security

Abuja, Nigeria – Africa’s long-running campaign for permanent representation on the United Nations Security Council is back in focus at the 81st UN General Assembly, with leaders renewing calls to reform a body whose five permanent members have remained unchanged since 1945.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used his final address to the General Assembly on Tuesday to renew his call for Security Council reform, saying it must become more representative and better reflect today’s geopolitical realities.

Nigeria’s Vice President Kashim Shettima, delivering President Bola Tinubu’s national statement, called for at least two permanent seats for Africa, with veto powers for as long as the veto exists, as well as five non-permanent seats for the continent.

Ghana’s President John Mahama made a similar appeal: “Security Council reform is not a favour to Africa; it is an imperative for the legitimacy, credibility and survival of the United Nations”.

The renewed calls highlight the scale of Africa’s demand. But translating them into an agreement that changes the Council’s structure remains a far more difficult task.

A reform process that has stalled

The Security Council has 15 members: five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and 10 members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.

The five permanent members hold veto power, allowing any one of them to block a substantive Council resolution.

No African country has a permanent seat.

Yet Africa remains central to much of the Council’s work. In 2025, the Council adopted 44 resolutions, including 24 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which covers measures such as sanctions and authorisations for the use of force.

Eighteen of those 24 Chapter VII resolutions concerned Africa.

For Professor Ibrahim Gambari, a former Nigerian foreign minister and former Nigerian permanent representative to the UN, the issue is not simply one of geography.

“The status quo is not really interested in change,” he told Al Jazeera. “In the appointment of the Secretary-General, you cannot be a candidate unless each of the five permanent members agrees. Therefore, we have the privilege of the unelected P5, which they don’t want to relinquish.”

Gambari said Africa’s absence was difficult to justify given the continent’s size and the amount of Security Council business involving it.

“In the case of Africa, we have a whole continent that has the largest single bloc, yet has no permanent seat on the Security Council,” he said.

The General Assembly launched the intergovernmental negotiations process on Security Council reform in 2008. The talks cover the Council’s size, membership categories, regional representation and the veto, and have continued through successive General Assembly sessions without agreement on the core questions.

Changing the Council’s permanent membership would also require an amendment to the UN Charter. Under Article 108, that requires approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent members.

That gives the existing permanent members a formal role in any change to the system that grants them permanent membership and veto power.

Nigeria wants a permanent seat

Which African countries would eventually occupy any new permanent seats is another unresolved issue.

Nigeria has consistently presented itself as a country prepared to take on such a role. At this year’s General Assembly, the country renewed its call for at least two permanent African seats with all the rights and responsibilities of permanent membership, including the veto for as long as it exists.

Dr Fola Aina, a political scientist and international security expert at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London, told Al Jazeera the issue also carried particular significance for Nigeria.

“Securing this position would essentially elevate Nigeria’s global diplomatic influence, give Africa a continuous voice in international security decisions and grant Nigeria the power to consolidate its position as a regional hegemon and middle power,” he said.

“The timing of Nigeria’s push is particularly strategic given the current age of strategic competition.”

Nigeria is not alone in seeking a permanent role. Egypt and South Africa have also pursued permanent representation, while other African states have expressed interest.

The African Union, however, has not selected specific countries to occupy the proposed seats. Its common position calls for at least two permanent African seats and five non-permanent seats on an expanded Council, with the AU determining which countries should represent the continent.

The veto question

Even if agreement could be reached on who should represent Africa, another obstacle would remain: the veto.

The African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus calls for any permanent African members to have the same rights and privileges as the existing permanent members, including veto power for as long as the veto remains part of the Council’s system.

African governments have therefore argued that adding permanent seats without equivalent powers would not fully address the imbalance they are seeking to correct.

That leaves two separate questions: whether the Council should expand and what powers any new permanent members would receive.

A question of influence

Gambari argues that Africa’s absence also affects the Council’s day-to-day work.

“All these peacekeeping missions in Africa are based on the mandate of the Security Council,” he said.

“The P5 assign themselves the role of penholders, which hardly allows elected non-permanent African countries to initiate draft resolutions affecting their region.”

He said the imbalance was also visible in the way Security Council missions operate on the continent.

“Even Security Council missions to Africa are not led by Africans nowadays. How can the parties in dispute have confidence in such a team?” he said.

“Even for the Security Council’s continued relevance, it has to be reformed so that Africa can have representatives in the permanent seat category.”

For Favour Aniezi, a Nigerian creative and youth advocate, the issue is also about who has influence over decisions affecting the continent.

“Beyond representation, Africa’s absence from the permanent seats of the UN Security Council is a question of whose voice gets to shape decisions that affect the continent,” she told Al Jazeera.

“As a young Nigerian woman, I think it matters that Africa is not only present when global institutions discuss our challenges but has a meaningful role in deciding how those challenges are addressed. We should not simply be represented at the table, Africa should have a voice with the weight to influence what happens at it.”

For now, the core questions remain unresolved: how many new permanent members there should be, which African countries would take the seats, whether they would receive veto power and whether the existing permanent members would accept the changes.

“As long as they keep sticking to this anachronistic formula, reforms will be hard to attain,” Gambari said.

The Kremlin has signalled that Russia’s position on potential peace talks with Ukraine remains unchanged, despite a planned meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in New York.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said there were still no conditions for formal Ukraine peace talks to begin, while insisting that Moscow remained open to negotiations.

His comments came ahead of the Rubio Lavrov meeting, which is expected to provide an opportunity for Washington and Moscow to discuss the prospects for ending the war.

However, Peskov said there were no concrete plans for further high level meetings involving either the United States or Ukraine to discuss a potential peace agreement.

Moscow Maintains Its Position

The Kremlin also said there had been no change in its position regarding a possible direct meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Peskov reiterated that Zelenskiy could travel to Moscow for such a meeting and said Russia would provide the necessary security guarantees.

He also said the Ukrainian president was aware of the decisions that Moscow believes would be necessary before meaningful progress could be made.

The comments underline the continuing gap between the two sides over the conditions for direct negotiations.

Ukraine has repeatedly rejected the possibility of holding talks in Moscow and has instead proposed a neutral location for any direct meeting between the two presidents.

US Diplomacy Faces a Difficult Path

The Rubio Lavrov meeting comes as Washington continues to engage both Moscow and Kyiv over the possibility of a diplomatic settlement.

The meeting itself does not necessarily indicate that formal peace negotiations are imminent. Russia continues to say that the conditions for talks have not been established, while Ukraine has maintained its own requirements for any negotiations with Moscow.

That leaves the United States attempting to maintain communication with both sides while the basic framework for potential negotiations remains unresolved.

The disagreement over the location of a Putin Zelenskiy meeting is also significant because it reflects broader differences over the political conditions surrounding any future negotiations.

For Moscow, the latest statements reinforce its existing position that Ukraine must address Russian demands before a presidential meeting can produce meaningful progress. Kyiv, meanwhile, has rejected Moscow’s proposed setting and continues to favour a neutral venue.

What Comes Next

The Rubio Lavrov meeting could provide an indication of whether Washington and Moscow can narrow some of their differences, but the Kremlin’s latest statements suggest that Russia is not currently changing its stated position on the conditions for peace talks.

The immediate diplomatic focus will therefore be on whether the US Russian dialogue can establish enough common ground for further discussions involving Ukraine.

Until the disagreement over the conditions and format of negotiations is addressed, the prospect of a direct Putin Zelenskiy meeting remains uncertain. The New York meeting may keep diplomatic channels open, but it does not by itself resolve the fundamental differences separating Moscow and Kyiv.

With information from Reuters.

Dolly Parton’s estate has reportedly accused the late singer’s nephew of extortion and threats against staff.

On Tuesday, Parton’s estate, She’s Alive, LLC, requested a restraining order against Parton’s nephew Bryan Seaver, court records show. The request came after he was fired from his job as head of security, as TMZ reported.

She’s Alive is run by Parton’s former manager Danny Nozell.

The New York Times reviewed court records containing allegations that Seaver began making demands shortly before Parton died. The demands grew into more serious threats, according to the records the news outlet cited, which the plaintiffs saw as an attempt to obtain money from the Parton estate.

Here’s what to know.

Who is Bryan Seaver?

Parton’s nephew, Bryan Seaver, shared the news of his aunt’s death in a video posted to her Instagram account on Aug. 25.

In the video, Seaver, standing in front of a black background, introduces himself as the the son of Dolly’s sister Cassie Parton and says he is representing the Parton and Owens family in announcing his aunt’s death. The Owens are the maternal side of the country star’s family.

“This video announcement is something Dolly asked of me years ago, before I fully absorbed it as a future reality,” he says in the video.

Seaver adds that he followed in his father Larry’s footsteps in becoming Parton’s head of security, a post he held for more than 20 years.

Seaver and his company, Squadron Augmented Protection Services, LLC, are the defendants in the lawsuit. They were reportedly terminated about three weeks after the country icon’s death.

Seaver did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

According to the New York Times’ reporting on the court records, the restraining order request, filed in Davidson County Chancery Court in Nashville, sought to keep Seaver away from Parton’s properties and staff.

Who is Danny Nozell?

Nozell was Parton’s longtime manager. He has claimed credit for helping revive Parton’s international touring career.

He told The Times last month that Parton “worked up until the day she died” on multiple projects.

“She loved seeing her dreams come to life, and loved knowing her work brought people joy,” Nozell said in the statement. “Ever the planner, Dolly worked with the team that she handpicked, for the past several years to build a project roadmap that will guide us for decades to come.”

Nozell’s website described his work with Parton as “arguably his most notable achievements.”

What are the allegations?

The court records, according to the New York Times, include allegations that Seaver sent a profane threat to a Dollywood business partner, and that, separately, he referred to himself as a “killer” and “not an entertainment person” while corresponding with one of Parton’s longtime lawyers.

According to TMZ, Seaver and his team said in a statement that they were “dismayed by the … unexplained actions” following Parton’s death and “[w]e remain unshakably resolved to fulfill her final directive to protect her family, and we refuse to be intimidated by those whose actions we believe are being taken in bad faith and with the intent to profit from the life of someone who willingly gave so much.”

The United States, Denmark and Greenland are preparing to sign an agreement that could reshape the American military presence in the Arctic and ease a diplomatic dispute that has strained relations within NATO.

US President Donald Trump is due to meet Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen in New York on Tuesday for a trilateral signing ceremony. The agreement is expected to allow Washington to expand its military infrastructure on Greenland, a strategically located and mineral rich territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The deal follows months of tension after Trump refused to rule out using military or economic pressure to bring Greenland under US control. The comments triggered a diplomatic crisis with Denmark and raised concerns about divisions within NATO.

The US military presence is set to expand

The agreement is expected to give the United States access to two additional military sites in Greenland, alongside the existing Pituffik Space Base.

One of the proposed locations is Narsarsuaq, a former Cold War airbase where only a small population remains. The other is Mestersvig, which is currently used by the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol, an elite Danish special forces unit.

The expansion would significantly increase the US military footprint on the island and mark the first major expansion of American military infrastructure there since the Cold War.

During that period, the United States operated 17 installations in Greenland and had more than 10,000 personnel on the island.

Greenland’s location between North America and the Arctic gives it considerable strategic importance. Its geography also places it close to major Arctic routes and areas of growing competition involving Russia, the United States and other NATO members.

NATO could play a larger role

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has said the agreement would place Arctic security more firmly within NATO’s collective framework rather than leaving responsibility primarily to Washington and Copenhagen.

That could be significant because the Greenland dispute exposed tensions within the alliance at a time when NATO members are already facing growing security concerns in the Arctic.

The Arctic has become increasingly important to NATO because of its geography, military access and emerging economic opportunities. Greater US military activity in Greenland could therefore become part of a wider alliance approach to Arctic security.

However, the precise role NATO would play remains unclear because the full text of the agreement has not yet been published.

What happens to Greenland’s sovereignty?

The agreement also leaves questions about the balance between US security interests, Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s aspirations for greater autonomy.

Greenland is a self governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Its government has repeatedly maintained that decisions about Greenland’s future must involve Greenlanders themselves.

Trump said on Friday that the agreement would give the United States “permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland.”

Denmark has not endorsed that description. Copenhagen has instead said that the agreement respects the kingdom’s sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self determination.

It remains unclear whether the agreement will modify the 1951 US Denmark defence treaty, which has provided the legal basis for America’s military presence on the island, or establish a separate framework.

From acquisition ambitions to military access

The agreement represents a significant shift from Trump’s earlier push to acquire Greenland outright.

Greenland is roughly three times the size of Texas but has a population of only about 57,000 people, concentrated in small communities along its coastline. The island is also rich in natural resources, adding an economic dimension to its strategic importance.

Trump’s earlier comments about potentially using economic or military pressure to obtain Greenland created an unusual dispute between the United States and Denmark, both members of NATO.

The new agreement appears to offer a different approach: rather than changing Greenland’s sovereignty, Washington would gain a substantially larger military presence on the island.

Why does Greenland matter to the US?

Greenland’s strategic location makes it important to North American and Arctic defence. It sits between the United States, Europe and the Arctic and can provide access for monitoring activity across the region.

For Washington, expanding military infrastructure could strengthen its ability to monitor Arctic air and maritime activity and support wider North American defence.

For Denmark and Greenland, however, the issue involves more than military strategy. Any expansion of US activity has to operate within Denmark’s sovereignty over the territory and Greenland’s right to determine its political future.

The agreement therefore seeks to address two competing pressures at once: the United States’ desire for greater Arctic security access and Denmark and Greenland’s insistence that such cooperation must not amount to a transfer of sovereignty.

If signed as expected, the deal could mark a new phase in the Arctic relationship between the three governments. It would not resolve every disagreement over Greenland’s future, but it could replace the earlier confrontation over US acquisition with a more structured framework for American military access and NATO security cooperation.

With information from Reuters.

The Big Brother house has reportedly been locked down temporarily

The Big Brother house has reportedly been locked down after a huge security breach.

Tensions reached boiling point in Monday’s (September 21) episode with explosive rows breaking out and the house divide continuing. Jedward, who entered the house for a week of double trouble this week, found themselves at the centre of drama after their hot tub chat took a dramatic turn.

When speaking to Rhianna, Edward told the former Made in Chelsea star: “I don’t think you’re gonna continue on in here if you don’t just get on with the vibes, you can’t be like looking at people…”

John added: “Yous aren’t in Love Island. Just letting yous know. For real… This is Big Brother, just always remember that.” Unimpressed, Rhianna told Chelsey who also became irate with comments made, but when word got back to Lynx, he attempted to confront Jedward before things turned heated.

Their the conversation quickly becomes sour when Lynx was seen annoyed with the comments and Jedward splashed him from the hot tub. Being forced to intervene, the housemates separated the group as the heated clash continued.

Big Brother was also seen intervening, calling Lynx to the Diary Room to calm down as well as separating Jedward from the rest of the group, meaning they had to sleep in another room for the night.

Despite the chaos being crowned “TV gold” by viewers, the drama comes following a security breach which reportedly put the whole house on a lockdown.

Housemates were allegedly told to leave the garden immediately and order into the house after fans were seen throwing tennis balls over the fence and into the garden.

In an attempt to communicate with the housemates, the act was deemed a security risk with security on hand to ensure the safety of the cast.

According to The Sun, a source confirmed: “The housemates were rushed into the house as tennis balls began flying over the compound walls and into the garden. Producers leapt into action and ordered them into the house and locked the doors.”

It was branded a “huge breach” as the housemates were on a lockdown as the team secured the site. It is no the first time fans of the show have attempted to communicate with the housemates.

It it also not known whether the security breach will be shown on TV or how long the lockdown will occur, but tensions continue to rise in the iconic house,with the drama continuing in tomorrow (September 22) night. ITV have been approached for a comment.

Big Brother continues tomorrow at 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX.

The UN chief’s mandate ends on December 31 this year, with a successor yet to be named.

The state of the world seems to be getting worse due to a “dramatic geopolitical divide” that is leaving “the most vulnerable countries and populations in very dramatic situations” and that “paralyses the Security Council”, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has told Al Jazeera.

Speaking on Monday, the first day of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City, Guterres said that major military conflicts happening in the world at the moment, the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-Israel war on Iran, have created a crisis due to the continued violations of international law by “superpowers” that are key members of the UN Security Council (UNSC).

“That creates an environment of impunity, in which midsize powers believe that they can do whatever they want because nothing will happen to them,” Guterres told Al Jazeera, admitting that “wars are becoming multiplied, and more and more complex”.

The UN chief outlined the real-life impacts that these two wars are having on people on a humanitarian level, particularly around food accessibility, rising fuel prices, and global inflation.

“The combination of the war in Ukraine with the problems of exports of foods, fertilisers, and energy through the Black Sea, if you combine it with the difficulties in the Strait of Hormuz [in the Gulf], in the Bab al-Mandeb [in the Red Sea], and in the attacks [on] oil installations in several countries of the [Middle East] region, we are creating a situation that has a devastating impact on many economies around the world,” Guterres said.

He added that rising interest rates and fuel prices in developed countries could eventually be managed, whereas people in the developing world “are in a desperate situation” due to the increasing energy and food costs and the lack of fertilisers.

Dire need for reforms

Guterres, who previously served as prime minister of Portugal and UN high commissioner for refugees, has been the UN chief since January 1, 2017, though his mandate is coming to an end on December 31, 2026.

His successor, who is yet to be named, will take charge of an organisation that is grappling with multiple crises and is, in Guterres’s opinion, in dire need of reforms to stay relevant and important on the global stage. He notably cited the UNSC, saying it “still essentially represents the world of World War II”.

Candidates in the running to replace Guterres include the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Rafael Grossi, former Senegalese President Macky Sall and Ecuadorian diplomat Maria Fernanda Espinosa.

To be recommended by the UNSC, a candidate for UN secretary-general needs at least nine of the council’s 15 members to vote in favour and must avoid a veto from any of the five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – before a final vote in the UNGA.

Denmark, Greenland and the United States are set to sign a security agreement that Copenhagen says will give NATO a larger role in protecting the Arctic, potentially shifting responsibility beyond the United States and Denmark alone.

The agreement is expected to be signed at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday. Its full contents have not been made public, although US President Donald Trump has described it as giving Washington “permanent control” over Greenland’s security.

Denmark and Greenland have not endorsed Trump’s description. Both have said the agreement will benefit Greenland while respecting the island’s sovereignty.

The deal follows months of pressure from Trump, who has repeatedly argued that the United States should control Greenland and at times declined to rule out military or economic measures to acquire the semi autonomous Danish territory.

His demands triggered a diplomatic crisis within NATO and pushed Copenhagen and Nuuk into negotiations with Washington to address US security concerns while maintaining Greenland’s status within the Kingdom of Denmark.

A broader NATO role

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said the agreement would change the way Arctic security is handled.

“It will be in a form where responsibility for security in the Arctic is not only Danish or American,” Rasmussen told Danish broadcaster TV2 on Sunday. He added that NATO would play a major role in protecting the region.

A NATO spokesperson said the alliance welcomed the agreement, describing it as a step that could advance security, stability and cooperation in the Arctic.

Rasmussen travelled to New York for the signing but has declined to disclose the agreement’s details.

He said Denmark had been open from the beginning to addressing what he described as legitimate US security interests.

The negotiations therefore appear to have focused on finding a framework that can accommodate Washington’s strategic concerns without formally transferring Greenland’s sovereignty to the United States.

Trump’s claim raises questions

Trump has offered a different description of what the agreement means.

In a post on Truth Social on Friday, he said the deal gives the United States “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in Greenland. He also said no US adversary would be able to establish a base or military presence on the island without Washington’s written approval.

Copenhagen has not publicly responded to that characterization.

The difference between Washington’s description and Denmark and Greenland’s public statements leaves important questions about the agreement unresolved.

Among the most significant is whether it changes the 1951 US Denmark defence agreement, which provides the legal basis for the American military presence in Greenland.

The document’s provisions on US access, military infrastructure and the role of NATO have not been made public.

Greenland at the centre

The agreement comes as Denmark acknowledges that it underinvested in Greenland’s defence for decades.

Copenhagen has since pledged to increase its military presence on the island and strengthen Arctic surveillance, including through greater NATO involvement.

Greenland’s government has sought to reassure residents that the negotiations do not compromise the island’s sovereignty.

Erik Jensen, an opposition lawmaker in Greenland, said on Facebook that he had read the draft agreement and felt reassured by its contents. He also praised Greenland’s foreign minister for handling the negotiations.

For Greenland, the issue is particularly sensitive because the island has extensive autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark and has long maintained a political debate over eventual independence.

What the agreement could mean for the Arctic

The deal could mark a significant change in the security architecture of the Arctic.

Greenland occupies a strategically important position between North America and Europe, making it valuable to the United States and NATO as competition over the Arctic increases.

A larger NATO role could provide a multilateral framework for responding to concerns about military activity and strategic infrastructure in the region. At the same time, the agreement’s precise legal and operational arrangements will determine how far that shift actually goes.

Until the text is released, it remains unclear whether the agreement represents a substantial restructuring of Greenland’s defence arrangements or primarily a political framework for closer cooperation.

What is clear is that the negotiations have moved Arctic security from a dispute centred on US ambitions for Greenland toward a broader discussion about NATO’s collective role in one of the world’s increasingly contested strategic regions.

With information from Reuters.

The fourth China-Africa Peace and Security Forum was held in Beijing, China, from September 15 to 17, 2026, coinciding with the 13th Xiangshan Forum and the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and African countries. Military representatives and defense officials from the African Union and 41 African nations participated. This expansion of bilateral military relations between Beijing and African countries comes at a time when Beijing and Washington are vying for influence on the African continent, while African nations seek to diversify their partners and strengthen their security capabilities, particularly in regions facing escalating threats, such as the Horn of Africa. The fourth China-Africa Peace and Security Forum, held in Beijing, represents a pivotal milestone reflecting the growing military and defense cooperation between China and 41 African countries, along with the African Union, as Beijing seeks to solidify its security presence on the African continent.  The most prominent theme of the forum and defense cooperation was the speech by Chinese Defense Minister Admiral Dong Jun, who called for deepening strategic coordination and developing mechanisms for defense exchange and maritime security based on equality and mutual benefit, without political dictates or conditions, between China and African countries. This reflects the growing African interest in partnership with China, driven by a desire to diversify military options and avoid the pressures and conditions associated with Western and American partnerships. The China-Africa Peace and Security Forum witnessed the signing of bilateral memoranda of understanding to enhance military capabilities, training, and the exchange of expertise between China and some participating countries, such as Mauritania.

The fourth session of the China-Africa Peace and Security Forum, held in Beijing, China, witnessed a significant deepening of bilateral military cooperation between China and Africa. On the sidelines of the forum, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and the People’s Republic of China signed two memoranda of understanding to strengthen and develop military cooperation between the two countries. This signing took place during a meeting between Mauritanian Defense Minister Hanan Ould Sidi and his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Dong Jun.  The most prominent areas of the memoranda of understanding included strengthening military and security capabilities to address challenges in the Sahel region and Africa, particularly combating terrorism and organized crime. They also focused on military education and training for African military personnel and the exchange of expertise, intelligence, and security experiences between the two sides. This move is part of a broader Chinese strategy to enhance defense partnerships with African countries (with representatives from 41 nations participating), emphasizing joint military training and coordination.

In this context, cooperation between the Chinese People’s Liberation Army and African armies is steadily increasing, encompassing training, counter-terrorism exercises, and peacekeeping operations.  The most prominent forms and areas of military cooperation between China and Africa include joint military exercises, where the Chinese army conducts joint drills with African countries, such as the Peace Unit exercises with Tanzania and Mozambique to combat terrorism on land and at sea. This cooperation also encompasses peacekeeping and assistance efforts, with China participating in numerous UN peacekeeping missions in Africa and deploying warships to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia. Simultaneously, there is an increase in military education and training programs, with Chinese military academies hosting African leaders, defense ministers, and officers to enhance professional exchanges and build long-term strategic relationships. To this end, China regularly organizes the China-Africa Peace and Security Forum to strengthen defense coordination and consultation with various countries on the continent. The objectives of the Chinese military presence in Africa include modernizing African military expertise, providing the People’s Liberation Army with field operational experience in diverse and complex security environments, and protecting Chinese interests and securing massive Chinese investments and economic projects related to the Belt and Road Initiative. With increasing practical cooperation between China and Africa, Beijing is bolstering its diplomatic and strategic influence on the African continent in the face of international competition with Washington.

China’s military presence in Africa can be summarized as achieving three major strategic objectives, such as modernizing African military expertise, providing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army with field experience, and protecting the substantial investment interests of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. These three objectives and their shared benefits can be detailed as follows:

1) Modernizing African Military Expertise:

China seeks to present itself as a reliable and alternative security partner for African countries through various modernization mechanisms, including:

– Technology Transfer and Training: By providing advanced training programs for African officers at Chinese military academies and transferring modern tactical and operational knowledge.

– Defense Infrastructure Development: By contributing to the construction of bases, logistics centers, and training facilities for African armies.

– Arms and Equipment Sales: By supplying African countries with modern weapons systems at competitive prices, such as drones, armored vehicles, and communication systems, thereby enhancing the combat effectiveness of these armies.

– Counterterrorism and Counter-Piracy: By building joint capabilities between the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and local African armies to counter unconventional security threats in conflict zones and maritime piracy areas, such as the Gulf of Aden.

2) Gaining Field Operational Experience for the PLA

The diverse and complex African security environment represents an important real-world testing ground for the Chinese military, which lacks modern field combat experience outside its borders. This benefit is achieved through:

– Testing Chinese weapons, military equipment, and armaments: By experiencing the effectiveness and quality of Chinese weapons and military equipment in harsh climatic and geographical environments (desert, tropical).

– Remote Operations Management: Developing the ability to command and control forces across vast geographical distances and testing the effectiveness of cross-border supply and logistics.

– Participation in peacekeeping forces: China’s extensive involvement in UN peacekeeping missions in Africa, such as in Mali, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, provides Chinese officers with experience interacting with international militaries and managing complex security crises.

– Naval and operational presence: Utilizing the Chinese military base in Djibouti as a launchpad for evacuation operations, counter-piracy efforts, and protecting shipping lanes enhances the flexibility of the Chinese navy.

3) Protecting interests and securing investments under China’s Belt and Road Initiative

Africa is a key pillar of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and the military role in protecting these massive Chinese investments is complemented by:

– Securing critical infrastructure: Protecting ports, railways, mines, and energy fields financed and operated by Chinese companies against any political instability or terrorist attacks.

– Securing Maritime Routes: Ensuring the safety of vital maritime trade routes for transporting raw materials from Africa to China and Chinese goods to global markets via the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

– Protecting Chinese Communities: Providing security and rapid intervention capabilities to evacuate thousands of Chinese workers and citizens from African conflict zones when necessary.

From the preceding presentation and analysis, we understand the importance of the China-Africa Peace and Security Forum in strengthening defense exchange mechanisms, defining and deepening regional cooperation in maritime security, combating terrorism and extremism, and building defense capabilities in emerging areas to address escalating security risks on the African continent, such as the Sahel region. The Forum provides an opportunity to enhance consultation and exchange views between China and African countries on various peace and security issues and to develop prospects for cooperation between China and African countries in related fields. China-Africa cooperation encompasses military training, naval exercises and patrols, counter-terrorism, mine clearance, and securing shipping lanes, as well as the transfer of expertise and technology and the marketing of Chinese weapons.

Fidan highlights Turkiye’s readiness to assist Saudi Arabia militarily, as Houthi attacks escalate in Yemen.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has said that Saudi Arabia may have unmet military needs from the attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels and that Turkiye would consider how to support the kingdom as part of a trilateral defence pact.

Speaking to Turkish broadcaster NTV on Friday, Fidan said it was unacceptable for Saudi Arabia to be dragged into the US-Iran war, adding that Riyadh had no desire to join the conflict.

He added that proposals had been conveyed to all sides in an effort to end the fighting, without further elaborating.

The Iran-backed Houthi rebels and Saudi Arabia continue trading attacks in an escalating war in Yemen, as the Houthis press gains that have brought large stretches of the Red Sea coast, including the strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait, under their control.

Pakistan has made a similar pledge to defend Saudi Arabia under the defence pact.

Lieutenant-General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, a spokesperson for Pakistan’s military, told Arab News on Thursday that Islamabad would defend Saudi Arabia “to any extent”, including “physically”, though he did not say whether Riyadh had asked for more Pakistani troops.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office has said no military response is currently under discussion under the pact, adding that Islamabad would act “when time comes”.

The trilateral agreement, known as the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, was signed on August 7 in Mecca by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

The three countries formally named the arrangement the Mecca Defence Alliance on August 31, after officials meeting in Istanbul agreed to set up a secretariat in Riyadh, to be headed initially by a Pakistani secretary-general.

Its founding principle is that an armed attack against any one of the three states will be treated as an attack against all three.

Fidan said at the time the alliance was built on “respecting the sovereignty of other states, territorial integrity and not intervening in internal affairs”, and remained open to other countries joining.

Analysts have questioned how much substance lies behind the pact so far, noting it lacks the integrated command structure and standing forces that underpin NATO.

Its institutional shape, including how the mutual defence clause would actually be triggered, remains unclear.

The trilateral pact was struck as Gulf states grow increasingly concerned about being pulled into the wider US-Iran war, which has continued for more than six months since Washington and Israel first struck Iran in February.

United States President Donald Trump claims the US has reached a deal with Denmark granting it “permanent control” over Greenland’s security “and all other needs”.

The announcement comes more than a year after the US president threatened to seize the self-governing Arctic territory, which is part of Denmark. Those threats roiled the NATO security alliance that Washington and Copenhagen are part of.

According to Denmark, the deal is expected to be signed during next week’s United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York. Copenhagen has stressed that it retains sovereignty over Greenland, and this deal will still need to be ratified in the Danish and Greenland parliaments.

Here’s what we know about the deal and what it could mean for the US and Greenland:

What’s in the deal?

The official text has yet to be released. But according to Trump, the deal gives the US permanent control over Greenland’s security and “all other needs”, at no cost to the US.

The deal bars US adversaries from establishing a military presence or making “sensitive investments” in Greenland without US approval, said Trump.

A US Department of State official cited by the BBC said the deal will mean non-NATO states won’t be able to set up bases in Greenland and will be barred from “making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States”.

The official said that means China and Russia won’t be able to build bases or send troops to Greenland, and that those states would be blocked from investing “in sensitive sectors”.

However, Mikkel Olesen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told Al Jazeera that it is unlikely to be a major concession because “the Danes and Greenlanders never wished for Russia or China to have bases in Greenland.”

However, it is unclear whether other countries could similarly be labelled “adversaries” to the US in the future, subjecting them to these restrictions.

Trump called the deal an “‘Infinite Life’ Agreement”, meaning “it never ends”.

The State Department official also said the agreement gives the US the right to build more military sites on the island without Greenland or Denmark approving. According to the official, the deal would remain in force even if Greenland were to become an independent state in the future.

There was no specific mention of potential US mining rights in Greenland, which has a rich deposit of rare-earth minerals, including zinc, iron, uranium and graphite, that are likely to interest Trump. These minerals are highly sought after and are used in the manufacture of hundreds of technological products, from smartphones to fighter jets.

However, some observers think this could be what Trump means by his mention of “sensitive investments”.

The US president has sought to expand the US’s global access to rare-earth metals, especially as China, a global leader in the technology, AI and renewables industries with 60 percent of the world’s known deposits of these minerals in its territory, restricts their exports.

What have Greenland and Denmark said?

Greenland and Denmark acknowledged the deal on Friday, but neither gave specific details about its terms. They said the agreement would be announced next week.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said it “recognises Greenland’s interests” and is “to the benefit of us all”.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said it is “great for NATO and Europe”, as it “strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area”.

Olesen stressed that details of the deal remain unclear and that available information should be taken “with a grain of salt” as most of it has so far come from the US side.

Does the deal give the US ownership of Greenland?

No, it does not meet Trump’s previously stated objective of “ownership”.

Denmark’s Frederiksen said the agreement “recognises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination”.

Olesen said the deal could be positive for Greenland and Denmark as it “has the potential to end the crisis” caused by Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland last year, without sacrificing sovereignty.

Trump’s earlier threats to seize control of Greenland were met with high resistance on the island of 56,000 people. A January 2025 poll found that 85 percent of Greenlanders opposed becoming part of the US.

What military rights does the US already have in Greenland?

A substantial number. Under a 1951 treaty, the US has broad overflight and basing rights on the island.

In addition to giving the US the right to build bases and maintain personnel, the treaty also stipulates that the US can “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft”.

As part of the treaty, the US currently operates a Space Force base in a remote part of northwestern Greenland – the Pituffik Space Base. It has more than 100 personnel stationed there.

What would actually change under this new agreement?

That largely remains to be seen. Trump said the US will “immediately” begin building up a large military presence on Greenland. However, the US already had the right to build bases and send personnel there under the 1951 treaty.

Imran Bayoumi, a former Pentagon official, told the Reuters news agency that it would be new if the US could now build bases unilaterally, but “it seems that Washington could have achieved a lot of these ⁠objectives through diplomacy and dialogue without straining the broader US-NATO relationship.”

Trump has also said the US will support Greenlanders with “development and construction”, without elaborating.

Richard Weitz, a fellow at the NATO Defense College, told Al Jazeera the deal “defuses perhaps one of the most severe sources of internal tension” within NATO.

While Trump “backed down and settled for less” than he sought with respect to Greenland, he still “got pretty much everything he wanted, except formal annexation”, added Weitz.

Saudi Arabia has intensified air strikes against Houthi positions in Yemen as the Iran backed group expands its territorial gains along the Red Sea coast, opening a new front in the wider Middle East war and adding pressure to already disrupted global energy supplies.

The Houthis have swept through several Yemeni towns and seized islands near the Bab el Mandeb Strait, a strategically important maritime route connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. The group has also released footage showing its fighters capturing armoured vehicles from Saudi backed forces.

Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree claimed that the group had shot down a Saudi F 15 fighter jet and said Saudi Arabia had conducted as many as 450 air strikes in Yemen during the week. Saudi authorities have not confirmed the aircraft claim, while officials supporting the internationally recognised Yemeni government have acknowledged that Saudi and allied forces are carrying out strikes against Houthi positions.

Saudi Arabia faces growing security pressure

The escalation has brought the conflict closer to Saudi territory. The Houthis have repeatedly launched attacks toward Saudi Arabia over the past week, prompting alarms in cities across the kingdom’s south and west.

Saudi Arabia said its air defenses intercepted a Houthi drone south of Mecca before it entered restricted airspace over the holy city. Riyadh described the incident as a serious escalation because of the threat to religious sites. The Houthis denied targeting Mecca and accused Saudi Arabia of using the incident for propaganda.

The United States has also tightened its travel warning for Saudi Arabia, barring government employees from travelling within 20 miles of the Yemen border.

The latest escalation marks a sharp deterioration after several years in which the Saudi led conflict in Yemen had largely quietened under a ceasefire. The Houthis declared a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia in July and resumed attacks on areas in the kingdom before making rapid gains against forces aligned with the Saudi backed Yemeni government.

Energy markets face another shock

The renewed fighting is particularly significant because global energy markets are already under pressure from disruptions caused by the wider war involving Iran.

An attack blamed on Iran aligned fighters in Iraq last week knocked out Saudi Arabia’s East West Pipeline, an important route that allows the kingdom to move oil without relying entirely on the Strait of Hormuz.

Traders estimate that a prolonged closure of the pipeline could affect as much as 4% of global oil supply. Saudi Arabia has not given a timetable for restoring operations, although U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said oil should begin flowing through the pipeline within days.

Brent crude was trading around $108 a barrel on Wednesday, close to its highest level since May. The average U.S. retail diesel price also reached a record above $6.30 a gallon.

The simultaneous disruption around the Strait of Hormuz and Saudi Arabia’s alternative export infrastructure increases the vulnerability of global energy markets to further regional escalation.

Washington faces another difficult choice

The developments also create a new challenge for the United States.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke with President Donald Trump last week seeking additional military support. So far, U.S. assistance has been limited to intelligence support.

The United States previously conducted a two month bombing campaign against the Houthis in 2025 before Trump announced a ceasefire with the group.

Washington now faces competing pressures. Greater support for Saudi Arabia could help contain the Houthi advance and protect regional energy infrastructure, but deeper military involvement could also expand the U.S. role in another theatre of the Middle East war.

What’s next

The immediate concern is whether the Houthi advance can be contained before the fighting causes further disruption to Saudi energy infrastructure and shipping routes.

For Saudi Arabia, the challenge is to push back against the Houthis while preventing the conflict from developing into a broader regional confrontation.

For global markets, the key issue will be whether disruptions to Saudi oil infrastructure remain temporary. Continued attacks on energy facilities or shipping routes could place additional pressure on already strained supplies.

The developments in Yemen therefore carry consequences well beyond the country’s existing conflict. The combination of Houthi territorial gains, pressure on Saudi Arabia and disruption to major energy routes has created another potential source of instability for the global oil market.

With information from Reuters.

The European Union is preparing to use a broader range of economic measures to reduce what European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described as an unsustainable trade deficit with China.

Speaking to the European Parliament on Wednesday, von der Leyen said the imbalance had reached a critical point, with the EU running a goods trade deficit with China equivalent to around €1 billion ($1.15 billion) a day last year.

She warned that Europe was experiencing what she described as a second “China shock”, with growing Chinese industrial exports contributing to pressure on European manufacturing and raising concerns about deindustrialisation.

Europe seeks concrete results

The issue has become a priority in EU China relations as European governments seek to address the growing imbalance through negotiations as well as economic policy tools.

EU leaders asked the European Commission in June to deliver results from its dialogue with Beijing and ensure that the bloc had sufficient instruments to protect its economic interests.

European Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic, who is leading the discussions, has said he wants tangible progress by October.

Von der Leyen said cooperation remained in both sides’ interests but warned that the EU was prepared to move beyond dialogue if negotiations failed to produce results.

“We will use all the tools at our disposal to rebalance our relationship,” she said.

The approach reflects a broader European effort to reduce economic vulnerabilities without completely severing commercial ties with China, one of the EU’s most important trading partners.

Critical minerals add to concerns

Trade is not the only area creating pressure on the relationship. The EU also remains heavily dependent on China for several critical raw materials, including rare earth elements that are essential for industries such as electronics, renewable energy, defense and advanced manufacturing.

Von der Leyen said the EU needed to accelerate efforts to secure supplies and build strategic reserves.

The European Commission plans to establish a European corporation focused on critical raw materials to help the bloc secure and stockpile essential resources.

What’s next

The EU’s approach is likely to combine negotiations with measures aimed at strengthening its own industrial capacity and reducing dependence on Chinese supply chains.

For Beijing, the growing European focus on trade imbalances, industrial competition and critical minerals could create additional pressure to make concessions while preserving access to the European market.

For the EU, however, reducing the deficit will require more than trade restrictions. Europe will also need to expand domestic production, diversify suppliers and address the competitiveness challenges facing its own industries.

The October deadline for trade talks could therefore become an important test of whether Brussels and Beijing can reach practical agreements or whether the EU moves toward a more defensive economic relationship with China.

With information from Reuters.

LONDON — Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, have moved their two children to a new school over security concerns, a spokesperson said Tuesday, just weeks after the family returned to the U.K. to make a fresh start.

“The decision for the children to move school was taken following a discussion with the family’s security team about the practicalities of their current arrangements,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5, had only just started the new school year in England after the family relocated from California in late August.

British media reported that the distance of the school run and the heavy traffic on the route were among the concerns raised by the couple and their security team. The family is living at a private, non-royal residence outside of London.

“This decision should in no way be interpreted as a reflection on the school or the exceptional care the children have received there,” the statement added.

The news followed reports that Harry and Meghan were awaiting a new risk assessment from the government committee that reviews protection of VIPs, including a decision on whether the family should be entitled to publicly funded security now that they live in the U.K.

Harry and Meghan gave up their royal duties and moved to California more than six years ago, saying they wanted to earn their own living. They later signed lucrative contracts with Netflix and Spotify.

Although relations with the rest of the royal family have soured since then, Harry has recently expressed an interest in reconciliation so he could spend more time with his father, King Charles III.

Harry has fought a long-running battle with Britain’s government for the restoration of publicly funded police protection, which was canceled when the couple gave up their royal roles.

He had previously said he couldn’t “see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the U.K.” without a security guarantee.

Earlier this month, the king reiterated that Harry and Meghan remain non-working members of the royal family and would continue to refrain from using formal royal titles, such as his royal highness and her royal highness, as they have done since 2020. The couple said they were surprised by the way the monarch issued that statement because they were given little time to review it.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being treated not simply as a technology sector but as a strategic capability tied to economic power, national security and geopolitical competition. Recent warnings from leading AI researchers and executives that increasingly autonomous systems could pose extreme risks have intensified debate over whether development should be slowed.

Yet the same warnings could make a slowdown less likely. If advanced AI can provide major military, economic and technological advantages, governments may view continued development as a strategic necessity. The result could be a paradox in which growing concerns about the dangers of AI encourage countries to accelerate the race to control it.

The United States and China are at the center of this competition. Both governments have strong incentives to maintain their technological advantage, while companies are investing enormous sums in data centers, chips and computing infrastructure.

The scale of investment shows why reversing course would be difficult. Goldman Sachs estimates that cumulative global AI spending through the end of the decade could reach as much as 5% of global GDP. At the same time, financial markets are increasingly sensitive to whether the extraordinary investment in AI infrastructure will ultimately generate sufficient economic returns.

Why it matters

The central question is no longer simply whether AI development should be regulated. It is whether governments can realistically agree to meaningful limits while competing for technological dominance.

A country that slows development unilaterally risks allowing competitors to move ahead. That creates a classic security dilemma: measures intended to reduce risk can themselves create strategic vulnerability.

The problem is particularly significant because AI has applications far beyond commercial technology. Advanced systems could affect cybersecurity, intelligence, military planning, financial markets, biotechnology and critical infrastructure.

That makes AI different from many previous technology debates. Governments may be willing to regulate individual applications, but they are less likely to accept restrictions that could permanently reduce their strategic advantage.

The investment dilemma

The AI boom has already become deeply connected to wider economic growth.

Companies are spending heavily on computing capacity and data centers, while investors have placed enormous valuations on firms expected to benefit from AI adoption. A significant slowdown could therefore have consequences far beyond technology companies.

Morgan Stanley has estimated that almost $200 billion in U.S. data center projects were cancelled or delayed amid political resistance to new infrastructure. The bank has also argued that capital expenditure linked to AI could account for roughly one third of U.S. GDP growth over the current period.

This creates another obstacle to restraint. AI investment is no longer only a corporate decision. It has become connected to employment, infrastructure, financial markets and national economic growth.

The longer the investment cycle continues, the more difficult it becomes for governments and companies to voluntarily step away from it.

Washington and Beijing

The geopolitical dimension makes a coordinated slowdown even harder.

U.S. policymakers increasingly view technological leadership in AI as an element of national power. China, meanwhile, sees AI development as part of its broader effort to reduce dependence on Western technology and strengthen its own economic and strategic capabilities.

That means Washington and Beijing have incentives to monitor each other’s progress rather than simply establish limits.

The political rhetoric surrounding AI increasingly reflects this competition. Trump has portrayed opposition to AI infrastructure as benefiting China, while Chinese state media has described warnings about AI as part of a broader geopolitical strategy against Beijing.

The result is a familiar strategic dilemma: if either side believes the other may continue developing advanced AI, neither has much incentive to slow down first.

Can international rules work?

Meaningful AI restrictions would ultimately require international cooperation.

Individual countries can establish domestic safety standards, require companies to conduct risk assessments or impose restrictions on specific applications. But those measures cannot fully address the geopolitical problem if competitors outside those jurisdictions remain free to develop more powerful systems.

The nuclear comparison illustrates the difficulty. The first nuclear weapon was developed in 1945, but the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty did not emerge until 1968. Even after the treaty, nuclear proliferation continued beyond the five states formally recognized as nuclear-weapon states.

AI could present an even more complicated challenge because it is not confined to a small number of military facilities. Its development involves thousands of companies, researchers, data centers and computing systems spread across multiple countries.

Economic security could become the new arms race

The most important shift may be that AI competition does not need to resemble a conventional military arms race to produce similar strategic pressures.

Advanced AI could generate advantages in productivity, financial markets, scientific research, cybersecurity and military technology. Falling behind could therefore be perceived as an economic and national security threat even without the development of an explicit weapon.

This could produce what might be described as mutually assured economic dependence. Countries may recognize the dangers of uncontrolled AI while simultaneously believing that abandoning the technology would be even more dangerous.

That dynamic makes voluntary restraint increasingly difficult.

Implications and analysis

The growing warnings about AI may therefore have an unintended geopolitical consequence: they could accelerate the race they are intended to constrain.

If governments become convinced that highly capable AI could fundamentally alter national power, they are unlikely to leave its development to private companies or accept restrictions that allow competitors to gain an advantage. Instead, the technology could become more closely integrated with national security policy.

That could eventually mean greater government involvement in AI companies, computing infrastructure, semiconductor supply chains and access to advanced models.

The biggest danger is therefore not simply that AI becomes too powerful to control technologically. It may become too strategically important for governments to willingly slow down.

For meaningful safeguards to emerge, major powers would need to treat AI safety as a shared security interest rather than another arena of geopolitical competition. Without that shift, every warning about the potential consequences of advanced AI could strengthen the argument for moving faster.

The paradox is clear: the more dangerous AI becomes, the more governments may feel they need to control it. And the more they compete to control it, the harder it becomes to slow the race.

With information from Reuters.

NEW YORK CITY: Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the UN warned the Security Council on Thursday that “the international community cannot call for de-escalation” in Yemen “while at the same time allowing the continued flow of support that enables this (Houthi) militia to continue its hostile and criminal conduct.”

The warning from Abdulaziz Alwasil came during an emergency council session to discuss Houthi attacks against the Kingdom this week. It was requested by the UK, the penholder on Yemen, and Bahrain.

He said the latest strikes on Saudi cities, which began on Tuesday, were not an isolated episode but “an extension of a systematic, hostile approach pursued by this militia since its coup against the legitimate Yemeni government in 2014,” and part of a pattern that has also targeted commercial shipping and threatened freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait.

He said a press statement by the council on Aug. 7 condemning Houthi missile strikes on the Kingdom since July 13, and attacks against commercial vessels since July 22, had gone unheeded, and the militia had answered the international warnings with further escalation.

Alwasil said Saudi Arabia had backed nearly every major effort to end the Yemen war — including the Gulf Initiative, the transitional period, the National Dialogue Conference, the Geneva, Kuwait and Stockholm talks, a 2021 initiative and the UN-brokered truce in 2022 — but the Houthis had repeatedly met those efforts with renewed violence.

“My country affirms its legitimate right to defend itself, its citizens and residents, and to safeguard our national resources,” he said, adding that Riyadh “will not hesitate to take all measures necessary to deter Houthi attacks and to protect our security, sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

He called on the council to enforce Resolutions 2216, which imposed an arms embargo and sanctions on the Houthis, and 2722, which demanded an immediate halt to Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, and to send “a clear and firm message” that leaves no room for misinterpretation that attacks on the Kingdom must stop.

Yemen’s ambassador, Abdullah Alsaadi, affirmed Sanaa’s “full solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its leadership, government and people,” and its “absolute rejection of the use of any part of the Yemeni territory as a platform for launching missiles and drones, or for threatening the security of the Kingdom or any neighboring country.”

He said the attacks amounted to the “hijacking” of Yemen’s own sovereign decisions over war and peace, carried out by a militia that operates outside of state institutions and was “militarily and technically supported by the Iranian terrorist regime.”

Saudi Arabia had shown “a great degree of restraint,” Alsaadi said, and been “the principal partner of the Yemeni people and state” in supporting institutions, salaries and services throughout the war. But he cautioned that “restraint should not be misconstrued as weakness.”

The security of Yemen and of Saudi Arabia “cannot be separated from one another,” he added, as he called for full enforcement of the arms embargo on the Houthis, and accountability for those who finance and arm the group.

NEW YORK CITY: A UN Security Council committee tasked with overseeing sanctions on Iran remained blocked for a fourth consecutive quarter on Thursday.

Council members traded accusations over the panel’s inertia, against a backdrop of intensifying US-Iran hostilities and a landmark decision by the UN’s nuclear watchdog to refer Tehran back to the council for the first time in 20 years.

The 1737 Sanctions Committee has not met in the year since it was reestablished with the backing of most council members, and no report on its activities was presented during Thursday’s session after China and Russia once again blocked it.

The impasse has also stalled the appointment of experts to a panel, the mandate for which is due to expire on Sept. 27, that is intended to support the sanctions-monitoring work of the committee.

The dispute dates back to August 2025 when France, Germany and the UK triggered a so-called “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, to reimpose pre-2015 UN sanctions on Tehran.

China and Russia dispute the legality of that move, arguing that all sanctions lapsed on Oct. 19, 2025, with the scheduled expiration of the deal, and so the council’s consideration of the Iranian nuclear file was effectively ended.

Against this backdrop of an unresolved procedural fight, the Security Council session on Thursday was dominated by more recent developments: the International Atomic Energy Agency’s formal referral of Iran to the Security Council and the General Assembly this week; and the continuing military exchanges between Iran and the US.

The agency’s board of governors voted 23-3 on Wednesday to refer Iran over its noncompliance with international nuclear safeguards, the first such referral in two decades. China, Niger and Russia voted no and eight countries abstained.

Ambassador Jennifer Locetta, the US alternate representative for special political affairs, told the council that the IAEA “has not received information from Iran regarding the status of its declared nuclear materials or facilities” and has been denied access to carry out verification procedures.

The agency’s director general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, has again urged Tehran to engage constructively with the process, she added. Locetta dismissed Iranian claims that inspections were being blocked as a result of security concerns, noting that “Ukraine has been a worse and more constant war zone” and yet IAEA inspectors had still been able to work there throughout the conflict.

Washington, she said, would “look to partners in the coming days to weigh options” for strengthening the sanctions regime.

China’s deputy permanent representative, Sun Lei, voted against the meeting’s agenda and placed the blame for the deteriorating situation squarely on Washington. He said the US strikes and campaign of “maximum pressure” on Iran were the “primary causes” of the crisis.

A memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran in June was “undermined shortly after it took effect” by renewed military clashes, he added, and Washington had since “intensified unilateral sanctions” and “launched a new round of military strikes” against Tehran.

Beijing, he said, opposed further use of force and called for a return to efforts to reach a political and diplomatic settlement based on “equality and mutual respect.”

France’s ambassador to the UN, Jerome Bonnafont, said Iran’s stockpile of more than 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent had “no credible civilian justification” and was sufficient for about 10 nuclear devices.

He cited the latest report by Grossi as saying the situation “raises an issue of proliferation and should be addressed with the greatest urgency.”

France backed a US-drafted resolution for the renewal of the expert panel’s mandate, Bonnafont added. He called for the full reopening to international shipping of the Strait of Hormuz, and offered a French naval presence there, alongside the UK, to help secure freedom of navigation.

Pakistan’s permanent representative, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, told the council that the “upsurge of violence in the Middle East in the last few days” was “unsettling for the prospects of peace,” and said Islamabad was engaged in back-channel diplomacy to encourage de-escalation.

He urged “all sides to exercise restraint” and voiced concern over the continuing divisions within the council.

A memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran in June, which paused hostilities and set a 60-day window for a final nuclear agreement, expired on Aug. 17 without any deal.

The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed to international shipping, attacks on vessels have continued, and the US has revoked sanctions waivers on Iranian oil exports. A Security Council vote on renewal of the Iran sanctions expert panel’s mandate is scheduled for Sept. 17.

GAZA: An Israeli strike in Gaza on Thursday killed a family including two children, Palestinian hospital and security sources said.

“The bodies of four members of the Ahmad family were recovered in pieces after an Israeli strike hit a house in the Beit Lahia Project area in the northern Gaza Strip,” an official at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City said, identifying the children as aged 12 and eight.

The Israeli military, contacted by AFP, said it was checking.

London, United Kingdom – In a wheat field near High Wycombe in the rolling English countryside, Alex Nelms watched the harvest on his farm die in a matter of days.

His crop had looked strong until the first heatwave came in May, when temperatures surpassed 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit) just as his milling wheat entered its grain-fill phase, the critical weeks when the plant fattens its kernels.

“It just killed everything stone dead,” he told Al Jazeera. “Everything was finished really early, and when we were sort of full of optimism and hope, it was scuppered almost overnight.”

Nelms farms just over 2,000 acres (809 hectares) of arable land in south Buckinghamshire, on a business his grandparents founded in 1955. His uncle, who has worked the farm for more than 40 years, has just suffered the worst harvest of his career.

Last month, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said almost three-quarters of England, 71.3 percent, remained in drought. Rainfall in August reached just 34 percent of what would normally be expected by that point in the month, Defra said, and reservoir levels were 18.2 percentage points below where they should be for the time of year.

“We’re totally reliant on Mother Nature,” Nelms said, and nature did not deliver this year.

After a historically dry spring and a run of summer heatwaves, the farm is down roughly 1,000 tonnes on its average harvest, a shortfall of some $270,000 in revenue.

The farm, tucked in the Chiltern Hills, a steep, long ridge of white limestone rock, has no irrigation and never will.

“That has serious knock-on effects on our cash flow,” he said. A third consecutive difficult year would mean hard conversations with his bank and landlord, and farming to minimise risk rather than maximise output, “consequently, probably producing less food”.

‘Financial crisis point’

The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) says farmers are at a “financial crisis point” after the worst drought in 50 years, with historically low harvests, stunted grass growth, rising fuel and fertiliser costs, and a severe outbreak of bluetongue disease in livestock.

The union puts the gross production value loss of wheat at approximately $499m and the cost of replacing a shortfall in forage at roughly $45m.

NFU president Tom Bradshaw has said farmers now lack “breathing space” and are “increasingly exposed to geopolitical shocks, as well as repeated weather extremes, animal disease and global wars”.

He believes action is needed now to ensure the future of British farming “and enable the next generation to keep producing the nation’s food”.

To manage the risk, Nelms is diversifying, planting oilseed rape again on about 350 acres (142 hectares) for the first time in 20 years. He says that the crop’s usual insecticide protection, neonicotinoid seed treatments, is now banned, leaving it exposed to cabbage stem flea beetle and to game birds that can “absolutely nibble, eat, and destroy a crop”.

Growing it also means breaking a continuous wheat rotation that has kept a soil-borne disease called “Take-all”.

Tax allowances would make investing in grain storage and diversified income worthwhile, he said, as well as government-backed bridging loans, modelled on COVID-era support, to survive a bad year without permanent damage.

It is the kind of relief the NFU is pressing the government to provide nationally.

The union wants an interest-free “Keep Britain Growing” loan tied to drought losses, help covering the cost of disposing of livestock lost to bluetongue, faster planning permission for on-farm reservoirs, and clearer rules letting farmers access water as soon as levels allow, echoing Nelms’s case for storage on his farm.

“Drought conditions will continue to worsen until we receive sustained rainfall across the country and we still all have a role to play in conserving precious water supplies,” according to Philip Duffy, the Environment Agency’s chief executive, in a statement shared by Defra.

The Environment Agency has applied for a drought order to restrict abstraction from the River Severn, and 10 water companies, serving 30 million customers, now have restrictions in place.

“A few days or even weeks of wetter weather cannot reverse the impacts of several months of exceptionally dry conditions,” added Duffy.

Defra noted that the first meaningful rains since June have fallen but they have been patchy, so reservoirs and groundwater are still declining even as a handful of rivers see brief upticks in flow.

Despite the losses, Nelms is hopeful about farmers pulling together – sharing labour, machinery and market routes. He points to the Central Chiltern Farmer Cluster, where growers meet to talk through their problems and find solutions together.

“We’re working together, not competing with each other,” he said.

For a farm like Nelms’s, with no irrigation and no water in reserve, that patchiness is the problem. Soil parched from months without rain needs to absorb sustained rainfall before groundwater can even begin to recharge, let alone refill the reservoirs a future harvest might depend on.

“Our climate has changed,” Water Minister Emma Hardy, who chairs the National Drought Group, said late last month, “and we will continue to take all action necessary.”

A woman was left gobsmacked when she was taken for a ‘full body search’ at the airport after she set off the security scanners twice with her hand luggage. She was dumbfounded by the reason

Airport security is stressful enough without triggering a major alert. Between removing your belt and wrestling electronics out of your bag, it’s easy to feel flustered.

But one woman is warning travellers to avoid a simple pre-flight habit that got her pulled aside by security not once, but twice. George, a lawyer who posts on TikTok as @awomancalledgeorge, was travelling with just a carry-on when she became the subject of a “double security alert.”

After her bag was pulled from the scanner, she was surrounded by security staff. She explained: “The scanner seemed to have picked up traces of something that could be dangerous.” The subsequent swabs of her hands and bag also came back positive.

“It’s a double problem,” she said. “When you know you haven’t got anything, you still feel guilty. I’m a lawyer, and I was standing there thinking I know I haven’t done anything wrong, but you still feel guilty.”

The alert led to a full-body search, and security staff had to unpack and swab every single item in her bag.

George shared that she’d “never seen anything like it” when her “hand luggage bag got pulled,” and people appeared and were talking “really seriously” to her.

She recalled having to go off and have a “full body search” and they “had to unpack every single thing” in her bag. Staff “swabbed most of it”, before letting her go.

What caused the drama at airport security?

It turns out that what had set it off was “hand cream and body lotion”. George had a shower before heading to the airport and slathered herself in the really nice creams.

But she urged others to take the “life lesson” from her and not do the same thing. She explained: “It turns out the glycerin in hand cream and body lotion can trigger the security systems.

“Who knew? I certainly didn’t know. Having gone through that, I shaln’t be doing that again”.

What are swabs at the airport checking for?

Security swabs primarily test for trace chemical residues associated with explosives.

Staff wipe a small area of a passenger’s hands, bag, shoes, or electronics, and analyse the sample for microscopic particles. Because these chemicals can transfer from harmless everyday sources – like lotions, soaps, or certain fertilizers – a positive swab doesn’t automatically mean you’ve handled anything illegal.

Less commonly, depending on the country and situation, swabs can also be used to detect drug residue or other prohibited substances.