owned media. He was certainly not a reformer, much less a democrat until Juan Carlos appointed him to lead the transition. Suárez eventually acted on his own volition, seeing the process through to the end. Delcy, as Maduro’s “Super Minister” and his last vice president, has been a far more prominent figure in the chavista State, and also more deeply involved with the repressive apparatus than Suárez was, as UN reports can attest). In the case of Delcy, US military intervention has pushed her to change certain policies, cool down repression and engage with a sector of the opposition, part of a strategy for political survival where her regime needs to balance Washington’s demands with avoiding chavismo’s downfall. That has nothing to do with a “democratic” conversion.

The comparison is still vague, but Venezuelan historians can re-assess if this process leads to its much-needed destination.

Timeline (optional read)

1973: A decrepit Franco steps down as PM, separating the headship of state and the presidency of government for the first time. He names his loyal right-hand man, Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco, as Prime Minister, with jurist Torcuato Fernández-Miranda as Deputy PM and conservative Carlos Arias Navarro at Interior. The global oil shock strikes Spain, ending fifteen years of economic boom (the Spanish Miracle) and unleashing severe inflation. In December, ETA assassinates Carrero Blanco in Madrid. Arias Navarro succeeds him with the backing of Franco’s family.

1974: Knowing that Franco’s death was imminent, the regime starts to split between moderates and hardliners while ETA consolidates as a lethal enemy of Madrid. Arias Navarro promises freedom of association, but under pressure from hardliners, the proposal ends up being a sham. The opposition favours gradual reform away from Francoism. European leaders encourage PSOE’s social-democratic turn, appointing a young Felipe González as Secretary General. Communist Party (PCE) leader Santiago Carrillo and other exiled figures call for a peaceful, democratic rupture with the regime.

1975: Franco dies in November. King Juan Carlos I is crowned head of state and reinstates Arias Navarro as PM, maintaining an impossible cabinet of both regime hardliners and moderate reformers like Manuel Fraga. ETA and left-wing terror groups step up attacks, while public strikes and protests demand amnesty and democracy. González enters Spain; Carrillo remains abroad.

1976: Arias Navarro’s sluggish reforms cause political deadlock and social unrest. Pressured by the King, he resigns in July. Juan Carlos appoints Fernández-Miranda as President of the Cortes and Torcuato’s former pupil, Adolfo Suárez, as PM. Suárez promises elections for 1977 and skilfully passes the Law for Political Reform through the Francoist parliament, dismantling the regime from within. Suárez tries to build democratic credibility by engaging with González. The more prominent Carrillo remains sidelined, leading the Communists from clandestinity, until he forces the regime to briefly arrest and release him.

1977: Carrillo and Suárez negotiate a pact in person. Suárez legalizes trade unions and, in a risky move during Holy Week, legalizes Carrillo’s PCE. The Communists abandon its Marxist-Leninist doctrine and traditional Republican symbols. In June, Spain holds its first free general election since 1936: Suárez’s UCD wins, closely followed by the renewed PSOE of González. Major parties sign the Moncloa Pacts to stabilize the economy. An Amnesty Law releases political prisoners.

1978: Parliamentary committees draft a consensus constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights, regional autonomy, and a constitutional monarchy. In December, Spanish voters overwhelmingly approve the new Constitution in a national referendum, formally ending the Francoist State and establishing Spain as a modern parliamentary democracy. The government discovers that some security officials are plotting a coup against Suárez, including Guardia Civil Lieutenant Colonel Antonio Tejero, but the main conspirators receive minor penalties.

1979: Spain holds its first elections under the new Constitution: UCD wins again but fails to secure an absolute majority. Regional autonomy statutes pass in Catalonia and the Basque Country. Economic trouble, internal UCD infighting, and rising ETA violence create growing political instability and unrest within the military.

1980: Suárez faces worsening economic crises, mounting regional tensions, and a vote of no confidence tabled by the PSOE. Suárez survives the vote, but his authority inside the UCD collapses as cabinet ministers and faction leaders publicly break ranks, making his government increasingly untenable.

1981: Exhausted by political crisis and plots, Suárez resigns in January. During the parliamentary vote to appoint Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo as his successor on February 23, Lt. Col. Antonio Tejero leads an attempted military coup (23-F). King Juan Carlos rejects the coup on national television, securing army loyalty and saving the young democracy.

1982: Calvo-Sotelo navigates Spain into NATO despite widespread public opposition. Disintegrating from internal factionalism, the ruling UCD collapses. In the October general elections, Felipe González leads the PSOE to a historic landslide victory, marking the first peaceful transfer of power to a left-wing government and consolidating Spanish democracy.

1983: The newly inaugurated PSOE government launches major economic restructuring and industrial modernization plans to prepare Spain for European integration. Simultaneously, the State initiates decentralisation by establishing the final Autonomous Communities, completing Spain’s territorial map under the 1978 Constitution.

Oct. 9, 2026 10:38 AM PT

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has imposed sweeping new sanctions on the International Criminal Court as part of its campaign to dismantle the tribunal over investigations into the United States and its allies, including Israel.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the sanctions Friday, after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to South African jurist Navi Pillay, a former judge at the ICC and other international courts whose selection was condemned by Israel. President Trump has coveted that prize for himself.

“We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate against us,” Rubio said in a video address posted to social media. “The United States and the American people are not subject to the jurisdiction of this fake ICC.”

The sanctions cut the court off from U.S.-based financial services, technology companies and even using U.S. dollars. They set a six-month timeline for U.S. companies and individuals that have business with the court to wind that business down.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks at the Pnyx hill, where ancient Athenians held democratic assemblies, with the ancient Parthenon temple atop the Acropolis in the background, in Athens,Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

The ICC denounced the step as an attack on the rule of law and the foundations of international order, themes that Rubio had appeared to embrace only two days ago in a speech in front of the Acropolis in Athens.

“It is an attempt to obstruct the course of justice and to prevent the court from doing what it was created to do,” the court said in a statement. “It is an assault on the rule of law and on the very foundations of the international legal order which strikes at the simple principle that no one stands above the law.”

ICC President Tomoko Akane, a citizen of U.S. ally Japan, said the court would “continue to fully discharge its mandate, with independence and impartiality, acting only on the basis of the law and the evidence, for the sake of the countless victims of grave crimes.”

She also appealed to other ICC members for support. “This is not just about defending a single institution, but about safeguarding the international order grounded upon the rule of law.”

Rights groups also denounced the sanctions.

“This existential attack must fail,” said Erika Guevara Rosas, an Amnesty International senior director. “States must take concrete action to resist the imposition of these measures and actively protect the Court.”

A view of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, on August 22, 2026.

(Karolina Janik/NurPhoto via Associated Press)

The court’s host country of the Netherlands has been preparing for weeks for the move. One possible measure to mitigate sanctions is the EU “blocking statute,” which could be used to protect European court staff by preventing European companies from complying with the U.S. measures. Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen has called the blocking statute the “nuclear option” in countering possible sanctions, but said the Netherlands has been in talks with the European Commission to ensure that if it is necessary it can be quickly enacted.

In a joint statement, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom expressed strong disagreement with the U.S. sanctions.

“We will continue to work together to support the court’s vital work, uphold the rules-based international system, and advance accountability,” the statement said.

“If put into effect, these sanctions will have a significant impact on the court’s work, its dedicated staff and their families. They work every day to bring those accused of the most serious international crimes to justice and to support their victims.”

Rubio said U.S. allies should join in the U.S. actions. “If they do not, the United States will continue its campaign to dismantle the ICC, piece by piece, until Americans are threatened no longer,” he said.

A number of countries have withdrawn from the court this year, including Venezuela and Chad. The South Pacific island nation of Naoero was the most recent to announce it would quit.

Lee and Quell write for the Associated Press. Quell reported from The Hague, Netherlands. AP writer Mike Corder contributed to this report from The Hague.

In confirming his plans to live-stream Fort Hood mass shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s military execution by firing squad on Dec. 3, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called it a “no brainer” punishment for a “radical Islamist terror attack” on U.S. service members.

“We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand [that] there are serious consequences for these types of things,” Hegseth said in an interview with the Real America’s Voice network.

Others across the country and around the world — Democrats and Republicans, human rights experts, legal scholars and military and religious leaders — condemned it as a barbaric throwback to an era when executions were cast as entertainment, and as the world’s leading democracy adopting a form of punishment carried out in modern times only by authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations.

Nidal Malik Hasan is shown in a courtroom sketch in 2013.

(Brigitte Woosley / Associated Press)

“Hasan should face the death penalty, but making his execution public and streaming it? Beyond disgusting,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) wrote on X. “Public executions are what oppressive dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan do. It should not be happening in America.”

“I absolutely support the sentence of death, but live-streaming executions is what jihadists do. America is better than that,” Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) wrote.

The United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights said that “the livestreaming of an execution is tantamount to a public execution and would breach the absolute prohibition of torture.” The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it would “further undermine the moral fabric of our nation and be a blight on the conscience of its people.”

Matthew Robinson, a criminal justice professor at Appalachian State University and author of a book on U.S. capital punishment titled “Death Nation,” said he was “appalled” by the plans. “It strikes me as meant to be entertaining.” He said the last military execution was in 1961, and the last by firing squad was in 1945.

Soldiers hold a candlelight vigil at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009, one day after Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 people.

(LM Otero / Associated Press)

Hasan was an Army psychiatrist and major who in 2009 entered a medical building on the Texas military base with a laser-sighted handgun, shouted “Allahu akbar” — Arabic for “God is great!” — and opened fire, killing 13 people and injuring 32 others. He has since spoken of being a “martyr” if executed.

President Trump, an outspoken proponent of the death penalty for years but also a past critic of public executions in places like Iran, has signed off on Hasan’s execution but not addressed Hegseth’s plans. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, said Friday that people should remember that Hasan “brutally murdered a lot of innocent people.” But he also said he would not watch a live-stream of the execution, and expressed doubt that is “actually going to happen.”

On his first day in office this term, Trump issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to restore the death penalty to prominence. In April, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it had taken steps to do so, including by “expanding the protocol” to include firing squads.

Five states currently allow firing squads to carry out executions: Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly turned down appeals contending such executions amount to “cruel and unusual punishment,” which is barred under U.S. law. South Carolina executed three men by firing squad last year.

When the Supreme Court last year rejected an Alabama inmate’s request to be killed by firing squad rather than with nitrogen hypoxia, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor — joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented, writing, “Boyd asks for the barest form of mercy: to die by firing squad, which would kill him in seconds, rather than by a torturous suffocation lasting up to four minutes. The Constitution would grant him that grace.”

Kathleen Walter prays outside the Nashville, Tenn., prison where Christa Pike was set to be executed.

(George Walker IV / Associated Press)

Last week, a Tennessee inmate named Christa Pike survived what was meant to be a lethal injection of the barbiturate pentobarbital. Other states have also struggled with executions by lethal injection in recent years.

Much of the criticism of Hegseth’s plan for Hasan has centered not on the method of killing, but on the live-streaming of it.

Robin M. Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the center has “no record of any execution being live streamed,” and is “not aware of any regulation or precedent for a military execution to be live streamed on the internet or otherwise made widely available to the public.”

Fox News commentator Howard Kurtz wrote: “I’m sensing revulsion on the left and right, not so much for killing a death row prisoner — although firing squad seems extreme in the modern age — but for the Pentagon to live-stream it, turning this into a horrifying TV show to entertain the masses. Is this America?”

Daniel LaChance, an associate history professor at Emory University and author of the book “Executing Freedom: The Cultural Life of Capital Punishment in the United States,” said the last public execution in the U.S. occurred in 1936, when a Black man convicted of rape was hanged in Kentucky — which still allowed public executions after most states had abandoned the practice.

That execution was “by all accounts a grotesque carnival” and “sort of like a gladiatorial contest brought to life in the 20th Century, where the crowd was surly, shouting,” LaChance said. “It was a debacle.”

That the Trump administration is seeking to turn capital punishment into a public spectacle once more, LaChance said, is out of line with decades of thinking on the issue, but in line with Trump’s own ethos about crime and punishment.

“His whole brand is this kind of populist, anti-elitism. And when executions moved into the bowels of prisons in the early 20th century, they were really becoming bureaucratic affairs, run by experts, carried out in front of a small group of professionals and clergy,” LaChance said. “It was a denial of the public’s right to see a punishment that was carried out in their name, in part because there were elites who thought that the public couldn’t handle this kind of spectacle, that they were misbehaving, that it would generate more disorder when an execution is designed to do the exact opposite: to generate order.”

President Trump points to fans to as he walks to the stage at a political rally Wednesday in San Antonio.

(San Antonio Express-News via Getty Images)

Trump clearly thinks he is pushing back against elitism and expertise and giving people what they want, LaChance said, though the question many scholars have is whether doing so will “increase people’s bloodthirst” or force them to recoil — and ultimate decrease support for such punishments.

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, said Trump has publicly mused about killing people by firing squad for years, so Hegseth’s plans to use a firing squad should not be surprising. However, the decision to live-stream the killing is clearly a source of “dismay” for many. “Even people who are resigned to the death penalty, who don’t have religious or other scruples about the death penalty, have real heartburn over this,” he said.

Fidell said “brutality” has become an “operating principle” for the Trump administration broadly, from its decision to host an Ultimate Fighting tournament at the White House to its immigration tactics across the country to, now, it’s plans to live-stream an execution — which Fidell said has “nothing to do” with deterring future crime.

“There’s a pathology going on here that is so out of keeping with the dignity that ought to characterize the taking of a life as a result of a legal process,” he said.

Robinson, of Appalachian State, said a student of his Friday morning asked what would happen when children tune in to watch the execution, which Robinson said he believes they will do, as if it’s a video game. He said the idea was appalling — and not just to him.

“I imagine the rest of the world, the civilized world, will see this and have the same response that I did,” he said. “They’ll respond with shock.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.

There was a sense of inevitability that England captain Kane would be the star turn in Tuesday’s 3-0 win over the Czech Republic as he celebrated equalling Peter Shilton’s record of 125 England caps.

Kane, still irreplaceable at 33, added to his goals tally as England’s all-time record scorer, his total of 91 now 38 ahead of Wayne Rooney, who is in second place in the listings with 53 goals in 120 games.

And, with Kane still looking in his prime and fully fit, it now seems only a matter of time before he makes history as the first player to score 100 goals for England.

This alone will have delighted Tuchel, but even more satisfying for the German is that he now presides over an attacking quartet that can pose a threat to any side in world football.

Kane is the peerless spearhead, but Anthony Gordon – on target in the three Nations League games against Spain, the Czech Republic and Croatia before being rested here at Wembley – has moved his game on to another level since joining Barcelona from Newcastle.

Gordon is a creator with burning pace, while on the right flank Bukayo Saka has looked rejuvenated after a World Cup during which he was hampered by an Achilles injury, as he proved with two goals in Croatia.

And, just behind them all, with everything he does stamped with world class, is Jude Bellingham, England’s player of the year and the golden future of his country at only 23.

This may be bad news for Chelsea’s Cole Palmer, whose withdrawal from England’s squad has allowed others to cement their place in front of him, with Nottingham Forest’s Morgan Gibbs-White proving his commitment by cutting short a family holiday to join the squad after being excluded initially.

England’s front four looks a natural fit, augmented by Chelsea’s Morgan Rogers, while Liverpool’s 18-year-old Rio Ngumoha will be an international contender for years to come.

If Tuchel can keep his fab four fit and firing, England will be a danger to any opponents.