security

A woman named Maria Dinca has shared a video online urging travellers to follow proper airport security tray etiquette to avoid causing delays for yourself and other travellers

A woman named Maria Dinca has urged people to follow simple ‘airport etiquette’ when going through security as it can help prevent any unnecessary delays.

Whether you’re jetting off on a domestic trip or heading overseas, passing through airport security is an unavoidable part of air travel. You’ll need to place your bags, liquids, electronics, and any metal items through a security scanner to ensure you’re not carrying prohibited goods onto your flight. You’ll also pass through a separate scanner yourself to check for any restricted items. Typically, this process moves fairly swiftly. But during peak travel periods, queues can stretch on for what feels like an eternity – sometimes taking hours if you’re particularly unlucky – potentially causing you to miss your flight if you haven’t arrived with time to spare.

Now, one savvy traveller called Maria Dinca has taken to social media to highlight a common mistake that holidaymakers make at security checkpoints, warning it can cause unnecessary hold-ups for everyone.

In her video, Maria kicked off with: “PSA: airport security tray etiquette,” before demonstrating what she considers the ‘correct’ approach to handling those plastic trays at airport security checks.

In her video, Maria proceeded to demonstrate the correct way to manage your trays at airport security, filming herself navigating through security at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport.

The initial step involved collecting your tray from the conveyor belt whilst your belongings remained inside it.

She then progressed to the second stage, which involves positioning the tray on one of the available counters nearby, allowing you sufficient time to retrieve your items from the tray and reorganise your bag if necessary.

Once finished, you can advance to the third stage, which requires returning your tray to its proper location, enabling it to smoothly travel back to the beginning of the conveyor belt.

“Please don’t leave them sad and lonely like this,” she noted, displaying a queue of numerous empty trays occupying space on the belt, blocking other trays from passing through the security scanner.

She continued in the post’s caption: “Every time I travel I’m amazed how many people just leave them on the conveyor belt, which leads to more delays and more work for airport staff or other passengers to deal with.”

Whilst some viewers supported Maria’s perspective, others mentioned they had been instructed to simply disregard the trays. “Every airport I’ve been to tells you to get all your stuff out of the tray without taking it anywhere then slide it to the stack at the end,” one individual explained, further explaining in a separate comment that they hail from the US and that there are no tables available for unpacking their trays.

In response, Maria said: “Oh that’s interesting! My experience is based on Europe. I’m flying out of the US today though so will now keep an eye out for how it works here.”

Jan. 8 (Asia Today) — Japanese defense and security experts meeting in Tokyo on Thursday called for sustained security cooperation among Japan, the United States and South Korea as tensions between China and Japan sharpen over Taiwan.

Masayuki Masuda, director of the China Center at the National Institute for Defense Studies, a research institute affiliated with Japan’s Defense Ministry, said the priority is to keep deepening trilateral cooperation.

“What is important now is to continue deepening security cooperation among Japan, the United States and South Korea,” Masuda said during a news conference at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan.

His comments came ahead of an expected South Korea-Japan summit in Japan, with Masuda answering a question from Asia Today about the role Seoul should play as Beijing and Tokyo clash more openly over Taiwan.

Masuda said trilateral cooperation should not be viewed as limited to the Taiwan Strait, pointing instead to a broader security environment that also includes North Korea.

“The situation on the Korean Peninsula, such as the enhancement of North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities, must also be considered,” he said, describing cooperation as a structural necessity rather than a one-off response aimed at a specific country.

Masuda also said trilateral defense cooperation has already progressed, citing recent discussions among the three countries’ defense leaders and what he described as shared concern about China’s military behavior.

At the same time, he rejected the idea that Japan is pressing South Korea to make specific choices because of strained China-Japan ties, saying the focus should remain on what is needed within Japan-South Korea relations and cooperation that includes the United States.

John Chuan Tiong Lim, a researcher at the University of Tokyo’s Institute of Advanced Studies on Asia, also spoke during the session and pointed to U.S. policy as increasingly centered on Taiwan’s defense.

Lim said Washington’s public messaging can differ from its policy actions, adding that a Chinese attempt to take Taiwan by force would fundamentally alter the region’s security landscape.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

WASHINGTON — Denmark and Greenland’s envoys to Washington have begun a vigorous effort to urge U.S. lawmakers as well as key Trump administration officials to step back from President Trump’s call for a takeover of the strategic Arctic island.

Denmark’s ambassador, Jesper Møller Sørensen, and Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland’s chief representative to Washington, met on Thursday with White House National Security Council officials to discuss a renewed push by Trump to acquire Greenland, perhaps by military force, according to Danish government officials who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the meeting.

The envoys have also held a series of meetings this week with American lawmakers as they look to enlist help in persuading Trump to back off his threat.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to meet next week with Danish officials.

Trump, in a New York Times interview published Thursday, said he has to possess the entirety of Greenland instead of just exercising a long-standing treaty that gives the United States wide latitude to use Greenland for military posts.

“I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document,” Trump told the newspaper.

The U.S. is party to a 1951 treaty that gives it broad rights to set up military bases there with the consent of Denmark and Greenland.

Meanwhile, Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, told reporters that European leaders should “take the president of the United States seriously” as he framed the issue as one of defense.

“What we’re asking our European friends to do is take the security of that landmass more seriously, because if they’re not, the United States is going to have to do something about it,” Vance said.

But the administration is starting to hear pushback from lawmakers, including some Republicans, about Trump’s designs on the territory.

In a floor speech Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) warned that the rhetoric from some in the Trump administration is “profoundly troubling.”

“We’ve got a lot ahead of us in 2026,” Murkowski said. “Greenland — or taking Greenland, or buying Greenland — should not be on that list. It should not be an obsession at the highest levels of this administration.”

Danish officials are hopeful about the upcoming talks with Rubio in Washington.

“This is the dialogue that is needed, as requested by the government together with the Greenlandic government,” Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen told Danish broadcaster DR.

The island of Greenland, 80% of which lies above the Arctic Circle, is home to about 56,000 mostly Inuit people.

Vance criticizes Denmark

Vance said on Wednesday that Denmark “obviously” had not done a proper job in securing Greenland and that Trump “is willing to go as far as he has to” to defend American interests in the Arctic.

In an interview with Fox News, Vance repeated Trump’s claim that Greenland is crucial to both the U.S. and the world’s national security because “the entire missile defense infrastructure is partially dependent on Greenland.”

He said the fact that Denmark has been a faithful military ally of the U.S. during World War II and the more recent “war on terrorism” did not necessarily mean they were doing enough to secure Greenland today.

“Just because you did something smart 25 years ago doesn’t mean you can’t do something dumb now,” Vance said, adding that Trump “is saying very clearly, ‘you are not doing a good job with respect to Greenland.’”

Right to self-determination

Earlier, Rubio told a select group of U.S. lawmakers that it was the Republican administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force.

“Many Greenlanders feel that the remarks made are disrespectful,” Aaja Chemnitz, one of the two Greenlandic politicians in the Danish parliament, told the Associated Press. “Many also experience that these conversations are being discussed over their heads. We have a firm saying in Greenland, ‘Nothing about Greenland, without Greenland.’”

She said most Greenlanders “wish for more self-determination, including independence” but also want to “strengthen cooperation with our partners” in security and business development as long as it is based on “mutual respect and recognition of our right to self-determination.”

Chemnitz denied a claim by Trump that Greenland is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.”

Greenland is “a long-standing ally and partner to the U.S. and we have a shared interest in stability, security, and responsible cooperation in the Arctic,” she said. “There is an agreement with the U.S. that gives them access to have bases in Greenland if needed.”

France’s President Emmanuel Macron has denounced the “law of the strongest” that is making people “wonder if Greenland will be invaded.”

In a speech to French ambassadors at the Elysee presidential palace on Thursday, Macron said: “It’s the greatest disorder, the law of the strongest, and everyday people wonder whether Greenland will be invaded, whether Canada will be under the threat of becoming the 51st state [of the United States] or whether Taiwan is to be further circled.”

He pointed to an “increasingly dysfunctional” world where great powers, including the U.S and China, have “a real temptation to divide the world amongst themselves.”

The United States is “gradually turning away from some of its allies and freeing itself from the international rules,” Macron said.

Surveillance operations for the U.S.

The leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the U.K. joined Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on Tuesday in defending Greenland’s sovereignty in the wake of Trump’s comments about Greenland, which is part of the NATO military alliance.

After Vance’s visit to Greenland last year, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen published a video detailing the 1951 defense agreement between Denmark and the U.S.. Since 1945, the American military presence in Greenland has decreased from thousands of soldiers over 17 bases and installations on the island, Rasmussen said, to the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest with some 200 soldiers today. The base supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.

The 1951 agreement “offers ample opportunity for the United States to have a much stronger military presence in Greenland,” Rasmussen said. “If that is what you wish, then let us discuss it.”

‘Military defense of Greenland’

Last year, Denmark’s parliament approved a bill to allow U.S. military bases on Danish soil. The legislation widens a previous military agreement, made in 2023 with the Biden administration, where U.S. troops had broad access to Danish air bases in the Scandinavian country.

Denmark is also moving to strengthen its military presence around Greenland and in the wider North Atlantic.

Last year, the government announced a 14.6 billion-kroner ($2.3 billion) agreement with parties including the governments of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, another self-governing territory of Denmark, to “improve capabilities for surveillance and maintaining sovereignty in the region.”

Madhani and Ciobanu write for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Konstantin Toropin in Washington and Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

The comments come as the Kremlin slammed a plan for France and the UK to send peacekeepers to Ukraine after a ceasefire.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said an agreement on a security guarantee from Washington is now “essentially ready” to be finalised by US President Donald Trump, following days of negotiations in Paris.

In a post on X on Thursday, Zelenskyy said the document – a cornerstone of any settlement to end the war, which would guarantee Washington and other Western allies would support Ukraine if Russia invaded again – was almost complete.

“The bilateral document on security guarantees for Ukraine ‍is now essentially ⁠ready for finalisation at the highest level with the president,” he said.

He said the talks in Paris, involving teams from the US and Europe, had addressed “complex issues” from the framework under discussion to end the nearly four-year war, with the Ukrainian delegation presenting possible solutions for these.

“We understand that the American side will engage with Russia, and we expect feedback on whether the aggressor is genuinely willing to end the war,” he said.

Washington, which on Tuesday endorsed the idea of providing security guarantees for Ukraine for the first time, is expected to present any agreement it reaches with Kyiv to Moscow, in its attempt to broker an end to the conflict.

Kyiv says legally-binding assurances that its allies would come to its defence are essential to deter Moscow from future aggression if a ceasefire is reached.

But specific details on the guarantees and how Ukraine’s allies would respond have not been made public.

Zelenskyy said earlier this week that he was yet to receive an “unequivocal” answer about what they would do if Russia did attack again.

Russia slams peacekeeper plan

Zelenskyy’s comments came as Russia rejected a plan that emerged from the Paris talks for European peacekeepers to be deployed to Ukraine as “militaristic”, warning they would be treated as “legitimate military targets”.

On Tuesday, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed a declaration of intent with Zelenskyy in Paris, setting out the framework for troops from their countries to be deployed to Ukraine after a ceasefire was reached with Russia.

But in Russia’s first comments in response to the plan, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova denounced the proposal as “dangerous” and “destructive”, dampening hopes the plan could prove a step in bringing the war to an end.

“The new militarist declarations of the so-called Coalition of the Willing and the Kyiv regime together form a genuine ‘axis of war’,” Zakharova said in a statement.

“All such units and facilities will be considered legitimate military targets for the Russian Armed Forces,” she said, repeating a threat previously made by Putin.

Moscow has repeatedly warned that it would not accept any NATO members sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine.

Russia attacks energy infrastructure

In his social media post, Zelenskyy also called for more pressure on Russia from Ukraine’s supporters, after further Russian missile attacks on energy infrastructure, which, he said, “clearly don’t indicate that Moscow is reconsidering its priorities”.

“In this context, it is necessary that pressure on Russia continues to increase at the same intensity as the work of our negotiating teams.”

The attacks left Ukrainian authorities scrambling to restore heating and water to hundreds of thousands of households in the Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhia regions.

“This is truly a national level emergency,” Borys Filatov, mayor of Dnipropetrovsk’s capital Dnipro, said on Telegram.

He announced power was “gradually returning to the hospitals” after the blackouts forced them to run on generators. The city authorities also extended school holidays for children.

About 600,000 households in the region remained cut off from power in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukrainian energy company DTEK said.

US President Donald Trump sees Greenland as a United States national security priority to deter Washington’s “adversaries in the Arctic region”, according to a White House statement released on Tuesday.

The statement came days after Trump told reporters that the US needs Greenland from a national security perspective because it is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships”.

Here’s what you need to know about what Trump said, whether Russia and China are present in Greenland, and whether they do pose a threat to American security.

What has Trump recently said about Greenland?

“Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on January 4.

The White House statement on Tuesday fleshed out further details on how the US would go about its acquisition of Greenland.

“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal,” the White House statement says.

Over the course of his second term, Trump has talked about wanting Greenland for national security reasons multiple times.

“We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it,” he said in March.

Since 1979, Greenland has been a self-governing territory of Denmark, and since 2009, it has had the right to declare independence through a referendum.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to take control of the island, which hosts a US military base. He first voiced this desire in 2019, during his first term as US president.

As a response, leaders from Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly said that Greenland is not for sale. They have made it clear that they are especially not interested in becoming part of the US.

On January 4, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said, “It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US needing to take over Greenland.”

“The US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish kingdom,” she said, alluding to the Faroe Islands, which, like Greenland, are also a Danish territory.

“I would therefore strongly urge the US to stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have very clearly said that they are not for sale,” Frederiksen said.

US special forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro during an operation in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, on January 3.

Hours later, Katie Miller, the wife of close Trump aide and US Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, posted a photo on X showing the US flag imposed on the map of Greenland.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen hit back in an X post, writing, “Relations between nations and peoples are built on mutual respect and international law – not on symbolic gestures that disregard our status and our rights.”

Why does Trump want Greenland so badly?

The location and natural resources of the Arctic island make it strategically important for Washington.

Greenland is geographically part of North America, located between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic Ocean. It is home to some 56,000 residents, mostly Indigenous Inuit people.

It is the world’s largest island. Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, is closer to New York City  – some 2,900km (1,800 miles) away – than the Danish capital Copenhagen, which is located 3,500km (2,174 miles) to the east.

Greenland, a NATO territory through Denmark, is an EU-associated overseas country and territory whose residents remain European Union citizens, having joined the European Community with Denmark in 1973 but having withdrawn in 1985.

“It’s really tricky if the United States decides to use military power to take over Greenland. Denmark is a member of NATO; the United States is a member as well. It really calls into question what the purpose of the military alliance is, if that happens,” Melinda Haring, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Eurasia Center, told Al Jazeera.

Greenland offers the shortest route from North America to Europe. This gives the US a strategic upper hand for its military and its ballistic missile early-warning system.

The US has expressed interest in expanding its military presence in Greenland by placing radars in the waters connecting Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. These waters are a gateway for Russian and Chinese vessels, which Washington aims to track.

The island is also incredibly rich in minerals, including rare earth minerals used in the high-tech industry and in the manufacture of batteries.

According to a 2023 survey, 25 of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were found in Greenland.

Greenland does not carry out the extraction of oil and gas, and its mining sector is opposed by its Indigenous population. The island’s economy is largely reliant on its fishing industry.

Are Chinese and Russian ships swarming Greenland?

However, while Trump has spoken of Russian and Chinese ships around Greenland, currently, facts don’t bear that out.

Vessel tracking data from maritime data and intelligence websites such as MarineTraffic do not show the presence of Chinese or Russian ships near Greenland.

Are Russia and China a threat to Greenland?

The ships’ location aside, Trump’s rhetoric comes amid a heightened scramble for the Arctic.

Amid global warming, the vast untapped resources of the Arctic are becoming more accessible. Countries like the US, Canada, China and Russia are now eyeing these resources.

“Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic, but we will closely follow the developments and mount an appropriate response by increasing our military capability and modernising military infrastructure,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said during an address in March 2025 at the International Arctic Forum in the Russian city of Murmansk, the largest city within the Arctic Circle.

During this address, Putin said that he believed Trump was serious about taking Greenland and that the US will continue with efforts to acquire it.

In December 2024, Canada released a policy document detailing plans to ramp up its military and diplomatic presence in the Arctic. Russia is also constructing military installations and power plants in the region.

Meanwhile, Russia and China have been working together to develop Arctic shipping routes as Moscow seeks to deliver more oil and gas to China amid Western sanctions while Beijing seeks an alternative shipping route to reduce its dependence on the Strait of Malacca.

The Northern Sea Route (NSR), a maritime route in the Arctic Ocean, is becoming easier to navigate due to melting ice. The NSR can cut shipping trips significantly short. Russia is hoping to ramp up commerce through the NSR to trade more with Asia than Europe due to Western sanctions. Last year, the number of oil shipments from Russia to China via the NSR rose by a quarter.

China is also probing the region, and has sent 10 scientific expeditions to the Arctic and built research vessels to survey the icy waters north of Russia.

BCB refutes reports saying ICC had issued an ultimatum over Bangladesh’s refusal to play its World Cup games in India.

Cricket authorities in Bangladesh have agreed to “work closely” with the International Cricket Council (ICC) to resolve security concerns regarding their team’s participation in the upcoming T20 World Cup in India.

The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) will cooperate with the tournament’s organisers in order to ensure the country’s participation, it said in a statement on Wednesday, three days after saying its men’s team will not travel to the neighbouring country.

“The ICC has conveyed its willingness to work closely with the BCB to address the concerns, and has assured that the board’s inputs will be welcomed and duly considered as part of the detailed security planning for the event,” the BCB’s statement said.

“The BCB will continue constructive engagement with the ICC and relevant event authorities in a cooperative and professional manner to arrive at an affable and practical solution that ensures the smooth and successful participation of the team in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026,” the statement added.

The sport’s governing body and the BCB reportedly held a virtual meeting on Tuesday in response to Bangladesh’s request for a change of venue for its fixtures.

India and Sri Lanka are co-hosting the 20-team tournament from February 7, but all of Bangladesh’s group matches were allocated to Indian venues.

Bangladesh’s refusal to travel to India stemmed from a recent controversy, when its star fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman was dropped by his Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Kolkata Knight Riders at the directive of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

It led to an outcry from cricket fans and administrators in Bangladesh, urging the BCB to take reciprocal action. In turn, the BCB asked the ICC to relocate its games from India to Sri Lanka over security concerns, saying its team will not travel to India.

Following two days of silence, the ICC – led by former BCCI chief Jay Shah – and BCB held a call to discuss the issue, with the tournament’s and Bangladesh’s opening match just more than a month away.

According to a report on ESPNCricinfo, the ICC told the BCB during the meeting that Bangladesh will need to travel to India or risk forfeiting points.

However, the BCB refuted the report and termed its claims as “completely false”.

“The BCB has taken note of certain reports published in a section of the media suggesting that the board has been issued an ultimatum. Such claims are completely false, unfounded and do not reflect the nature or content of the communication received from the ICC,” it said.

Earlier, Bangladesh’s interim government also banned the broadcast ‍of the IPL, saying the unceremonious dumping of a “star player defied logic” and had “hurt people”.

It is the latest flashpoint in a growing dispute with neighbouring India, which has now extended to cricket ties between the two nations.

The ongoing tensions flared in recent weeks after a 25-year-old Hindu man was lynched and burned publicly in Bangladesh following allegations of blasphemy.

A few days later, Hindutva activists tried to storm the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi as they rallied against the neighbouring nation for failing to protect its Hindu minorities.

Diplomatic relations between the once-close allies have been sharply tested since August last year, when former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled to New Delhi from Dhaka after an uprising against her rule.

Bangladesh blames India for a number of its troubles, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s support for Hasina when she was in power.

French President Emmanuel Macron says a security statement endorsed by Ukraine’s allies, including the United States, is a “significant step” toward ending Russia’s invasion of its neighbour as part of a peace settlement.

Following a meeting of more than two dozen countries in Paris on Tuesday, Macron said officials agreed on ceasefire monitoring mechanisms under US leadership.

The countries dubbed the “coalition of the willing” have explored for months how to deter any future Russian aggression should it agree to stop fighting Ukraine.

US ‍envoy ‍Steve Witkoff said there was significant progress made on ​several critical issues facing ‍Ukraine including security guarantees and a “prosperity plan”. Security ‍protocols for Ukraine are “largely ⁠finished”, he added.

“We agree ‍with ⁠the coalition that durable security guarantees and robust prosperity commitments are essential to ​a lasting peace ‌in the Ukraine, and we will continue to ‌work together on this effort,” ‌Witkoff said ⁠in a post on X after talks in ‌Paris.

Ukraine’s ‍reconstruction ‍is inextricably linked to security guarantees, German ⁠Chancellor Friedrich Merz ​said.

“Economic strength will ‍be indispensable ⁠to guarantee that Ukraine will continue to credibly block ​Russia ‌in the future,” Merz said.

British ‍Prime ‍Minister Keir Starmer said peace in Ukraine ⁠is closer than ever though ​the “hardest yards” still ‍lay ahead.

The UK and France will establish military hubs in Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia, said Starmer.

Denmark and Mexico, also threatened by US President Donald Trump, warn that the US violated international law.

Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), including key US allies, have warned that the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife by US special forces could be a precedent-setting event for international law.

The 15-member bloc met for an emergency meeting on Monday in New York City, where the Venezuelan pair were also due to face drug trafficking charges in a US federal court.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN, Samuel Moncada, condemned the US operation as “an illegitimate armed attack lacking any legal justification”, in remarks echoed by Cuba, Colombia and permanent UNSC members Russia and China.

“[The US] imposes the application of its laws outside its own territory and far from its coasts, where it has no jurisdiction, using assaults and the appropriation of assets,” Cuba’s ambassador, Ernesto Soberon Guzman, said, adding that such measures negatively affected Cuba.

Russia’s ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, said the US cannot “proclaim itself as some kind of a supreme judge, which alone bears the right to invade any country, to label culprits, to hand down and to enforce punishments irrespective of notions of international law, sovereignty and non-intervention”.

Notable critics at the emergency session included traditional US allies, Mexico and Denmark, both of whom Trump has separately threatened with military action over the past year.

Mexico’s ambassador, Hector Vasconcelos, said that the council had an “obligation to act decisively and without double standards” towards the US, and it was for “sovereign peoples to decide their destinies,” according to a UN readout.

His remarks come just days after Trump told reporters that “something will have to be done about Mexico” and its drug cartels, following Maduro’s abduction.

Denmark, a longstanding US security ally, said that “no state should seek to influence political outcomes in Venezuela through the use of threat of force or through other means inconsistent with international law.”

“The inviolability of borders is not up for negotiation,” Denmark’s ambassador, Christina Markus Lassen, told the council in an oblique reference to Trump’s threat that the US would annex Greenland, a self-governed Danish territory.

France, another permanent member of the UNSC, also criticised the US, marking a shift in tone from French President Emmanuel Macron’s initial remarks that Venezuelans “can only rejoice” following Maduro’s abduction.

“The military operation that has led to the capture of Maduro runs counter to the principle of peaceful dispute resolution and runs counter to the principle of non-use of force,” said the French deputy ambassador, Jay Dharmadhikari.

Representatives from Latvia and the United Kingdom, another permanent UNSC member, focused on the conditions in Venezuela created by Maduro’s government.

Latvia’s ambassador, Sanita Pavļuta-Deslandes, said that Maduro’s conditions in Venezuela posed “a grave threat to the security of the region and the world”, citing mass repression, corruption, organised crime and drug trafficking.

The UK ambassador, James Kariuki, said that “Maduro’s claim to power was fraudulent”.

The US ambassador, Mike Waltz, characterised the abduction of Maduro and his wife as a “surgical law enforcement operation facilitated by the US military against two indicted fugitives of American justice”.

The White House defended its wave of air strikes on Venezuela, and in the waters near it, and Maduro’s abduction as necessary to protect US national security, amid unproven claims that Maduro backed “narcoterrorist” drug cartels.

WASHINGTON — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had yet to weigh in on the U.S. operation to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Caracas as of Saturday night, more than 24 hours since President Trump approved the audacious mission that captured the Venezuelan leader.

Her silence on the operation surprised some in the U.S. intelligence community, which laid the groundwork for the mission over several months, and which had assets in harm’s way on the ground in Venezuela as the operation unfolded.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe, by contrast, accompanied Trump in Mar-a-Lago throughout the night as the extraction was underway, and stood beside the president as he conducted a news conference announcing the results.

“Teamwork at its finest,” Ratcliffe wrote on social media, posted alongside photos of him with the president’s team in the temporary situation room set up at Trump’s Florida estate.

Gabbard, a native of Hawaii who, according to her X account, spent the holidays in her home state, made a name for herself as a member of Congress campaigning against “regime change wars,” particularly the U.S. war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein.

In a speech at Turning Point USA’s annual conference last month, Gabbard criticized “warmongers” in the “deep state” of the intelligence community she leads trying to thwart Trump’s efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine.

“Too often we, the American people, are told we must choose between liberty or security, and which side often wins out in that proposition,” she told the gathered crowd. “Liberty loses, and the warmongers claim that they are doing what they are doing for the sake of our security. It’s a lie.”

Outside of government, during Trump’s first term, Gabbard also criticized advocates for regime change in Venezuela, writing in 2019, “It’s about the oil … again.”

“The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela,” Gabbard wrote at the time. “Let the Venezuelan people determine their future.

“We don’t want other countries to choose our leaders,” she added, “so we have to stop trying to choose theirs.”

Jan. 1 (Asia Today) — Kim Tae-woo, director of nuclear security research at the Korea Institute for Military Affairs, said the security outlook on the Korean Peninsula remains grave as North Korea continues missile activity and China advances new weapons systems.

In a column, Kim pointed to North Korea’s missile launches late last year and its unveiling of what he described as a nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine under construction. He also cited reports of a Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle test.

Kim said the White House in December released a four-chapter National Security Strategy that he described as notably different in tone and language from past versions. He said it explicitly embraces “America First” and frames policy around U.S. national interests.

Kim said the strategy argues that post-World War II U.S. leaders wrongly believed taking on global burdens served U.S. interests. He said it criticizes free trade for weakening U.S. industry and portrays alliances in transactional terms, arguing some allies shifted security costs to Washington or drew it into conflicts not tied to core U.S. interests.

Kim wrote that the strategy’s stated goals include U.S. survival and security, neutralizing external threats and unfair trade, maintaining the strongest military and nuclear arsenal, developing next-generation missile defense, sustaining a dynamic economy, protecting industrial and energy capacity and preserving leadership in science, technology and soft power.

He said the document defines core U.S. interests as maintaining dominance in the Western Hemisphere, protecting freedom of navigation and supply lines in the Indo-Pacific, restoring what it calls Western civilization’s identity and self-reliance in Europe, preventing hostile forces from dominating Middle Eastern energy and preserving U.S. leadership in cutting-edge science.

Kim said the strategy lists U.S. political institutions, economic innovation, financial leadership, technological and military strength, alliance ties, geographic advantages and natural resources as key tools. He said it also lays out guiding principles including a focus on core security interests, “peace through strength,” a preference for non-intervention and demands for greater allied defense spending.

On regional policy, Kim said the strategy describes the Western Hemisphere as a zone where the United States will seek to maintain dominance, prevent external threats and block illegal immigration, drug trafficking and human trafficking, while expanding partnerships and, if needed, redeploying forces to address urgent threats.

For Asia, Kim said the strategy emphasizes economic security and military deterrence while criticizing past assumptions that integrating China into the global economy would lead it to accept a rules-based order. He said it targets China’s state-led industrial practices, intellectual property theft and efforts to restrict access to resources such as rare earths. He added that it also says the United States will not accept persistent trade deficits with allies including Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada and European partners.

On deterrence, Kim said the document maintains existing U.S. declaratory policy on Taiwan and calls deterring conflict in the Taiwan Strait a U.S. interest, arguing this requires conventional military superiority and greater allied cost-sharing and roles. He said it also warns that rival control of the South China Sea would pose a serious threat to U.S. interests and calls for cooperation from Asian nations from India to Japan to keep sea lanes open.

Kim said the Europe section urges European countries to reclaim identity and self-reliance and criticizes what it calls weakening economic weight and lax immigration policies. He said it presses Europe to pursue strategic stability with Russia, treat NATO less as an ever-expanding alliance and open markets to U.S. goods while offering fair treatment to U.S. companies.

Kim said the Middle East and Africa sections are comparatively brief, focusing on burden-sharing and limiting long-term intervention. He said the document argues the Middle East’s strategic value has declined due to increased U.S. oil production, while emphasizing preventing hostile control of energy and maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, countering terrorism, supporting Israel and expanding the Abraham Accords. On Africa, Kim said it calls for selective engagement tied to resource security.

Kim argued the strategy no longer reflects the image of the United States as an “Uncle Sam” defender of liberal democracy and human rights. He said it does not emphasize strengthened combined defense and extended deterrence, and he wrote that it does not mention North Korea’s nuclear program or the North Korean threat. He said South Korea appears only a few times, largely in contexts that call for greater allied defense burdens and fair trade.

Kim said South Korea has limited options, even if concerns grow about the reliability of U.S. commitments after what he described as a blunt statement that the era of America carrying the world order is over. He wrote that South Korea should treat a “changing America” as the new normal, keep the alliance as the cornerstone of its security and approach talks on tariffs, investment and alliance modernization as critical.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.

– Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Jan. 2 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order stopping a semiconductor chips deal between U.S. and Chinese companies citing national security concerns.

The $2.92 million deal would have seen HieFo Corp., a Delaware-based company operated out of China, acquire the semiconductor chips and wafer fabrication businesses of New Jersey’s EMCORE Corp. The two companies announced plans for the deal in 2024.

“There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that HieFo Corporation, a company organized under the laws of Delaware (HieFo) and controlled by a citizen of the People’s Republic of China … might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,” Trump’s order reads.

The executive order, issued under the Defense Production Act, prevents HieFo from having any interest or rights in Encore assets and orders HieFo to divest from Encore within 180 days. The divestment is expected to be overseen by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

Dec. 31 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s two-year term as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council ended Wednesday, with the Foreign Ministry saying Seoul led discussions on international peace and security and raised its profile as a responsible global power.

The ministry said South Korea served as Security Council president in September and used the role to steer talks during the high-level segment of the 80th U.N. General Assembly.

It was South Korea’s third stint as an elected Security Council member after terms in 1996-1997 and 2013-2014, the ministry said.

During the 2024-2025 term, South Korea pushed Council discussions on security threats linked to emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, the ministry said. It said President Lee Jae-myung became the first South Korean president to preside over a Security Council meeting, leading a session on AI and international peace and security.

The ministry said South Korea also contributed to talks on peacekeeping and peacebuilding, taking part in decisions related to U.N. peacekeeping operations and serving as a coordinator between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission.

It said Seoul urged greater Council attention to nontraditional security issues including women, peace and security and climate change.

The ministry said the period of South Korea’s membership coincided with conflicts in multiple regions, including the war in Ukraine and tensions in the Middle East, underscoring the Council’s role. It said geopolitical rivalry and eroding trust in multilateralism limited Council action, but Seoul consistently emphasized respect for international law, including the U.N. Charter, and protection of civilians.

The ministry said South Korea worked to strengthen solidarity among elected members and promote dialogue between permanent and nonpermanent members.

It said the government plans to expand contributions to international peace and security based on the experience gained during the term, including efforts tied to what it described as a national policy task of building a “G7+ diplomatic powerhouse” through participation in the international community.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Dec. 31 (UPI) — Australia rang in 2026 with fireworks, solidarity, words of encouragement and heavily armed police officers on New Year’s Eve in the wake of the Bondi Beach shooting.

“Peace” and “unity” were projected onto the Sydney Harbor Bridge, and fireworks exploded to celebrate the new year. The bridge was lit by a white light to symbolize peace, and a menorah was projected onto the bridge pylons as a show of solidarity.

At 11 p.m. AEDT, the festivities paused for a minute of silence for victims of the attack.

New South Wales Police said there were more than 2,500 police officers patrolling the streets of Sydney on Wednesday evening.

The heightened security is in response to the Dec. 14 attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Two gunmen shot and killed 14 people. One of the gunmen was also killed. There were 42 people injured in the attack.

Chris Minns, premier of NSW, noted that some might find the heavy police presence with guns “confronting.”

“But I make no apology for that,” Minns said. “We want people to be safe in our community.”

Before the event, the New York Times reported Sydney Mayor Clover Moore said, “I invite people at home and around the harbor to join with us by shining their phone torch in solidarity to show the Jewish community that we stand with them, and that we reject violence, fear and antisemitism.”

Joe and Lucy, British tourists, told the BBC that the boost of police presence reassured them. They were in Melbourne when the shooting happened.

“We had our worries about coming for New Year’s Eve,” Joe told the BBC. “But we were reading more recently in the news … how more police were going to be here, it would be a bit safer.”

Most United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members have slammed Israel’s recognition of Somaliland at a meeting convened in response to the move, which several countries said may also have serious implications for Palestinians in Gaza.

The United States was the only member of the 15-member body not to condemn Israel’s formal recognition of the breakaway region of Somalia at the emergency meeting in New York City on Monday, although it said its own position on Somaliland had not changed.

Addressing the UNSC, Somalia’s UN ambassador, Abu Bakr Dahir Osman, implored members to firmly reject Israel’s “act of aggression”, which he said not only threatened to fragment Somalia but also to destabilise the wider Horn of Africa and the Red Sea regions.

In particular, Osman said that Somalia was concerned the move could be aimed at advancing Israel’s plans to forcibly “relocate the Palestinian population from Gaza to the northwestern region of Somalia”.

“This utter disdain for law and morality must be stopped now,” he said.

The emergency meeting was called after Israel last week became the first and only country to recognise the self-declared Republic of Somaliland as an independent and sovereign state.

Al Jazeera’s Gabriel Elizondo, reporting from UN headquarters in New York, said that “14 of the 15 council members condemned Israel’s recognition of Somaliland”, while the US “defended Israel’s action but stopped short of following Israel’s lead”.

Tammy Bruce, the US deputy representative to the UN, told the council that “Israel has the same right to establish diplomatic relations as any other sovereign state”.

However, Bruce added, the US had “no announcement to make regarding US recognition of Somaliland, and there has been no change in American policy”.

Israel’s deputy ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Miller, told the council that Israel’s decision was “not a hostile step toward Somalia, nor does it preclude future dialogue between the parties”.

“Recognition is not an act of defiance. It is an opportunity,” Miller claimed.

Many other countries expressed concerns about Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, including the implications for Palestinians, in statements presented to the UNSC.

Speaking on behalf of the 22-member Arab League, its UN envoy, Maged Abdelfattah Abdelaziz, said the group rejected “any measures arising from this illegitimate recognition aimed at facilitating forced displacement of the Palestinian people, or exploiting northern Somali ports to establish military bases”.

Pakistan’s deputy UN ambassador, Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon, said at the meeting that Israel’s “unlawful recognition of [the] Somaliland region of Somalia is deeply troubling”, considering it was made “against the backdrop of Israel’s previous references to Somaliland of the Federal Republic of Somalia as a destination for the deportation of Palestinian people, especially from Gaza”.

China and the United Kingdom were among the permanent UNSC members to reject the move, with China’s UN envoy, Sun Lei, saying his country “opposes any act to split” Somalia’s territory.

“No country should aid and abet separatist forces in other countries to further their own geopolitical interests,” Sun Lei said.

Some non-members of the UNSC also requested to speak, including South Africa, whose UN envoy, Mathu Joyini, said that her country “reaffirmed” Somalia’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity” in line with international law, the UN Charter and the constitutive act of the African Union.

Comparison with Palestinian recognition

In addition to defending Israel’s decision, US envoy Bruce compared the move to recognise Somaliland with Palestine, which has been recognised by more than 150 of the UN’s member states.

“Several countries, including members of this council, have unilaterally recognised a non-existent Palestinian state, yet no emergency meeting has been convened,” Bruce said, criticising what she described as the UNSC’s “double standards”.

However, Slovenia’s UN ambassador, Samuel Zbogar, rejected the comparison, saying, “Palestine is not part of any state. It is illegally occupied territory… Palestine is also an observer state in this organisation [the UN].”

“Somaliland, on the other hand, is a part of a UN member state, and recognising it goes against… the UN Charter,” Zbogar added.

The self-declared Republic of Somaliland broke away from Somalia in 1991, after a civil war under military leader Siad Barre.

On December 13, a joint US-Syrian patrol was ambushed by a member of Syria’s own security forces near Palmyra, a city in central Syria once controlled by the ISIL (ISIS) group.

Two US soldiers and an interpreter were shot dead, and four people were wounded, before Syrian forces killed the gunman.

In the aftermath of the attack, US and Syrian officials linked the attacker to ISIL, which once controlled vast swaths of Syria and Iraq, and promised to retaliate.

The incident highlights the growing cooperation between the United States and Syria against ISIL, particularly after Damascus joined the US-backed coalition against the group in November.

While it is still unclear if the attacker was a member of ISIL or another group opposed to US-Syrian relations, analysts say that cooperation between the two countries is strong and growing stronger.

“The Syrian government is responding very robustly to fighting ISIL following US requests to do so, and it is worth noting that HTS [Hayat Tahrir al-Sham], before it was in government, had a long-term policy of fighting ISIL,” Rob Geist Pinfold, a scholar of international security at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera, referring to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s former group.

“It [HTS] did it in Idlib, and cracked down on insurgents and cells, and this is more a continuation of that policy.”

Syria’s Minister of Interior spokesman, Noureddine al-Baba, told Syria’s Al-Ikhbariah TV that there was no direct chain of command to the gunman within Syria’s internal security forces, and that he was not part of the force tasked with escorting the US forces. Investigations are under way, he added, to determine whether he had direct ties to ISIL or adopted violent ideology.

ISIL attacks down

In May 2015, ISIL took over the city of Palmyra from the former Syrian government.

Famous for its Greco-Roman ruins, the city bounced back and forth between regime forces and ISIL until the group was expelled in 2017.

In May 2017, the US-led coalition also forced the group out of Raqqa, which ISIL had declared the capital of its so-called caliphate three years earlier.

Many surviving ISIL fighters were imprisoned in the al-Hol and Roj camps in northeast Syria, controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Others escaped into the Syrian desert around Palmyra, from where they have occasionally launched attacks.

When the regime of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fell on December 8, 2024, analysts said ISIL fighters used the ensuing chaos to go into various cities across the country. In June, the group launched an attack on a church in Damascus that killed at least 25 people.

Samy Akil, a fellow at the Tahrir Institute, said recent estimates put ISIL’s manpower in Iraq and Syria at between 3,000 and 5,000 fighters.

But experts told Al Jazeera that the coordination between Damascus and Washington has improved over the last year, and pointed to the fact that Syria’s security forces have thwarted several ISIL attacks due to US-provided intelligence.

“Ahmed al-Sharaa’s new government is committed to fighting the group and, in contrast to the Assad era, al-Sharaa’s government gets regular tip-offs from US intelligence, and probably other forms of US support as well. That’s a pretty powerful combination,” Aron Lund, a research fellow at Century International, focusing on Syria, told Al Jazeera.

This collaboration has seen a decrease in ISIL attacks in Syria, according to a report by consulting firm Karam Shaar Advisory. ISIL launched an average of 63 attacks a month in 2024, while in 2025, that number dropped to 10, according to the report.

“Since HTS arrived in Damascus, collaboration [with the US] has become much easier,” Jerome Drevon, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera.

Structural flaws

After the fall of the Assad regime, there were questions over how security would be enforced. The few thousand HTS members who had previously only controlled Idlib in northwest Syria would not be enough to enforce security across the country.

Syria’s security forces undertook a serious recruitment drive, bringing in tens of thousands of new recruits to add to many of the existing former opposition battalions that were incorporated under the state’s new security apparatus.

With such a huge recruitment campaign, analysts said, vetting was a difficult task.

“The Palmyra attack points to structural flaws rather than a mere one-off event. Integration of former faction fighters and rapid new recruitment have produced uneven vetting and oversight, compounded by a permissive environment for radical views, allowing infiltration to persist,” Nanar Hawash, International Crisis Group’s senior Syria analyst, told Al Jazeera.

“Together, these factors blur early warning signs and create space for hidden threats, raising the risk of repeat attacks.”

Analysts said they expect Syrian security forces to improve the vetting process with time. Meanwhile, another attack like December 13’s was possible and could dent the US’s faith that al-Sharaa’s government can provide security in Syria.

“It could happen again due to the sheer numbers [of new recruits], but over time, the government will improve its game and be more thorough to prevent that from happening again, because it will have consequences,” Drevon said.

“We should be careful over generalising based on one attack, which can be a one-off. But if it happens again, it might change the perception of the Syrian government.”

What does ISIL want?

As for ISIL, analysts said the group’s priorities have changed since the fall of al-Assad.

“What we’re seeing now is ISIL is trying to test boundaries and conduct attacks knowing it cannot gain territorial control,” Akil said.

“It aims at destabilising and staying relevant.”

“ISIS cannot hold cities or topple governments. But it doesn’t need to. Its strength lies in destabilisation,” Hawach said. “The Palmyra attack showed that one operative with the right access can kill three US personnel and shake a bilateral relationship.”

Analysts said ISIL could destabilise Syria by targeting state security forces, religious minorities – like it did in the Damascus church attack in June – or any foreigner on Syrian soil, from US soldiers to humanitarian or United Nations workers. The group could also look to capitalise on tensions between the SDF and Damascus over disagreements on how to integrate the former into the state’s security apparatus.

The SDF also manages the al-Hol and Roj prison camps in northeast Syria, where many of ISIL’s most battle-hardened fighters and commanders are held. This could prove to be a key target for ISIL in Syria.

“ISIL thrives in those vacuums,” Hawach said.

“It’s a guerrilla insurgency, not a caliphate, but in a fragile state, that’s enough to cause serious damage.”

The recent strikes by the United States on alleged ISIL (ISIS) targets in northwest Nigeria have been presented in Washington as a decisive counter-terror response. For the supporters of the administration of US President Donald Trump, the unprecedented operation signalled his country’s renewed resolve in confronting terrorism. It is also making good on Trump’s pledge to take action on what he claims is a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria.

But beneath the spectacle of military action lies a sobering reality: Bombing campaigns of this nature are unlikely to improve Nigeria’s security or help stabilise the conflict-racked country. On the contrary, the strikes risk misrepresenting the conflict and distracting from the deeper structural crisis that is driving violence.

The first problem with the strikes is their lack of strategic logic. The initial strikes were launched in Sokoto in northwest Nigeria, a region that has experienced intense turmoil over the past decade. But this violence is not primarily driven by an ideological insurgency linked to ISIL, and no known ISIL-linked groups are operating in the region. Instead, security concerns in this region are rooted in banditry, the collapse of rural economies, and competition for land. Armed groups here are fragmented and motivated largely by profit.

The Christmas Day strikes appear to have focused on a relatively new ideological armed group called Lakurawa, though its profile and any connection to ISIL are yet to be fully established.

The ideological armed groups with the strongest presence in northern Nigeria are Boko Haram and the ISIL-affiliate in West Africa Province (ISWAP). The centre of these groups’ activity remains hundreds of kilometres from Sokoto, in the northeast of Nigeria – the states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa – where insurgency has a long history. This begs the question: Why strike the northwest first? The logic is unclear.

Equally concerning is the uncertainty surrounding casualties. So far, we have no authoritative figures. Some social media accounts claim there were no human casualties, suggesting the bombs fell on empty targets. Security analyst Brant Philip posted on his social media platform X: “According to a private source familiar with the US operation against the Islamic State in Nigeria, several strikes were launched, but most of the individuals and groups targeted were missed, and the actual damage inflicted remains mostly unknown.”

Nigerian news platform Arise TV reported on X that locals confirmed the incident caused widespread panic; according to its correspondent, at least one of the attacks happened in a district that had not suffered from violence before. They also noted that the full impact of the attack, including whether there were civilian casualties, is yet to be determined.

Other social media accounts have circulated images alleging civilian casualties, though these claims remain unverified. In a context where information warfare operates alongside armed conflict, speculation often travels faster than facts. The lack of transparent data on casualties from the US government risks deepening mistrust among communities already wary of foreign military involvement.

Symbolism also matters. The attack took place on Christmas Day, a detail that carries emotive and political significance. For many Muslims in northern Nigeria, the timing risks being interpreted as an act of supporting a broader narrative of a Western “crusade” against the Muslim community.

Even more sensitive is the location of the strikes: Sokoto. Historically, it is the spiritual seat of the 19th-century Sokoto Caliphate, a centre of Islamic authority and expansion revered by Nigerian Muslims. Bombing such a symbolic centre risks inflaming anti-US sentiment, deepening religious suspicion, and giving hardline propagandists fertile ground to exploit. Rather than weakening alleged ISIL influence, the strikes could inadvertently energise recruitment and amplify grievance narratives.

If air strikes cannot solve Nigeria’s security crisis, what can?

The answer lies not in foreign military intervention. Nigeria’s conflicts are symptoms of deeper governance failures: Weakened security, corruption, and the absence of the state in rural communities. In the northwest, where banditry thrives, residents often negotiate with armed groups not because they sympathise with them, but because the state is largely absent to provide them with security and basic services. In the northeast, where Boko Haram emerged, years of government neglect, heavy-handed security tactics, and economic exclusion created fertile ground for insurgency.

The most sustainable security response must therefore be multi-layered. It requires investment in community-based policing, dialogue, and pathways for deradicalisation. It demands a state presence that protects rather than punishes. It means prioritising intelligence gathering, strengthening local authorities, and restoring trust between citizens and government institutions.

The US strikes may generate headlines and satisfy a domestic audience, but on the ground in Nigeria, they risk doing little more than empowering hardline messaging and deepening resentment.

Nigerians do not need the US to bomb their country into security and stability. They need autochthonous reform: Localised long-term support to rebuild trust, restore livelihoods, and strengthen state institutions. Anything less is a distraction.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a March presidential memorandum to revoke the security clearance of prominent Washington attorney Mark Zaid, ruling that the order — which also targeted 14 other individuals — could not be applied to him.

The decision marked the administration’s second legal setback on Tuesday, after the Supreme Court declined to allow Trump to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area, capping a first year in office in which President Trump’s efforts to impose a sweeping agenda and pursue retribution against political adversaries have been repeatedly slowed by the courts.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington granted Zaid’s request for a preliminary injunction, after he sued the Trump administration in May over the revocation of his security clearance. Zaid’s request called it an act of “improper political retribution” that jeopardized his ability to continue representing clients in sensitive national security cases.

The March presidential memorandum singled out Zaid and 14 other individuals who the White House asserted were unsuitable to retain their clearances because it was “no longer in the national interest.” The list included targets of Trump’s fury from both the political and legal spheres, including former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former President Joe Biden and members of his family.

The action was part of a much broader retribution campaign that Trump has waged since returning to the White House, including directing specific Justice Department investigations against perceived adversaries and issuing sweeping executive orders targeting law firms over legal work he does not like.

In August, the Trump administration said it was revoking the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials. Ordering the revocation of clearances has been a favored retributive tactic that Trump has wielded — or at least tried to — against high-profile political figures, lawyers and intelligence officials in his second term.

Zaid said in his lawsuit that he has represented clients across the political spectrum over nearly 35 years, including government officials, law enforcement and military officials and whistleblowers. In 2019, he represented an intelligence community whistleblower whose account of a conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy helped set the stage for the first of two impeachment cases against Trump in his first term.

“This court joins the several others in this district that have enjoined the government from using the summary revocation of security clearances to penalize lawyers for representing people adverse to it,” Ali wrote in his order.

Ali emphasized that his order does not prevent the government from revoking or suspending Zaid’s clearance for reasons independent of the presidential memorandum and through normal agency processes. The preliminary injunction does not go into effect until January 13.

Zaid said in a statement, “This is not just a victory for me, it’s an indictment of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate and silence the legal community, especially lawyers who represent people who dare to question or hold this government accountable.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

As the year comes to an end, a deal between the Syrian government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces was expected to come into force.

Instead, fighting has erupted between the two sides in the northern city of Aleppo.

They later agreed to stop the fighting, while blaming each other for the violence.

That deal was supposed to lead to the SDF integrating with the army, but it is stalling on how that should be implemented.

This renewed tension comes as Damascus faces other threats, ranging from ISIL (ISIS) to recurrent conflicts with the Druze community and continuing attacks by Israel.

So what does this complex security situation mean for Syria, a year after the fall of Bashar al-Assad?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests

Haid Haid – Researcher at Chatham House

Steven Heydemann – Professor and Middle East Studies programme director at Smith College

Omer Ozkizilcik – Nonresident fellow for the Syria project in the Atlantic Council’s Middle East programme

We live in an interdependent world where no country or region is exempt from the effects of developments elsewhere. The transition into autocracies in other countries is not the exception. Autocratisation has escalated into a global wave. According to the latest V-Dem report, 45 countries are currently moving towards autocracy, up from just 16 in 2009, while only 19 are democratising. By 2024, 40% of the world’s population lived in autocratising countries.

Autocratic expansion represents a threat to liberal democracies in Europe and beyond, as political science’s only near-lawlike finding holds: democracies do not wage war against each other. In contrast, an autocratic Russia invades Ukraine and might quite possibly very soon attack the rest of Europe, as NATO’s General Secretary Mark Rutte alerted in Berlin on December 12: “We are Russia’s next target, and we are already in harm’s way… we must act to defend our way of life now”.

The link between democracy and peace was also at the centre of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. In his address, Jørgen Watne Frydnes, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, emphasised that democracy is not only essential for peace within national borders, but also for peace beyond them. The award to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who insisted that the prize belongs to all Venezuelans, underscored that message.

Russia illustrates this connection with unusual clarity, and the Maduro regime is a close ally of the regime directly threatening Europe. Since Chávez, under whose rule Venezuelan democracy collapsed no later than between 2002 and 2007 (according to V-Dem), the Venezuelan regime has deepened its ties with China and Russia. The latter, particularly, became an important partner in the military and security realms. By providing weapons, equipment and intelligence support, Russia secured a geopolitically strategic foothold in South America. This allows Putin to project power into the Western hemisphere and to undermine US and European strategic interests.

Venezuela’s partnership with Russia follows a foreign policy logic of influence projection within the United States’ regional sphere, much as Washington has done in Eastern Europe. This relationship has taken the form of military cooperation, with Venezuela—alongside Nicaragua—becoming one of Russia’s main partners in Latin America.

A democratic Venezuela could reintegrate into Mercosur, opening an additional market under the forthcoming EU-Mercosur agreement—one of the EU’s tools for diversifying trade partners and reducing excessive economic dependencies.

While earlier cooperation included a visit of nuclear-capable Russian bombers to Venezuela in 2018, more recent ties have focused on military diplomacy: high-level defence meetings, training exchanges, and joint participation in initiatives such as the International Army Games. But despite Russia’s growing resource constraints following its invasion of Ukraine, reports of the construction of a new ammunition factory in Maracay (Aragua) and the presence of Russian “Wagner” mercenaries in Venezuela exemplify the possibility of going back to further military cooperation. The ammunition factory would specifically produce a version of the AK-130 assault rifle (developed in the Soviet Union) and a “steady supply” of 7.62mm ordnance under Russian license in spite of sanctions to avoid Russian ammunition exports.

Beyond the military sphere, Venezuela currently cooperates with Russia to mitigate the effects of Western sanctions. Together with Iran, both countries share shadow shipping networks that allow sanctioned oil exports to continue flowing, primarily towards China (surprise! Another autocratic country). 

Thus, from a European Security perspective, Venezuela isn’t really a distant or marginal case. A Russia-aligned autocracy in South America strengthens Moscow’s global reach at a time when Europe is already struggling to contain Russian aggression on its own continent. Supporting democratic survival or democratisation abroad is not only a normative commitment, but a strategic interest: Europe’s democratic stability—and its own way of life—are reinforced when democracies elsewhere endure.

Democratisation in Venezuela could bring concrete benefits. It would weaken Russia’s standing among authoritarian partners that depend on its support and reduce diplomatic alignment against European priorities in multilateral forums. Such alignment was evident, for example, in the 2014 UN resolution condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea, where several Latin American governments sided with Moscow. Moreover, a democratic Venezuela could reduce the US’ attention diversion from the Russia war on Ukraine, and it could weaken Russia’s potential leverage when looking for US-concessions, in exchange for their own concessions in Venezuela.

But this is also about not missing opportunities. A democratic Venezuela could reintegrate into Mercosur, opening an additional market under the forthcoming EU-Mercosur agreement—one of the EU’s tools for diversifying trade partners and reducing excessive economic dependencies. At a time when economic strength has become an existential priority for Europe amid rising geopolitical tensions, this matters. Before Mercosur, and in the more immediate period following a transition, Venezuela would require substantial investment to rebuild its economy. Historical economic and social ties already exist, shaped in large part by post–Second World War European migration to the country.

Repression is not confined to Venezuelan citizens. More than 80 foreign political prisoners have been reported, including Europeans from Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Hungary, Ukraine and the Czech Republic.

In the path towards the stabilisation of Venezuela as a partner to democracies—instead of being a source of autocratic threat—the democratic mandate expressed by Venezuelans on 28 July 2024, when we elected Edmundo González Urrutia as president, is a crucial element to consider. González has since identified María Corina Machado as his intended vice-president in a potential transition. 

In regards to the question about how to get there, the equation toward a democratic Venezuela does not only include measures to weaken the Maduro regime’s repressive capacity, but also strengthening democratic actors inside and outside the country. Many of these active citizens often move within resource-limited bounds—juggling work, precarious living situations and scarce resources for essential tools such as websites, digital security, travel for advocacy, and organisational infrastructure. Migrants in early integration phases do not necessarily count with abundant financial resources, yet they invest what they have into their democratic efforts.

At the same time, the regime’s repressive reach extends beyond Venezuela’s borders. Recent transnational attacks like the murder attempt against Luis Alejandro Peche and Yendri Velásquez in Colombia, the attempted attack on Vente Venezuela’s Alexander Maita, and the assassination of Ronald Ojeda in Chile highlight efforts to intimidate political mobilization even outside the country. 

But repression is not confined to Venezuelan citizens. More than 80 foreign political prisoners have been reported until this month, including Europeans from Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Hungary, Ukraine and the Czech Republic. Thus, limiting the regime’s repressive capacity is vital to incentivize crucial pro-democracy mobilization.In summary, Europe faces a choice. Supporting Venezuelan democratisation is not only a matter of global democratic solidarity, human rights, or European soft power in Latin America. It is a matter of self-preservation. The collapse of Venezuela’s once-stable 40-year democracy and Russia’s war on Ukraine both serve as reminders that democracy—and the peace it sustains—is not a given. It must be embodied, defended, and actively built when necessary.

OMAHA — The Federal Railroad Administration has sent letters to two railroad operators demanding they make sure that Mexican crews can speak English and don’t operate a train more than 10 miles inside the United States.

A number of Mexican train crews who recently hauled trains over the border to rail yards in Texas had trouble understanding important safety information in English during inspections the Trump administration ordered, U.S. officials said.

Railroads Union Pacific and CPKC routinely rely on foreign crews at times to bring trains over the border to their rail yards in the U.S. before switching to American engineers and conductors. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen union said handoffs used to happen at the border. The engineers union has been worried about using foreign crews for some time because of safety, security and job concerns.

Union Pacific and CPKC said the railroads are committed to ensuring safety and security and will work to ensure they are complying with the rules.

The Trump administration has also been cracking down on truck drivers who don’t speak English, saying it seeks to make sure crews can communicate in an emergency and understand crucial instructions.

“Whether you’re operating an 80-ton big rig or a massive freight train, you need to be proficient in our national language — English,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said. “If you aren’t, you create an unacceptable safety risk.”

The Transportation Department has withheld $40 million from California, which it accused of not enforcing the English proficiency requirement. Duffy has also threatened to sanction several other states that he says have improperly issued commercial driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants.

That became a key concern after several deadly crashes involving semitrucks driven by immigrants in the country illegally.

Inspectors cite problems

Federal Railroad Administration Administrator David Fink told both railroads they could face enforcement action if inspectors find additional occurrences of train crews operating in the U.S. without being proficient in English.

Inspectors found problems in Union Pacific’s Eagle Pass rail yard and CPKC’s facility in Laredo, Fink said.

Union Pacific had a interpreter on hand to help its Mexican crews, but Fink said the railroad might try to remove that person in the future, and inspectors said they worried about how well the crews understood operating rules and required brake tests.

At CPKC’s rail yard, Fink said, inspectors found numerous instances of train crews having a hard time understanding operating bulletins and U.S. regulations that require information about hazardous materials and emergency responses to be maintained in English.

Unions support the move

The engineers union and the SMART-TD union that represents conductors welcomed the Trump administration’s move because they say Mexican crews aren’t as well-trained and need to understand crucial safety information.

Earlier this year, the engineers union also highlighted two arrests of members of Mexican crews on suspicion of smuggling — one accused of helping migrants cross the border illegally and the other for allegedly trying to bring drugs into the U.S.

“The administration should be commended for standing up for border security, public safety and American jobs by creating stronger safety standards for crews that bring trains from Mexico to the United States,” Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen National President Mark Wallace said. “It’s critical that locomotive engineers are able to speak to dispatchers and first responders in English when trains are moving on U.S. soil.”

Railroads’ response

“We have the same goals — a safe, secure border that keeps the supply chain fluid,” Union Pacific spokesperson Kristen South said. “Part of ensuring safe operations is good communication.”

CPKC spokesperson Patrick Waldron said the railroad — which operates one continuous network across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico — makes sure international crews at both borders do not travel more than 10 miles into the U.S.

“Safety is foundational to everything we do,” he said.

Union Pacific picks up and hands off trains to its partner, FerroMex railroad, at the border. It said changing out crews at its rail yard seven miles over the border in Eagle Pass helps keep freight moving, because previously the switch was done at a single-track bridge, forcing rail traffic to come to a halt. The railroad said it worked with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to make the change.

Funk writes for the Associated Press.

A MAJOR US airport is set to unveil its $2.2 billion renovation in 2026 after work kicked off in 2019.

The huge regional travel hub will complete the second and last phase of the project in a matter of months, offering a range of perks to travelers including faster security and a new terminal building.

Portland International Airport started work on the multi-billion-dollar project in 2019, with construction starting in 2020.

Phase one, which was completed in August last year, saw the airport boast a new state-of-the-art terminal building and improved security checkpoints.

The new building has top-of-the-range security checkpoints which no longer require passengers to remove items from baggage thanks to updated scanner technology.

Not only does this improve safety, it cuts long wait times at the checkpoints.

There are also new check-in areas, immersive video walls, stadium seating, and nature-inspired interiors that are designed to give travelers the feeling of having a “woodland stroll”, creating a calming space.

In 2026, officials plan to unveil the completed renovation with more shops, lounges, and improved connections between the plane and the concourses.

“Travelers have a lot to look forward to when [it’s] done,” Allison Ferre, spokesperson for the Port of Portland said of the current construction works that account for about 30% of the overhaul project.

“It’s going to be designed and outfitted to match the rest of the new main terminal.

“The bypasses are going to be gone. So they’re going to have new direct routes straight from the concourses to baggage claim. No more construction detours once you land,” she said of the benefits once work is complete.

Travelers will see more seating, shops, restaurants, newsstands, and bathroom facilities when the final result is unveiled next year.

By 2045, the airport expects to be catering for about 35 million passengers per year.

And it’s not the only US travel hub that has undergone a major update.

Last month, Pittsburgh International opened its brand new terminal just in time for Thanksgiving, following $1.7 billion worth of renovations.

Meanwhile, one of the country’s busiest airports has started work on its $6 billion project which includes a brand new vertical take off facility.

The project aims to see the airport more readily meet demand as it breaks passenger records year on year by focusing on customer experience, community, infrastructure, and people.