news

Mexican authorities say they are working to identify five other bodies after 10 workers were kidnapped last month.

Five of 10 employees who were abducted from a Canadian-run mine in Mexico last month have been confirmed as dead, authorities said.

Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office said on Monday that authorities have identified five bodies found at a property in El Verde, a rural locality in the state of Sinaloa, and are working to identify the remains of five other people.

“It is important to note that prosecutorial authorities have remained in contact with the victims’ relatives,” the office said in a statement.

“In the cases where the bodies have already been identified, they will be transferred to the states of Zacatecas in two cases, as well as to Chihuahua, Sonora, and Guerrero,” it added.

Authorities, who last week arrested four people in connection with the case, will continue gathering evidence to ensure the killings “do not go unpunished”, the office said without providing information on a possible motive.

Vizsla Silver, the operator of the Panuco gold and silver mine located near Mazatlan, Sinaloa, said earlier on Monday that it had been informed by a number of families that their loved ones had been found dead.

“We are devastated by this outcome and the tragic loss of life. Our deepest condolences are with our colleagues’ families, friends and co-workers, and the entire community of Concordia,” Michael Konnert, president and CEO of Vizsla Silver, said in a statement.

“Our focus remains on the safe recovery of those who remain missing and on supporting all affected families and our people during this incredibly difficult time,” Konnert said.

Vizsla Silver, based in Vancouver, reported on January 28 that 10 of its workers had been taken from its project site and that it had informed authorities.

Sinaloa has been rocked by escalating gang violence linked to a rivalry between factions affiliated with two cofounders of the Sinaloa Cartel, Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada and Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, both of whom are in custody in the United States.

The western state in Mexico saw more than 1,680 homicides in 2025, making it the most violent year in more than a decade, according to a tally by the Mexican newspaper Milenio.

Feb. 9 (Asia Today) — A power struggle over nomination authority within South Korea’s conservative People Power Party intensified Monday as Seoul party chair Bae Hyun-jin faced possible disciplinary action ahead of the June 3 local elections.

Tensions escalated after the party’s central ethics committee initiated disciplinary proceedings against Bae, while the Seoul city party’s ethics body launched a separate case involving a conservative YouTuber. The parallel moves have fueled an open clash between the party leadership faction and lawmakers aligned with former leader Han Dong-hoon.

Senior vice chairpersons of the Seoul party rejected the central committee’s action, warning against undermining a city chair elected by delegates across Seoul. They denied allegations that Bae led a signature campaign opposing Han’s expulsion from the party.

Those accusations were raised by Lee Sang-gyu, who filed the ethics complaint against Bae. He dismissed the denials as false, accusing critics of trying to shield what he described as undemocratic procedures and abuse of authority.

Local media reported that Bae confronted party leader Jang Dong-hyuk during a National Assembly session, pressing him on whether the central ethics committee’s intervention reflected his intent and asking whether he supported suspending her duties as Seoul party chair.

The dispute has raised speculation that severe disciplinary action against Bae could reshape the party’s nomination landscape ahead of the local elections, turning the ethics process into a broader struggle for control. Some party officials, however, suggested the leadership may seek to de-escalate.

Jang Ye-chan, a deputy director at the party-affiliated Yeouido Research Institute, said prolonged disciplinary proceedings would only increase the leadership’s burden. He predicted the leadership would avoid sanctioning Bae and instead pivot toward a message of unity and reform.

A Seoul party official offered a contrasting view, saying disciplinary action was likely. The official alleged Bae pressured party members by leveraging nomination authority ahead of the local elections and said internal discord had grown within the city party organization.

Separately, the People Power Party confirmed the expulsion of former supreme council member Kim Jong-hyuk, a figure associated with the pro-Han faction. The central ethics committee had issued a recommendation last month urging him to leave the party, triggering automatic expulsion under party rules. Kim said he would pursue legal action against the party leadership and the ethics committee.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260210010003400

L3Harris has highlighted the potential benefits of pairing its Red Wolf miniature cruise missile with the U.S. Air Force’s OA-1K Skyraider II. Standoff munitions like Red Wolf could help the OA-1K, originally designed for close air support and surveillance and reconnaissance in support of low-intensity operations, find a role in future high-end conflicts, but questions about the value of doing so remain. The U.S. Marine Corps is already acquiring the Red Wolf to provide a boost in capability for its AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters for the same general reasons.

L3Harris announced today that it had shown “the ability to integrate” Red Wolf on its Sky Warden aircraft. The Sky Warden is based on the Air Tractor AT-802 single-engine turboprop crop duster. In 2022, the Air Force declared the two-seat Sky Warden the winner of its Armed Overwatch competition, subsequently giving the plane the designation OA-1K and the official nickname Skyraider II. The Air Force is planning to eventually acquire 75 OA-1Ks, which will be operated by units under the umbrella of Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC).

L3Harris officially unveiled Red Wolf, as well as the companion Green Wolf (fitted with an electronic warfare payload instead of a high-explosive warhead), last July. However, the development of the “Wolf” family of systems dates back to 2020.

“Our customers demand a lean, agile aircraft that can fly, take off and land anywhere, anytime, outfitted with a wide range of payloads,” Jason Lambert, President for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, Space and Mission Systems at L3Harris, said in a statement today. “Bringing together Red Wolf and Sky Warden demonstrates the rapid reconfiguration and customization of key L3Harris capabilities.”

The OA-1K can carry up to 6,000 pounds of munitions and other stores on as many as eight pylons, four under each wing. L3Harris has also said in the past that aircraft has a “robust suite of radios and datalinks providing multiple means for line-of-sight (LOS) and beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) communications.”

OA-1K Skyraider II Walk-Around Tour With Its Test Pilot

Adding Red Wolf to the Skyraider II’s arsenal would turn the aircraft into a true standoff weapons delivery platform. This, in turn, would help keep the aircraft further away from potential threats, reducing the risk to the crew.

The members of the “Wolf” family are all in the 250-pound class. They have a missile-like core design, powered by a small turbojet, and with at least a degree of low-observability (stealthiness). They are in the 250-pound weight class. “Their endurance has been proven in flight testing, demonstrating high subsonic speeds – 200+ nautical mile range at low altitudes and 60+ minutes duration,” per L3Harris.

Details about how Red Wolf or Green Wolf are guided are limited, but L3Harris says they are capable of “autonomous over-the-horizon engagements.” The Marine Corps, in cooperation with the U.S. Navy, has used tablet-based control systems as part of the engagement process in past testing of Red Wolf.

L3Harris has also talked in the past about how members of the Wolf family could work together. The Green Wolves could help locate targets, especially hostile air defense assets, by zeroing in on their signal emissions, as well as clear a path for Red Wolves to actually strike them.

Red Wolf or Green Wolf are also only the start of what L3Harris hopes to be a larger family of configurations based around the central design. At least one Red Wolf was reportedly employed at the U.S. Army’s Experimentation Demonstration Gateway Event in 2021 (EDGE 21) configured as an airborne signal relay node rather than a munition.

“We can adjust the size of the warhead, the fuel tank, we can even put a parachute on the back of it, and we have,” Matthew “Guicci” Klunder, Vice President for Business Development at L3Harris, said in a promotional video released last year, seen below. “It can be a kinetic effect, it could be a non-kinetic effect, it could even be a decoy.”

Meet the “Wolf Pack”

Changing the size of the warhead would have impacts on range and endurance, as well as the terminal effect on the target. This also opens up the possibility of fitting different types of warheads, including ones with increased penetrating capability. A parachute system would allow for recovery and, by extension, potential reuse.

Overall, L3Harris describes the “Wolf” family collectively as “launched effects vehicles.” The U.S. military uses the term “launched effect” to refer to a broad swatch of uncrewed aerial systems that can be deployed from platforms in the air, on the ground, and at sea, and that can be configured as one-way attackers or to perform other missions. The Wolf family is just one of a growing number of modular, relatively cheap, and small systems that fall under that broad umbrella. Many of them increasingly blur the line between uncrewed aerial systems, especially longer-range kamikaze drones, and cruise missiles, as well as decoys.

As mentioned, just integrating Red Wolf onto the OA-1K would give it a standoff strike capability it currently does not have. Adding Green Wolf to the mix would further expand its capability, including adding a valuable, if not potentially critical, way to suppress hostile air defenses that might suddenly pop up.

In general, standoff capabilities for the Skyraider II could open up important new avenues to employing the aircraft in the context of future large-scale conflicts, including across the broad expanses of the Pacific. When the Air Force first initiated the Armed Overwatch program, U.S. military operations globally were defined by counter-terrorism operations in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria with entirely permissive airspace. By the time the decision was made to acquire the OA-1Ks, a shift was underway across the U.S. military to reorient toward preparing for high-end fights.

“How could we support them [friendly forces] if it’s in the Pacific or anywhere else? The OA-1K certainly has some roles and missions that can [provide] support there. And then in a large-scale combat operation, we are looking at, in partnership with other components of SOCOM [U.S. Special Operations Command], what are some of the things that it could do,” a high-ranking Air Force official told TWZ in an interview last year. “Can it employ air-launched effects, at range, at standoff, in a flexible way that would provide value?”

“The beauty of the OA-1K is that it’s modular, it’s adaptable, and for a relatively small aircraft can carry a lot of payload. And so in a perfect world, in a resource-unconstrained world, I want to be able to have as big a menu as possible of things that I could hang from a hardpoint on there, or attach as a sensor,” Air Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, head of AFSOC, also told TWZ later in the year on the sidelines of Air & Space Forces Association’s main annual ocnference. “I’d love to be able to use long-range standoff mission munitions on multiple airframes.”

Conley was responding to a question specifically about integrating Black Arrow, also known as the Small Cruise Missile (SCM), onto the Skyraider II. Leidos is developing Black Arrow for AFSOC now, but primarily as a new standoff capability for the AC-130J Ghostrider gunship. Questions have also been raised about how to ensure the future relevance of the Air Force’s AC-130 fleets in high-end fights.

Leidos completes successful test launch of a Small Cruise Missile

At the same time, exactly how great the benefit would be to making the OA-1K into a standoff shooter is a matter of debate. A key benefit the Skyraider II offers is its ability to operate with a very small logistical footprint from far-flung locales, including ones that are very austere and close to or even within contested areas. As such, an OA-1K would be able to launch munitions like the Red Wolf from within the enemy’s own weapon engagement zones or from other surprise vectors, and fly low and slow to literally stay out of the gaze of distant radars.

At the same time, the OA-1K’s range and speed are limited, with the aircraft said to have a combat radius of roughly 200 miles with six hours of loitering time once arriving on station. The Skyraider II’s ability to survive in a highly contested areas, even with a standoff capability like that offered by Red Wolf, is also questionable at best.

OA-1Ks could still provide useful support during a high-end fight, but in areas further away from hostile threats. As TWZ has pointed out in the past, in a Pacific scenario, the aircraft could provide force protection and surveillance on a localized level around forward operating locations, including island outposts.

AFSOC’s Conley, among others, has also stressed in the past that AFSOC will still continue to be called upon to conduct lower-intensity missions that require the kinds of capabilities that the OA-1K was originally designed for, as well.

Regardless, the market space for munitions like Red Wolf and Black Arrow is steadily growing, and includes many other designs already that might also find their way onto the OA-1K, as well as other platforms in the air, ground, and maritime domains.

Red Wolf does have the additional benefit of already being elsewhere in the U.S. military ecosystem. As noted, the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army have been testing it in recent years. In January, L3Harris announced that the Marine Corps (by way of the Department of the U.S. Navy) had chosen Red Wolf for its Precision Attack Strike Munition (PSAM) requirement for a new air-launched standoff weapon primarily to arm the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter. The Marines have been facing their own questions about how to keep the AH-1Z, as well as the companion UH-1Y Venom armed utility helicopter, relevant in future high-end fights.

Further orders for different members of the Wolf family from other branches of the U.S. military, and potentially foreign operators, could be advantageous when it comes to sharing the cost burden and driving down unit prices through economies of scale. There could be interoperability and other operational benefits from multiple services operating versions of the same platform, as well.

Whether Red Wolf or Green Wolf ultimately become part of the OA-1K’s arsenal, the demand for launched effects like this only looks set to grow across the U.S. military and globally. For the Skyraider II, some mixture of standoff capabilities increasingly looks to be in the plane’s future to expand its relevance beyond lower-intensity conflicts.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

After decades of being largely immune to political upheaval, Portugal is witnessing what many consider an accelerated shift to the right.

This week’s presidential election is seen as a wake-up call.

It brought to power a centre-left politician – with a big win.

But the strong showing of his rival, the far-right candidate, signals that Portugal could be on a path to joining other European countries in a political move to the right.

The president of this European country is largely a figurehead, but he still wields considerable power.

So, how will this vote shape Portugal’s political future? And how has it been watched across Europe?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Miguel Poiares Maduro – Director of the School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute

Karel Lannoo – CEO of the Centre for European Policy Studies

Rui Gomes da Silva – Lawyer and former Portuguese parliamentary affairs minister

Several others were injured in the attack on a building sheltering displaced people as Israel continues to violate the ‘ceasefire’.

At least four Palestinians have been killed, and several others injured, after an Israeli air attack targeted a residential building sheltering displaced people in Gaza City, a further violation of an October “ceasefire”.

Emergency teams were seen rushing to transport injured people to nearby hospitals after Monday’s attack in the Nassr neighbourhood.

Last week, Gaza’s Government Media Office reported that Israel had violated the “ceasefire” 1,520 times since it came into effect on October 10. The Ministry of Health in Gaza said 581 people have been killed and 1,553 wounded since then.

Al Jazeera’s Ibrahim Al Khalili, reporting from Gaza City, said the residential building was being used as a shelter for displaced Palestinians after it was struck and damaged during Israel’s genocidal war.

“People have been forced to shelter in this partially damaged residential building due to the lack and scarcity of shelter due to the destruction of most of Gaza’s residential buildings,” he said.

Al Khalili said this latest violation of the ceasefire agreement by Israel has raised significant concerns in the territory.

“This attack has spread panic and left people wondering what might come next in the light of this deadly escalation carried out by the Israeli military.”

Elsewhere on Monday, Israeli forces shot dead Palestinian farmer Khaled Baraka in an area to the east of Deir el-Balah in central Gaza, according to local sources who spoke with the Palestinian Wafa news agency.

In a separate incident, Israel’s military said it had killed four fighters who emerged from a tunnel in southern Gaza and attacked its troops.

Hamas military spokesman Abu Obeida later described the incident as “heroic resistance”.

Hamas said in late November that dozens of its fighters were holed up in southern Gaza’s tunnels, beneath areas controlled by the Israeli military.

This was a sticking point in the early days of the ceasefire, with Israel insisting the fighters posed a security threat, while Hamas sought safe passage for them.

Since then, many of the fighters have been killed in clashes with Israeli troops during operations targeting tunnels near Rafah, according to the military.

At Web Summit Qatar, we hear from Jamal Elshayyal, Al Jazeera’s new Director of Digital News Content, on forging his own path at the network – and how those lessons will guide Al Jazeera through the AI age.

In this episode: 

• Jamal Elshayyal (@jamalelshayyal), Director, Al Jazeera Digital News Content Global

Episode credits:

This episode was produced by Chloe K. Li with Noor Wazwaz, Tuleen Barakat, Maya Hamadeh, Melanie Marich, Tamara Khandaker, Sarí el-Khalili, and our host, Malika Bilal. It was edited by Alexandra Locke. Special thanks to Kawthar Abu Sadeh.

The Take production team is Marcos Bartolomé, Sonia Bhagat, Spencer Cline, Sarí el-Khalili, Tamara Khandaker, Kylene Kiang, Phillip Lanos, Chloe K. Li, Melanie Marich, Maya Hamadeh, Tuleen Barakat, and Noor Wazwaz. Our host is Malika Bilal. 

Our engagement producers are Adam Abou-Gad and Vienna Maglio. Andrew Greiner is lead of audience engagement.

Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhemm. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio. 

Connect with us:

@AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, and YouTube

BREAKINGBREAKING,

White House official says Trump sees stability in the Palestinian territory as a ‘goal to achieve peace in the region’.

United States President Donald Trump opposes Israel’s annexation of ⁠the occupied West Bank, a White House official has said.

“A stable West Bank keeps ‌Israel secure, and is in ‌line ‌with this ⁠administration’s goal to achieve peace ‌in the region,” the official said on Monday, according to the Reuters news agency.

The comment from the White House comes after eight Muslim-majority countries denounced Israel for approving controversial new measures to expand control over occupied Palestinian territory, making it easier for Israelis to acquire land for new settlements, which are illegal under international law.

On Monday, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and the United Arab Emirates condemned Israel’s move “in the strongest terms”, according to a statement from the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This is a breaking news story. More to follow shortly.

Two lawsuits accusing the world’s largest social media companies of harming children begin this week, marking the first legal efforts to hold companies like Meta responsible for the effects their products have on young users.

Opening arguments began today in a case brought by New Mexico’s attorney general’s office, which alleges that Meta failed to protect children from sexually explicit material. A separate case in Los Angeles, which accuses Meta and the Google-owned YouTube of deliberately designing their platforms to be addictive for children, is set to begin later this week.

TikTok and Snap were also named in the original California lawsuit but later settled under undisclosed terms.

The New Mexico and California lawsuits are the first of a wave of 40 lawsuits filed by state attorneys general around the US against Meta, specifically, that allege that the social media giant is harming the mental health of young Americans.

New Mexico case

In the opening argument in the New Mexico case, which was first filed in 2023, prosecutors told jurors on Monday that Meta – Facebook and Instagram’s parent company – had failed to disclose its platforms’ harmful effects on kids.

“The theme throughout this trial is going to be that Meta put profits over safety,” said lawyer Donald Migliori, who is representing the state of New Mexico against Meta.

“Meta clearly knew that youth safety was not its corporate priority… that youth safety was less important than growth and engagement.”

Prosecutors say they will provide evidence and testimony that Meta’s algorithms and account features not only enticed young people and made them addicted to social media, but also fostered a “breeding ground” for predators who target children for sexual exploitation.

Late last month, in the process of discovery, the New Mexico attorney general’s office said the company did not put in safeguards to protect children from accessing sexualised chatbots on Facebook and Instagram.

In emails obtained by the court, some of Meta’s safety staff had expressed objections that the company was building chatbots geared for companionship, including sexual and romantic interactions with users, according to the Reuters news agency.

The artificial intelligence chatbots were released in early 2024. The documents cited in the state’s filing do not include messages or memos authored by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In October 2025, Meta added parental controls to the chatbots.

California case

The California case is more wide-reaching and alleges that Meta and YouTube, which is a unit of Alphabet-owned Google, used deliberate design choices that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits.

The case centres around a 19-year-old identified only by the initials KGM. The case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age made her addicted to the technology and exacerbated her depression and suicidal thoughts.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. It is unclear if they will attend the New Mexico case.

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevvy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal.

Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people”.

Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, said the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true”.

“Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work,” he said in a statement.

High stakes

The outcome of the cases could shape the future of social media.

“In my mind, an existential question for social media services is whether they’re liable for harm suffered by users from using the services. If so, the damages could be more money than the defendants have, Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, told Al Jazeera.

“We’re talking about massive financial stakes, and we’re also talking about the ability of the plaintiffs to veto or potentially override editorial decisions by the services about what’s in the best interests of their audiences,” he said.

“It’s essentially taking away power from the services to decide and handing it to plaintiffs’ lawyers. So, not only could there be existential damages, but there could also be a massive loss of editorial control over their services. The stakes could not be higher for social media services or the internet.”

Goldman said this was because the same argument could be used to shape claims against video game makers and generative AI, which refers to AI that can create original content, including text and video.

“If these theories work against social media, they might also work against video games, against generative AI, and who knows what else. That’s why I said the stakes are so high for the internet,” he added.

There are already lawsuits that claim that interactions with OpenAI’s ChatGPT led to instances of suicide and murder-suicide.

On Wall Street, Meta stock is trending up by more than 3 percent in midday trading.

Ukranian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych claims the International Olympic Committee has banned his helmet featuring images of people killed in the war in his home country, in a decision that “breaks my heart”.

The 26-year-old wore the helmet during a Winter Olympics training session in Cortina, and had promised before the Games to use the event as a platform to keep attention on the conflict.

The IOC is yet to confirm publicly if it has banned the helmet.

“The IOC has banned the use of my helmet at official training sessions and competitions,” said Heraskevych, who was a Ukraine flagbearer in Friday’s opening ceremony, on Instagram, external.

“A decision that simply breaks my heart. The feeling that the IOC is betraying those athletes who were part of the Olympic movement, not allowing them to be honoured on the sports arena where these athletes will never be able to step again.

“Despite precedents in modern times and in the past when the IOC allowed such tributes, this time they decided to set special rules just for Ukraine.”

Heraskevych told Reuters that many of those pictured on his helmet were athletes including teenage weightlifter Alina Peregudova, boxer Pavlo Ishchenko and ice hockey player Oleksiy Loginov, and stated some of them were his friends.

Heraskevych said Toshio Tsurunaga, the IOC representative in charge of communications between athletes, national Olympic committees and the IOC, had been to the athletes’ village to tell him.

“He said it’s because of rule 50,” Heraskevych told Reuters.

Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter states that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.

He said earlier on Monday that the IOC had contacted Ukraine’s Olympic Committee over the helmet.

The IOC said it had not received any official request to use the helmet in competition, which starts on 12 February.

Meanwhile, Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky thanked Heraskevych “for reminding the world of the price of our struggle” in a post on X, external.

The post continued: “This truth cannot be inconvenient, inappropriate, or called a ‘political demonstration at a sporting event’. It is a reminder to the entire world of what modern Russia is.”

Heraskevych, Ukraine’s first skeleton athlete, held up a ‘No War in Ukraine’ sign at the 2022 Beijing Olympics, days before Russia’s 2022 invasion of the country.

Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter states: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”

Heraskevych had said he intended to respect Olympic rules which prohibit political demonstrations at venues while still raising awareness about the war in Ukraine at the Games.

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 athletes from Russia and Belarus were largely banned from international sport, but there has since been a gradual return to competition.

The IOC cleared 13 athletes from Russia, external to compete as Individual Neutral Athletes (AINs) in Milan-Cortina.

BBC Sport has approached the IOC for comment.

YouTube TV will start offering customers lower-priced channel packages, including one aimed at sports fans.

The Google-owned pay-TV service announced Monday it will roll out more than 10 plans that will be priced below a full YouTube TV subscription that offers more than 100 channels.

The introduction, which will begin over the next few weeks, is in response to growing consumer resentment over the rising cost for the service, currently available for $82.99 a month. YouTube TV was introduced in 2017 as an alternative to increasingly expensive cable and satellite services with an initial price of $35 a month.

Consumer interest is likely to be highest for the Sports Plan, available this fall. For $64.99 a month, consumers will get the four broadcast networks, which all carry the NFL, plus Fox Sports 1, the NBC Sports Network and all of the ESPN channels. New subscribers will be offered a one-year introductory rate of $54.99 a month.

YouTube will also offer a Sports + News plan, which combine the two most-watched genres in the pay TV bundle. For $71.99 a month, consumers get the sports package and news networks CNN, Fox News, MS NOW, Bloomberg, C-SPAN and Fox Business. The introductory rate is $56.99.

The new plans will aim to compete with the direct to consumer offering of ESPN, which is available in tandem with Fox One, a service combining Fox Corp’s news and sports channels. The two are being offered together for $39.99 a month.

Over the last two years, El Segundo-based DirecTV rolled out smaller packages of channels aimed at consumers who no longer want a big monthly bill for networks they don’t watch. The satellite TV service now offers smaller genre packages of channels and streaming apps that cater to a particular interest available at a lower price — designed for news junkies, sports fans, children and Spanish-language speakers.

Pay-TV providers are under pressure to provide more pricing options to consumers to keep them from cutting the cord.

At the same time, carriage negotiations with programmers are more fraught, often leading to standoffs where channels are pulled, disrupting service to customers.

Disney’s channels, including ESPN, were off of YouTube TV for nearly 15 days last fall. Separately, YouTube TV customers lost access to Univision’s Spanish-language channels for two months, which drew the attention of legislators on both sides of the political spectrum.

YouTube, which has about 10 million subscribers, is also offering an Entertainment Plan that includes the major broadcast networks and an array of cable channels including FX, Hallmark, Comedy Central, Bravo, Paramount, Food Network and HGTV at $54.99 a month and an introductory rate of $44.99.

A News + Entertainment + Family Plan — which combines, news, entertainment and children’s channels including Disney Channel, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon, will be available for $69.99 a month and an introductory rate of $59.99.

Feb. 9 (UPI) — A rubber boat capsized in the Mediterranean Sea last week after taking on water, leaving 53 people migrating from North Africa presumed dead, a United Nations-affiliated migration organization said Monday.

The boat capsized off the coast of Libya, north of the city Zuwara, on Friday while traveling along a migration route through the Central Mediterranean that has potentially claimed the lives of nearly 500 people since Jan. 1.

In coordination with Libyan authorities, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said it provided emergency medical care to two Nigerian women who were the only survivors of the when the vessel flipped — one who reported losing her husband and the other losing her two babies.

“In January alone, at least 375 migrants were reported or missing following multiple ‘invisible’ shipwrecks in the Central Mediterranean amid extreme weather, with hundreds more deaths believed to be unrecorded,” IOM said in a press release.

“These repeated incidents underscore the persistent and deadly risks faced by migrants and refugees attempting the dangerous crossing,” the organization said.

The boat that capsized Friday left Al-Zawiya, Libya, around 11 p.m. local time on Jan. 5 heading north but started to take on water and, six hours into the journey, the rubber craft capsized, the survivors told IOM officials.

Libya has over the past decade and a half been used as a stopgap for migrants to leave African nations for Europe, though the United Nations has reported torture, forced labor and extortion, among other abuses, by trafficking and smuggling networks offering opportunities to travel.

From Libya, migrants can reach Italy, which is less than 200 miles away across the Mediterranean. Other paths through the sea, which have been no less deadly, include those between Turkey and Greece and Morocco and Spain.

IOM’s director general, Amy Pope, met with leaders in Libya in December to discuss efforts to combat trafficking through the Central Mediterranean, as well as to enhance safe and voluntary return and migration methods.

“Every life lost on this route is a tragedy — one that we can prevent,” she said after the mid-December visit. “Saving lives requires shared responsibility and real cooperation.”

Since 2014, IOM reports that nearly 34,000 people are believed to be dead or missing while attempting to migrate to Europe from the northern coast of Africa.

UN spokesperson says the international body is ‘waiting to see exactly when payments’ will be made by Washington.

The United Nations has asked the United States for clarity regarding unpaid budget dues, as declining US engagement puts the international organisation under growing strain.

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said on Monday that while the US ambassador, Mike Waltz, said last week that payments would begin within weeks, no further details had been offered.

“We’ve seen the statements, and frankly, the secretary-general has been in touch for quite some time on this issue with Ambassador Waltz,” Dujarric said during a news briefing.

“Our [budget] controller has been in touch with the US; indications were given. We’re waiting to see exactly when payments will be made and in what amounts,” he added.

UN officials have said that unpaid fees from the US account for about 95 percent of all outstanding UN budget dues, as the administration of President Donald Trump decreases US involvement in international organisations.

UN chief Antonio Guterres warned in a January letter that the international body faces “imminent financial collapse” on account of unpaid membership dues.

The US owed the UN about $2.19bn by the start of February, along with another $2.4bn for peacekeeping missions and $43.6m for UN tribunals. UN officials have said that the US did not pay $827m for the budget last year, and has not paid $767m for 2026.

The US and its top ally, Israel, have frequently criticised the UN and sought to undermine its agencies, which they say are in opposition to their national interests.

The UN’s human rights chief, Volker Turk, said last week that his office was in “survival mode” amid budget shortfalls. The Trump administration cut off contributions to the agency in 2025.

Turk’s office has frequently issued critical reports about severe rights abuses by Israeli forces against Palestinians that the US and Israel have denounced.

Waltz said last week that the UN would see a “significant” payment towards the US dues soon, telling the Reuters news agency that “you’ll certainly see an initial tranche of money very shortly”.

“Just in general, towards the arrears, and also in recognition of some of the reforms that we’ve seen,” he said.

Last year, the Trump administration released a National Security Strategy, which asserted that the “world’s fundamental political unit is and will remain the nation-state”, not international organisations.

The US has historically been the largest donor to the UN and its programmes.

However, some conservatives from Trump’s Republican Party view the organisation as a hindrance to US global dominance, and international rules and regulations as a threat to the country’s sovereignty.

Feb. 9 (UPI) — The deadline on a purported ransom note neared Monday as the search for Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of ‘Today’ show host Savannah Guthrie, entered its ninth day.

Nancy Guthrie’s children released a third video Saturday asking for the return of their mother. Police have a vehicle of interest that was towed from near the Guthrie home.

“We beg you now to return our mother to us — so that we can celebrate with her. This is the only way we will have peace,” Savannah Guthrie said. “We will pay.”

Digital billboards in Texas, New Mexico and California have been erected in the hunt for information that might lead to Guthrie’s return.

The suspected abductors are believed to have sent ransom notes threatening Nancy Guthrie’s life if they don’t get $6 million by 5 p.m. Monday, KGUN reported.

Police were guarding Guthrie’s Arizona home and carried out the investigation in multiple locations, CNN reported.

Friday Morning, Former Today co-host Hoda Kotb filled in for Savannah Guthrie and said the Guthrie family is “our top priority.”

“Our Today family continues to navigate uncharted territory, balancing the updates on the search for Savannah’s mom with all the other stories of the day, like we normally do,” co-host Craig Melvin said. “But we know things are far from normal right now, so folks, we are asking for your grace as we continue to do this.”

FBI Director Kash Patel planned to travel to Tuscon, Ariz., as he gets updates from his team, the FBI Phoenix office said.

The FBI said it has deployed more personnel from its Phoenix office and other FBI field offices to help with the investigation. It also staffed a 24-hour command post with agents to investigate leads and tips.

“The FBI has agents, analysts, and professional staff working day and night with our partners at the sheriff’s department,” the agency said in a statement.

Police believe Nancy Guthrie was abducted from her home in Tucson early on Jan. 31. There have been several ransom notes, but there is one that’s believed to be authentic.

There is a $50,000 reward for her return.

United Nations human rights chief also decries ‘preventable human rights catastrophe’ in Sudan’s el-Fasher.

Fatal drone strikes on civilians persist in Sudan’s Kordofan, as the central region has emerged as the latest front line in Sudan’s nearly three-year conflict, the United Nations has said.

Addressing the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk painted a grim picture of the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has plunged the country into widespread bloodshed and humanitarian catastrophe.

“We can only expect worse to come” unless decisive steps are taken by the international community to stop the fighting, Turk said, emphasising that inaction would lead to even greater horrors.

Turk also highlighted harrowing survivor testimonies from el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, which fell to RSF forces in October following an 18-month siege. He described accounts of atrocity crimes committed by the paramilitary after it overran the city, including mass killings and other grave violations targeting civilians.

“Responsibility for these atrocity crimes lies squarely with the [RSF] and their allies and supporters,” he said

As Sudan’s devastating civil war expands beyond the western Darfur region into the central Kordofan areas, Turk cautioned that the shift in fighting is likely to bring even more severe violations against civilians, expressing deep concern over the potential for additional grave abuses, specifically highlighting the increasing use of “advanced drone weaponry systems” by both warring parties.

“In the last two weeks, the SAF and allied Joint Forces broke the sieges on Kadugli and Dilling,” Turk said. “But drone strikes by both sides continue, resulting in dozens of civilian deaths and injuries.”

Turk’s office has documented more than 90 civilian deaths and 142 injuries caused by drone strikes carried ⁠out by both the RSF and the armed forces from late January to February 6, he said.

Among those incidents were three strikes on health facilities in South Kordofan that killed 31 people last week, according to the World Health Organization.

On February 7, a drone attack carried out by the RSF hit a vehicle transporting displaced families in central Sudan, killing at least 24 people, including eight children, the Sudan Doctors Network said.

The latest attacks follow a series of drone attacks on humanitarian aid convoys and fuel trucks across North Kordofan.

The UN human rights chief said he has witnessed the destruction caused by RSF attacks on Sudan’s Merowe Dam and its hydroelectric power station.

“Repeated drone strikes have disrupted power and water supplies to huge numbers of people, with a serious impact on healthcare,” he said.

British police are assessing a complaint that the former prince sent confidential trade reports to convicted US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Buckingham Palace says King Charles III will “support” UK police assessing reports that the former Prince Andrew gave confidential information to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The statement on Monday came after police said they were examining reports that the former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, sent trade reports to Epstein in 2010.

Thames Valley Police, which serves areas west of London, including the ex-royal’s former home in Windsor, launched the inquiry after news organisations reported on emails that suggest the then-prince sent Epstein reports from a 2010 tour of Southeast Asia he took as Britain’s envoy for international trade.

“The King has made clear, in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct,” the palace said in a statement.

“While the specific claims in question are for Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley Police we stand ready to support them as you would expect.”

Thames Valley Police confirmed earlier on Monday that it has launched an inquiry following a complaint from an anti-monarchy campaigner.

“We can confirm receipt of this report and are assessing the information in line with our established procedures,” the police force said in a statement.

Emails from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to Epstein were among the more than three million pages of documents released last month by the United States Justice Department.

Correspondence unearthed in recent days appears to show that Mountbatten-Windsor forwarded copies of his reports from a 2010 tour of Southeast Asia to Epstein soon after he returned to Britain.

An earlier email appears to show the ex-prince sharing his itinerary for the two-week trip to Hanoi, Saigon, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong with Epstein.

Thames Valley Police began its inquiry after Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchy group Republic, reported Mountbatten-Windsor for suspected abuse of public office and violations of Britain’s Official Secrets Act.

The former prince, 65, has faced years of scrutiny over his friendship with Epstein, a relationship that has cost him his role in the royal family, titles and home. Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing, and has not responded to requests for comment since the latest release of Epstein files.

Reporting from London, Al Jazeera’s Milena Veselinovic said Mountbatten-Windsor was acting as the United Kingdom’s international trade envoy when the claims were made that he sent sensitive information to Epstein.

“This [allegedly] includes a confidential memo about investment in the Helmand province in Afghanistan, which was being financed at that time by the UK taxpayer,” she explained.

Royal family faces jeopardy

The British royal family continued its effort to insulate itself from the scandal on Monday, as Prince William and Princess Catherine issued their first statement about the latest batch of Epstein files.

“I can confirm that the Prince and Princess of Wales have been deeply concerned by the continued revelations,’’ a spokesperson said as William travelled to Saudi Arabia for an official visit. “Their thoughts remain focused on the victims.”

The jeopardy faced by the royal family could be seen on Monday when King Charles visited Lancashire, in northwest England. While most of the public clapped, cheered and waved British flags, one person shouted, “How long have you known about Andrew?”

Last week, King Charles forced Mountbatten-Windsor to leave his longtime home at Royal Lodge near Windsor Castle, accelerating a move that was first announced in October but was not expected to be completed until later this year.

The former royal is now living temporarily at Wood Farm Cottage on the king’s Sandringham Estate in eastern England. He is then expected to move into a more permanent home, which is currently undergoing renovations.

In a sweeping crackdown, Iranian security and judicial authorities have arrested several reformist politicians on charges of attempting to “disrupt the country’s political and social order” and working “for the benefit” of Israel and the US during recent protests.

Ghislaine Maxwell avoids answering questions on alleged co-conspirators in case of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The associate and former girlfriend of convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has declined to answer questions during a deposition before the United States Congress.

Lawmakers expressed frustration after Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in helping Epstein abuse teenage girls, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

“As expected, Ghislaine Maxwell took the Fifth and refused to answer any questions,” Representative James Comer, Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters. “This is obviously very disappointing.”

“We had many questions to ask about the crimes she and Epstein committed as well as questions about potential co-conspirators,” he added.

Maxwell was subpoenaed to appear before the committee to discuss her relations with Epstein, but her lawyers stated that she would only testify if US President Donald Trump granted her clemency. Lawmakers had declined a previous request to grant Maxwell legal immunity before testifying.

“She [Maxwell] pleaded the Fifth, which under the US Constitution gives you the right not to answer questions on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself,” said Al Jazeera correspondent Alan Fisher.

“People were waiting to hear answers to important questions, but we got nothing from Ghislaine Maxwell,” he added. “What she did say, very briefly, was that she never saw any evidence of Donald Trump or [former US President] Bill Clinton involved in anything that was illegal. Many people suggest that was a deliberate ploy on her part to say, ‘Look, you buy my silence, but I want clemency.’ She’s appealing to both parties here to say, ‘I will clear the people that you care most about.’”

In a letter released on Sunday by Representative Ro Khanna expressing frustration with Maxwell’s refusal to testify, Khanna noted that Maxwell had spoken with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously worked as Trump’s personal lawyer, without invoking the Fifth Amendment.

“This position appears inconsistent with Ms Maxwell’s prior conduct, as she did not invoke the Fifth Amendment when she previously met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to discuss substantially similar subject matter,” he said.

Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security prison in Texas after meeting twice with Blanche last year.

Lawmakers such as Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse have called the decision “highly unusual” and questioned whether Maxwell had “been given special treatment in exchange for political favours” as President Trump’s own relationship with Epstein comes under growing scrutiny. Trump has strongly denied any wrongdoing and called the Epstein scandal a “hoax”.

Blanche has said that Maxwell was moved due to “numerous threats against her life”, without providing details. Maxwell has asked Trump to commute her sentence, which she was given in 2022 after being convicted on charges of sex trafficking minors.

She is the only person convicted of crimes related to Epstein, whose connections to a wide array of individuals at the height of political and economic power in the US and around the world have been revealed in the Epstein files.

If the proposal is implemented, workers would not be able to seek remedy through an independent review board.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is making it harder for fired federal employees to get their jobs back by limiting their right to appeal dismissals to an independent review board.

The change was proposed as part of a government plan released on Monday by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Under the proposal, federal employees seeking to challenge their termination would be required to appeal directly to OPM, which reports to the president, rather than to an independent body known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

The MSPB acts as a mediator between federal workers and the government and has been in place since 1978. After Trump took office, the board’s caseload surged by 266 percent between October 2024 and September 2025. Federal workers who were cut in early 2025 and accepted buyouts received their final paycheques at the end of September.

If implemented, the proposal would build on Trump’s broader push to shrink the federal government and limit workers’ ability to challenge those decisions. The administration forced out roughly 317,000 federal employees last year.

The move comes amid a separate proposal announced last week that would reclassify high-level career civil servants as “at will” employees. That change would give the administration broader authority to fire career officials who do not align with the sitting president’s agenda, affecting roughly 50,000 workers at the nation’s largest employer.

Outlined in a more than 250-page document, the directive would allow workers to be fired if they were “intentionally subverting Presidential directives”.

“Congress gave OPM the authority to set how reduction-in-force appeals are handled, and this rule puts that responsibility to work,” an OPM spokesperson told Al Jazeera in a statement. “It replaces a slow, costly process with a single, streamlined review led by OPM experts. That means agencies can restructure without years of litigation, and employees get faster, fairer resolution if mistakes occur.”

The proposal also comes as the administration has sought to fire political appointees from previous administrations without just cause. Since last year, the White House has been attempting to remove US Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud.

Cook challenged the decision in federal court, which ruled that the president did not have the authority to fire her. The White House appealed, and the case is now before the Supreme Court.

While the court has not yet issued a ruling, a decision in the president’s favour would make it easier to remove political appointees who do not align with a given administration’s agenda.

Feb. 9 (UPI) — The fuel shortage in Cuba began to simultaneously impact air transportation and tourism after an international aviation alert reported that Havana’s José Martí airport will not have fuel for one month.

The government also began to close hotels and relocate tourists as part of an emergency plan in the face of one of the worst energy crises in the island’s history, worsened by the end of oil shipments from Venezuela and pressure from the government of Donald Trump on crude oil supplies.

An operational notice from the international NOTAM system Sunday confirmed that Havana’s José Martí international airport will not have Jet A-1 fuel, the standard for commercial aviation, for one month between Tuesday and March 11, digital outlet CiberCuba reported.

The notification not only warns of the fuel shortage, but also of temporary limitations in landing aid systems, in addition to the inoperability of the runway visual range system, which is used to measure visibility when weather conditions are unfavorable.

The restriction is not limited to the capital. Similar notifications indicate fuel shortages at the country’s nine other airports.

Aviation authorities warned airlines that reserves could run out within a short period if supplies are not restored.

The measure compromises commercial, charter, cargo and executive aviation flights, and forces companies to arrive with extra fuel, make refueling stopovers in other countries or reschedule operations, reported Cuba Noticias 360.

This situation contrasts with recent statements by Transport Minister Eduardo Rodríguez Dávila, who had said operations at ports and airports remain guaranteed.

So far, international airlines have not communicated how they will deal with the contingency.

The impact is projected directly on tourism, the island’s main source of foreign currency.

Cancellations, delays and reduced air connectivity threaten the arrival of visitors from key markets such as Canada, Russia and Europe, in a context in which traveler confidence already shows signs of deterioration.

According to official figures, the arrival of international tourists to Cuba fell to 1.8 million in 2025, 17.8% less than in 2024. The result fell well short of the government target of 2.6 million visitors and marked one of the lowest records in more than two decades.

The energy crisis has as its backdrop the interruption of oil supplies from Venezuela, the island’s main supplier, following the capture of Nicolas Maduro.

This was compounded by the recent decision of the United States to declare a national emergency regarding Cuba and warn that it could impose tariffs on countries that supply oil to the Caribbean nation, in an escalation of pressure that has further complicated Havana’s access to fuel.

In parallel with the airport problem, the government has begun to close hotels in key tourist destinations and relocating foreign guests. The measure is part of an emergency plan to reduce energy consumption and reorganize facilities.

At least eight hotels closed in Cuba’s main tourist destinations and their clients are being relocated to other resorts amid the worsening national crisis and the shortage of fuel and supplies, Diario de Cuba confirmed from the island.

The hotel closures are occurring in the middle of the high season but amid travel advisories over the deterioration of internal conditions. The reduction of flights, energy uncertainty and hotel reorganization add pressure to an industry that is strategic for the Cuban economy.

Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment Oscar Pérez-Oliva Fraga said on state television that the executive branch “has designed a plan in tourism to reduce energy consumption, compact tourist facilities and take advantage of the high season,” digital outlet Cuba LLama reported.

Sources from the sector indicated that destinations such as Varadero and the northern cays concentrate much of these measures, where international chains operate.

Authorities are maintaining an emergency plan that includes broader energy restrictions, a reduction of state activities and measures to manage available fuel.

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said Thursday he was willing to initiate a negotiation process “without pressure” with the United States to help economic difficulties facing the island.

He acknowledged that the lack of Venezuelan oil has placed the country in a “complex” energy situation, affecting not only electricity generation, but also the population’s basic economic activities.

While the United States has sent more than $5.95 million in humanitarian aid managed by the Catholic Church, a measure criticized by Havana because of its “grossly opportunistic political purposes,” it has insisted on the blockade regarding hydrocarbons.

Meanwhile, countries have sent assistance. China was behind a financial package of about $81 million and a food shipment of 60,000 tons of rice in January. Mexico, sent two Navy vessels Sunday loaded with 800 tons of humanitarian aid.

In October 2001, two years into his presidency, Hugo Chávez made a trip to London to meet with then UK prime minister Tony Blair and other high-level officials.

Official records detail how the Venezuelan president’s proposed Hydrocarbons Law, a major restructuring of Venezuela’s oil industry, was high on the British agenda.

The law aimed to assert sovereignty over Venezuela’s resources by mandating at least 50% state ownership in mixed enterprises and increasing royalties on foreign oil interests.

This was a serious cause for concern for Britain, whose main interests in Venezuela centred on Shell, BP, and BG Group’s investments in the oil and gas industry.

“British companies have over $4bn already invested” in Venezuela, noted one Foreign Office official, with new investments of another $3bn planned for the oil industry.

Blair was thus instructed by advisers to impress on Chávez that the UK government was “following your proposed hydrocarbons legislation very closely”.

In private, Blair’s adviser and future MI6 chief John Sawers wrote that “the only reason for seeing him is to benefit British oil and gas companies”.

Sawers’ note drove at the core issue which had been guiding Britain’s relations with Venezuela for over a century: oil.

Declassified has combed through dozens of files in the National Archives which expose how the UK government has repeatedly sought to thwart the nationalisation of oil in Venezuela since it was first discovered during the early twentieth century.

Working in partnership with Britain’s leading oil corporations, the Foreign Office has resorted to political pressure, propaganda activities, and covert operations to maintain control over Venezuela’s lucrative crude. 

The origins of Britain’s interest in Venezuela’s oil

In 1912, Royal Dutch-Shell began operations in Venezuela and, two years later, the company – alongside US firm General Asphalt – discovered a petroleum field in the small town of Mene Grande.

George Bernard Reynolds, a geologist at Venezuelan Oil Concessions Limited (VOC), a Shell subsidiary, described the supplies as “enough to satisfy the most exacting”.

By 1920, the CIA reported that practically all of Venezuela’s oil production and its most promising concessions were held by Royal Dutch-Shell and two American companies, Jersey Standard (SOCNJ) and Gulf.

Indeed, Venezuelan oil controlled by Royal Dutch-Shell had increased by over 600% from 210,000 barrels in 1917 to 1,584,000 in 1921. 

“Is there any other company more conclusively British than this”, asked Sir Marcus Samuel, chairman of the Shell Transport and Trading Company, in June 1915, “who have proved themselves more willing and able to serve the interests of the Empire?”

But foreign control over oil had serious consequences for Venezuela’s land and people.

In 1936, oil workers in Maracaibo called a general strike in response to low wages, poor living conditions and the association of oil firms with the late dictator, Juan Vicente Gómez. It lasted for 43 days, during which time oil production decreased by 39%.

In response, Venezuelan president General Eleazar López Contreras introduced a series of reforms to improve labour conditions.

This made him unpopular with the British and US oil executives, who were described by US ambassador Meredith Nicholson as belonging to “the old school of ‘imperialists’ who believed that might – in the business sense – was right”.

Venezuela’s oil nonetheless remained central to the British imperial project and, by the outbreak of World War Two, Venezuelan oil “took on particular significance within the British war effort as oil from the Middle East became less accessible following the closure of the Mediterranean in 1940”, according to research by academic Mark Seddon.

Officials therefore became increasingly worried about nationalisation in Latin America, particularly after foreign oil interests – including those of Shell – had been expropriated in Mexico in 1938.

That year, for instance, British diplomat John Balfour wrote: “We should do all we can to show that it is not in the interests of a Latin-American country like Mexico to eliminate British interests from participating in the exploitation of its oil resources”.

A dangerous opponent of capital

Concerns around nationalisation arose once again during the Rómulo Betancourt administration in the 1940s.

He was described by the Foreign Office in 1945 as “by far the most dangerous opponent of capital in Venezuela”, while the oil companies worried about his past support for communism.

These concerns proved overblown as Betancourt developed into a staunch anti-communist. According to a CIA file dated March 1948, Betancourt and his predecessor, Rómulo Gallegos, met to discuss “the proposed outlawing of the Communist Party in Venezuela.”

The first step, according to the document, “was the dismissal from the [oil workers union] Fedepetrol of all Communist Party petroleum syndicate delegates”.

Shell’s directors nonetheless responded positively to the military coup which toppled Betancourt in 1948.

They believed, as UK ambassador John H. Magowan noted in February 1949, that the new administration would “reverse the Betancourt tendency to hostility towards the ‘capitalists’ and ‘colonial’ powers”.

While US-owned SOCNJ had emerged as Venezuela’s main oil producer by this time, Shell remained the second most important player and, by 1950, the company had centralized its operations, building a modernist headquarters in northern Caracas.

The propaganda campaign

During the 1960s, as the shadow of the Cold War cast over Latin America, a propaganda unit within the Foreign Office secretly worked to protect Britain’s oil interests in Venezuela.

That unit, named the Information Research Department (IRD), had been set up in 1948 to collect information about communism and distribute it to contacts worldwide.

The goal was to build resilience against communist and other national liberation movements while cultivating foreign agents of influence such as journalists, politicians, military officers, and businessmen.

By 1961, the IRD viewed Venezuela as the third most important country in Latin America in light of the risk of left-wing “subversion” and Britain’s strategic stake in the country’s oil industry.

That year, the IRD worked with Britain’s intelligence services to promote a boycott of El Nacional, the largest newspaper in Venezuela, with the goal of forcing it “to abandon its campaign in favor of expropriating foreign companies and promoting communist agitation”.

The campaign not only had the backing of powerful conservative and anti-communist groups in Venezuela but also the foreign oil companies, who agreed to suspend their advertising in the newspaper.

By 1962, IRD officer Leslie Boas was able to boast that El Nacional had “changed its tone in a great way”, with the newspaper’s circulation also dropping from 70,000 to 45,000 per day.

Reactionary networks in Venezuela were also being covertly funded by Shell in this period, according to recently declassified files.

In April 1962, Boas wrote to IRD chief Donald Hopson about the Latin American Information Committee (LAIC) which was “now doing quite active work… in Venezuela”.

The first director of LAIC was Enno Hobbing, who divided his work between Time/Life magazine and the CIA and later played a role in Chile’s 1973 coup d’état.

Boas explained that he “had a long talk with Hobbing […] and there do seem to be one or two ways in which we can be of mutual help without either of us burning our fingers”.

Such help would include “an unattributable supply of IRD material to contacts” of LAIC in return for LAIC supplying Boas with access to and information about local anti-communist networks.

Remarkably, Boas disclosed that Shell was “contributing financially to” LAIC alongside US retailer Sears Roebuck and other “International Business Machines”.

He added that “none of the local branches of these companies such as Shell de Venezuela are cooperating either financially or overtly in any way, it is being done through their head offices and LAIC who have their own offices in New York”.

It was during this period that Shell and BP were also providing direct, “handsome” subsidies to the IRD to promote their oil interests across Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.

Nationalisation rekindled

The IRD continued to promote Britain’s oil interests in Venezuela through the 1960s and 1970s, until the unit was closed down in 1977.

In a country assessment sheet for Venezuela, dated 1969, an IRD official noted how “we have considerable investments in the country, particularly those of Shell, whose fixed installations alone have been conservatively valued at £300 million”.

The official continued: “Shell’s operations in Venezuela play an important role in the company’s very substantial contribution in invisibles [earnings through intangible assets] to our balance of payments”, noting that Britain’s key objective was therefore “to protect our investments”.

Two years later, IRD field officer Ian Knight Smith wrote to London with concerns about how “the emotional issue of economic nationalism, always a potent force in a country whose main natural resources are largely in the hands of foreign companies, was [being] rekindled”.

Worse still, the Venezuelan president, Rafael Caldera, had “made his own contribution to the new nationalism – in the shape of a law nationalising all natural gas deposits”.

The IRD consequently prepared briefings “on communist instigation of charges against the international oil companies” to be shared with contacts across Venezuela.

In addition, the propaganda unit “cast around for material with which to brief IRD contacts who are in a position to influence government policy or legislation affecting foreign investments in Venezuela”.

Officials were particularly interested in commissioning a “well-researched paper on the positive aspects of foreign investment in developing countries, helping to counter the growing assumption, carefully fostered by the extreme left, that all foreign investment is basically suspect”.

It was within this context that the Foreign Office privately advised that “we should protect as far as we are able Shell’s continued access to Venezuelan oil”.

Share of the gravy

For all its efforts, the IRD was not able to turn the tide of nationalisation in Venezuela, with plans developed during the 1970s for the early reversion of foreign oil interests to the state.

Venezuelan oil was officially nationalised in 1976, with foreign companies including Shell being replaced by the state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

But this was by no means the end of the road for Britain’s oil interests in Venezuela.

In a background briefing for a visit by Venezuelan president Carlos Andrés Pérez, dated November 1977, the Foreign Office observed that “Shell is still our largest single interest”.

The official added: “It should not be forgotten that despite nationalisation our largest commercial stake in this country is still Shell, and although they no longer, since nationalisation, produce oil here, they earn millions of dollars from their service and marketing contracts with their former company”.

The company also continued “to off-take very large volumes of Venezuelan oil for sale mostly in the US and Canada”.

Another official remarked upon the “furious activity of all European countries, including ourselves, in trying to get our share of Venezuela’s economic gravy”.

By 1978, the New York Times went so far as to say that Shell was “busier in Venezuela than before the oil industry was nationalized”.

‘Shell has been active‘

Even still, Britain’s oil firms wished to return to Venezuela’s oilfields.

Those hopes were stoked in the early 1990s by the “Oil Opening” of President Carlos Andrés Péres, whose austerity measures led to an explosion of poverty and street protests, but dashed once again by Chávez’ proposed Hydrocarbons Law in 2001.

In the lead-up to Chávez’ visit that year to London, Britain’s leading oil companies were once again in the prime minister’s ear about the projected impact on their interests.

Blair’s briefing noted unambiguously that UK and US companies were “concerned” about the oil reforms and wanted them watered down.

Days before the visit, Shell’s chairman Philip Watts offered suggestions on how Blair might handle Chávez.

“As you may have appreciated, Shell has been active in helping in the preparations for the visit through the Foreign Office”, Watts wrote.

“Considering the importance of the energy sector for both the Venezuelan and UK economies, I thought the PM may appreciate a small briefing on our… plans in Venezuela”, he added.

Those plans involved ameliorating the “uncertain investment climate” and softening the “fiscal and legal framework” in the country.

As part of the charm offensive, Watts also hosted a “farewell” banquet for Chávez, to which foreign secretary Jack Straw and other senior ministers were invited.

BP and BG Group also “registered their interest with No.10 about the visit”, with BP preparing “to put their case… forcefully” in favour of a meeting between the two leaders.

‘The Americans are concerned‘

The US government also weighed in on the matter.

On 18 October, an official in the British embassy in Washington wrote to London that “the Americans are concerned about the impact that the Hydrocarbons Law will have on investment in the energy sector”.

They continued: “The major oil companies, including BP, had all made clear that its tax and restrictive joint venture productions would hinder their operations”.

The US state department “thought it would be particularly useful for Chavez to hear these concerns in London, given his tendency to discount messages from the US”.

To this end, the George Bush administration hoped Blair would “talk sense into [Chávez] on the Hydrocarbons Law, where BP are among those who stand to lose”.

Further pressure was applied by Gustavo Cisneros, a Venezuelan billionaire and media mogul who was introduced to Blair in 2000 by Daily Telegraph owner Conrad Black.

Sawers, Blair’s adviser, noted that Cisneros’ “sole message” for Blair “was that Chávez was a real danger to stability and free markets (and, of course, rich Venezuelans like himself)”.

A briefing document prepared by Cisneros, for instance, warned that “Chavez will likely react” to oil prices dropping “by lashing out at the private sector”.

Sawers viewed Cisneros with suspicion but broadly agreed that Chávez was objectionable. There was, he wrote, “a chance that the picture [with Chávez] at the front door [of Downing Street] would come back to haunt us”.

He continued: “This is one of the World’s tyrants whose hand I won’t have to shake”.

The coup against Chávez

A coup against Chávez broke out in April 2002, orchestrated by dissident military and political figures with support from Washington.

Pedro Carmona, an economist who was unconstitutionally appointed Venezuela’s president, quickly set about dismantling the country’s democracy and reversing Chávez’s oil reforms.

He happened to be in the offices of Cisneros, the mega mogul who had taken the opportunity to “pour poison” into Blair’s ears about Chávez, when the coup broke out.

The declassified files show how Britain quietly hoped the Carmona regime would be more accommodating to foreign interests while noting the unconstitutional nature of the coup.

“The Cabinet is strong on experience and business” and “hopefully its management capability will be much higher”, wrote the British embassy in Caracas.

The embassy was also informed by UK business leaders in Venezuela that “their operations should be back to normal by 15 April”, while Shell’s “production of oil was unaffected”.

At the same time, however, the Foreign Office was disturbed by the fact that “no one” had “ever elected” the Carmona regime.

“Venezuela may or may not have wanted to get rid of Chavez, but not necessarily to lose the other parts of their democratic system”, one official wrote. “The right-wing businessmen seem to have shot themselves in the foot”.

Notably, the UK government seemed to have some knowledge of Washington’s role in the events.

On 14 April, with Chávez imprisoned in a military barracks, the British embassy in Caracas cabled to London that the US ambassador had been spending “some hours in the Presidential Palace”.

“Please protect [the information]”, they instructed.

The opposition

The coup was short-lived.

Chávez was reinstated within 47 hours following a wave of popular mobilisations across Caracas.

With Chávez back at the helm, the Foreign Office quietly hoped that “the events of the last few days” would be seen as “a serious warning to change his ways”.

But the situation remained tense, with UK foreign secretary Jack Straw noting in July 2002 that Chávez’s position “remain[ed] shaky”.

The political opposition in Venezuela was seen by Whitehall as particularly intransigent, with Straw declaring that Chávez looks “positively resplendent compared with [them]”.

The Venezuelan opposition, Straw continued, “appear to be united, indeed motivated, by sheer indignation that someone like Chávez (not one of them and above all not white) should be in charge and have such a popular power base”.

An official in Britain’s embassy in Caracas similarly noted in 2002 that the Venezuela opposition “looks like a train that tried to breach a wall on one track in April and are now seeking to do the same on a slightly different track and at a slightly different angle”.

They added: “The opposition’s self-delusion is growing worse by the day: they claim alternately they are living in either a fascist or communist dictatorship”.

One of the key opposition figures in this period was María Corina Machado, with whom the UK government is currently in talks amid a renewed regime change campaign in Venezuela.

Source: Declassified UK

Iran’s atomic energy chief says Tehran is open to diluting its highly enriched uranium if the United States ends sanctions, signalling flexibility on a key demand by the US.

Mohammad Eslami made the comments to reporters on Monday, saying the prospects of Iran diluting its 60-percent-enriched uranium, a threshold close to weapons grade, would hinge on “whether all sanctions would be lifted in return”, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency.

Eslami did not specify whether Iran expected the removal of all sanctions or specifically those imposed by the US.

Diluting uranium means mixing it with blend material to reduce its enrichment level. According to the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Iran is the only state without nuclear weapons enriching uranium to 60 percent.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for Iran to be subject to a total ban on enrichment, a condition unacceptable to Tehran and far less favourable than a now-defunct nuclear agreement reached with world powers in 2015.

Iran maintains it has a right to a civilian nuclear programme under the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it and 190 other countries are signatories.

Eslami made his comments on uranium enrichment as the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, prepares to head on Tuesday to Oman, which has been hosting mediated negotiations between the US and Iran.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Larijani, one of the most senior officials in Iran’s government, is likely to convey messages related to the ongoing talks.

Trump said talks with Iran would continue this week.

Negotiations ‘very serious’

Both the US and Iran have given mixed signals about their progress in the negotiations. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran is “very serious in negotiations” and is eager to “achieve results”. However, he said, “There is a wall of mistrust towards the United States, which stems from America’s own behaviour.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the ongoing negotiations are an “important opportunity to reach a fair and balanced solution”, IRNA reported. He stressed that “Iran seeks guarantees for its nuclear rights” and the lifting of “unjust sanctions”, the agency added.

Trump, for his part, praised the latest round of talks on Friday as “very good” but continued to warn of “steep consequences” for Iran if it does not strike a deal.

“They want to make a deal as they should want to make a deal,” the US president said. “They know the consequences if they don’t.”

Before the two sides agreed to talks, Trump had repeatedly threatened Iran with a “far worse” attack than the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities during June’s 12-day Israel-Iran war. He has escalated the pressure by deploying an aircraft carrier and accompanying warships to the Middle East.

Trump is expected on Wednesday to meet with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is pushing the US to take a hardline stance in its negotiations with Iran, demanding not just concessions on its nuclear programme but also on its ballistic missiles and regional alliances.

Andreas Krieg, an associate professor in security studies at King’s College London, said the US and Iran appear to be “pivoting closer to a deal” than they were several weeks ago, even though there’s still a high risk of conflict.

“The [US] ‘armada’, as Trump calls it, is still in the area, so we still have that coercion going against the [Iranian] regime by the Americans,” Krieg told Al Jazeera. “But it seems to be fruitful in the way that the pressure works, and the Iranians have to make concessions.”

He added: “All the messaging from the Gulf countries – from Qatar, from Oman – from everyone involved, including from the Americans, has been very positive. And the Iranians’ feedback themselves was very positive.

“I think the problem that we have right now is how do we translate this momentum that we have right now on a strategic framework into the nitty-gritty of the details.”