Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • Maersk is still shipping weapons parts to Israel despite denial, new report says

    Maersk is still shipping weapons parts to Israel despite denial, new report says

    A joint investigation released Monday by the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) and Oxfam Denmark has thrown into sharp question public claims from Danish shipping conglomerate Maersk that it has refused to transport weapons to Israel since the outbreak of the 2023 Gaza conflict. The investigation, the centerpiece of the grassroots #MaskOffMaersk accountability campaign, alleges that Maersk has overseen the consistent shipment of critical small arms parts and large explosive components to top Israeli weapons manufacturers, in direct contradiction of the firm’s stated policies.

    According to the report’s authors, the shipments include small-caliber bullet and rifle parts identical to those used in the 2024 killing of 6-year-old Palestinian child Hind Rajab, a death that drew international outcry, as well as thousands of other civilian casualties in Gaza. The cargo also includes empty casings for the 900-kilogram MK-84 “bunker buster” bombs that the Israeli military has deployed extensively across Gaza and southern Lebanon.

    Investigators cross-referenced shipping records and official bills of lading to trace a steady stream of components from 10 suppliers – nine based in the United States, and one in India – to Israeli defense contractors via Maersk-owned vessels. The largest intended recipient is Elbit Systems, Israel’s biggest weapons manufacturer, which acquired former state-owned defense producer IMI Systems in 2018. Between October 2023 and July 2025 alone, the report documents more than 1.42 million kilograms of bullet cores and brass cartridge casing cups shipped from three U.S. firms to IMI, parts destined for 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm rifle ammunition, the standard rounds used by Israeli infantry forces.

    Additional shipments identified in the report include MK-84 bomb casings from U.S. defense giant General Dynamics, 230-kilogram MPR-series general-purpose bomb parts from Elbit Systems of America, and mortar system components from four additional U.S. suppliers. India’s Sri Kaliswari Metal Powders also used Maersk vessels to ship aluminum powder for explosive manufacturing to Israel, according to the investigation.

    “Their actual practice is to completely ignore the policies that they have on the books,” Nadya Tannous, international coordinator for the #MaskOffMaersk campaign, told Middle East Eye in an interview. “Our question to Maersk is: What’s a weapon? You don’t ship weapons, so what is a weapon?”

    When reached for comment by Middle East Eye on the report’s allegations, Maersk reiterated its longstanding public position: “From the outset of the conflict, we have maintained a strict policy of not shipping weapons or ammunition to Israel. As the conflict escalated, we have further enhanced our screening and acceptance procedures and implemented additional compliance measures. Our compliance processes for military-related cargo are based on EU, US, and Danish laws including the Wassenaar Arrangement, the EU’s common military list and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations as well as UN resolutions.”

    Elbit Systems, which generates roughly $2 billion in annual revenue and employs 20,000 people globally, supplies approximately 85 percent of Israel’s drones and land-based military equipment. The Gaza health ministry reports that at least 72,980 people have been killed and 173,170 wounded in Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza, and UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine Francesca Albanese noted in a 2024 report that Israeli defense firms including Elbit have reaped massive profits from the conflict, describing the Gaza war as a “profitable venture” for the sector. Elbit has long been a target of pro-Palestinian activism across Europe and North America over its ties to Israeli military operations.

    Unlike many other pro-Palestinian campaigns targeting corporate ties to Israel, the PYM-Oxfam Denmark report does not call for a broad boycott of Israel. Instead, the campaign is explicitly calling for a global consumer and industry boycott of Maersk, and demanding immediate policy change from the shipping giant. Tannous emphasized that the campaign is part of a broader push to hold corporations accountable for facilitating what pro-Palestinian activists and numerous international legal experts have labeled genocide in Gaza.

    “We don’t want policy statements, we want material change from the company,” Tannous said. “This campaign is part of a larger nexus of accountability for the Israeli government and the Israeli military. It falls within the corporate accountability campaign for those corporations that facilitated the genocide.”

    The report lays out three clear demands for Maersk: immediately halt all shipments of weapons components to Israel, conduct comprehensive independent human rights audits of all global operations, and end all commercial activity that supports Israeli military operations, warning that continued shipments leave the company open to charges of complicity in war crimes and genocide in Gaza.

    This is not the first time Maersk has faced public pressure over its links to Israeli military activity. Protests have been held consistently outside the firm’s Copenhagen headquarters for more than two years, with a large demonstration held just last month over Maersk’s role in resupplying Israel amid its multi-front regional conflicts. Multiple countries have already moved to restrict military cargo shipments to Israel, with Spain banning the use of its ports for military-bound cargo to Israel in May 2024.

    Tannous noted that Maersk’s near-ubiquitous presence in global port infrastructure makes the company a fair target for collective action by people of conscience around the world. “Maersk is everywhere, right? They’re in every port, for the most part, they use our roads, they use our bridges, they use our public infrastructure,” she said. “What does it mean for us as people of conscience around the world, who majority understand and know that this genocide is ongoing, it’s wrong… to not lose hope in terms of being able to actually affect change for those in power? We demand accountability. There are many methods to do that, and we hope that this report is one of the ways of offering really valuable and precise information.”

    Public records show Maersk’s leadership has sent mixed signals on its military cargo policies in recent months. In March 2025, Maersk’s CEO told shareholders that the firm never transports weapons to active conflict zones, but allows other types of military-related cargo – though he declined to clarify the exact distinction between the two categories. The company has also not publicly revised its policy on transporting components for F-35 fighter jets, which the Israeli Air Force has used extensively to bombard residential areas of Gaza. In a July 2025 statement, Maersk only noted that the full F-35 supply chain is controlled by a coalition of partner governments, an argument that echoes previous framing used by other firms tied to weapons exports to Israel.

    That same July 2025 statement did include one major concession: Maersk announced it would reassess all commercial ties to firms linked to illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, a move that came after months of sustained pressure from pro-Palestinian activists. The company stated it already adheres to international standards for responsible business practice, and will align any operational changes with guidance from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The OHCHR first published a database of firms operating in and profiting from illegal Israeli settlements in 2020, naming more than 100 companies that contribute to human rights abuses against Palestinians.

    In the same July statement, Maersch also pushed back against Albanese’s 2024 report on corporate complicity in human rights abuses in Palestine, claiming her report drew on unvalidated third-party data.

  • Warrantless spying extension stalls in US Senate

    Warrantless spying extension stalls in US Senate

    In a surprising late-night vote that marked a major win for digital privacy protections, a Republican-led push to extend the controversial warrantless surveillance authority under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) failed to advance in the U.S. Senate Friday. Seven GOP senators broke with their party’s leadership to join all but one congressional Democrat in opposing the measure, delivering a critical setback to backers of the sprawling surveillance program just days before the existing authority is set to expire.

    Section 702, first enacted in 2008 and renewed multiple times since, grants the federal government broad power to conduct warrantless surveillance of electronic communications belonging to noncitizens located outside the United States. For years, however, civil liberties and privacy advocates have sounded alarms over systemic abuse of the law, documenting repeated instances where U.S. intelligence agencies have improperly used the framework to spy on American citizens, bypassing traditional court oversight required for domestic surveillance.

    The expiration of the current authorization is scheduled for next Friday, leaving congressional leaders and the White House with limited time to broker a new deal on the future of the program. Privacy campaigners immediately hailed the failed procedural vote as a landmark moment for civil liberties. Sean Vitka, executive director of the advocacy group Demand Progress, framed the result as a “resounding defeat for opponents of privacy,” emphasizing that the outcome makes clear no renewal of Section 702 can move forward without mandatory warrant requirements for accessing Americans’ data.

    “Clear majorities of Americans across the nation, and in Congress, do not want the government bypassing the courts to hoover up our private, personal data,” Vitka said. “If the White House and congressional leadership want to renew FISA, they have to stop ignoring this obvious fact and allow votes on real privacy reforms.”

    While privacy advocates celebrated the interim win, experts and observers noted the vote outcome was partially shaped by growing bipartisan backlash against former President Donald Trump’s recent nomination of Bill Pulte, a loyalist, to serve as acting director of national intelligence. Multiple senators who have previously supported extending Section 702 switched their positions to oppose advancing the bill in protest of the nomination.

    Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, called the blocked vote “an interim victory” but warned of the risks tied to putting the surveillance program under the control of a politically aligned unconfirmed intelligence leader. Goitein pointed out that Pulte, who currently leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), is already under investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office for allegations that he misused his position and access to government records to bring unsubstantiated mortgage fraud charges against people Trump views as political enemies.

    “If Pulte can do that with the limited access to Americans’ information he has as head of the [FHFA], imagine what he could do with all the authorities and capabilities of the intelligence community—including, of course, Section 702,” Goitein added. “What wouldn’t make sense? Handing Section 702 to whomever Trump could nominate in Pulte’s place without ensuring that they can’t use it as a tool for domestic spying.”

    Even prominent supporters of Section 702 came out against advancing the bill in the wake of the Pulte nomination. Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat who has long backed extending the surveillance authority, announced he would vote against moving the legislation forward, calling Pulte an “enormously bad choice” who is “grossly unqualified” for the top intelligence post.

    The failed vote sets up a high-stakes showdown over the coming week, as Washington policymakers weigh whether to advance targeted reforms that address longstanding privacy concerns, allow the existing authority to lapse entirely, or negotiate a last-minute deal to salvage the program before the current authorization runs out.

  • When will Taylor Swift get married – fans have some ideas

    When will Taylor Swift get married – fans have some ideas

    For Taylor Swift’s legions of loyal fans, nothing sparks a collective internet mobilization quite like a good mystery. Right now, that mystery is not a secret album drop or an unannounced tour date—it is the global superstar’s upcoming nuptials to Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, and the entire fandom is deep in a full-scale Easter egg hunt for every possible detail of the high-profile wedding.

    Swift, a 14-time Grammy-winner who built her decades-long career on strategically placing hidden clues for fans to decode in everything from album liner notes to social media posts, has remained characteristically coy about the wedding since the couple announced their engagement last August. That Instagram reveal racked up more than 37.5 million likes, and since that day, Swifties across the world have been poring over every hint, public appearance and past pattern to pin down a date, location and other key details of what many have dubbed America’s “royal wedding.”

    The only crumb of context Swift has shared so far came during an appearance on the BBC’s *Graham Norton Show*, where she hinted the event would be large with an extensive guest list—offering no further specifics to satisfy public curiosity. The BBC has reached out to Swift’s team for additional comment, but no new details have emerged.

    This intentional ambiguity has sent internet communities, pop culture analysts and diehard fans spinning out a wide range of theories, from grounded speculation to wildly far-fetched conjecture. For years, Swift’s carefully crafted approach to fan engagement has trained her audience to hunt for hidden foreshadowing in every choice she makes, from outfit choices to website design. But the superstar has long made it clear that personal life milestones are off-limits for Easter egg culture, leaving many fans connecting dots that may not even exist.

    Joanna Weiss, a journalist, co-author of *Taylor Swift: Album by Album* and a Swiftie since the release of 1989, explained that Swift’s unique relationship with her fame is what makes this moment so fascinating. “The way she’s able to build a fandom and a community and seed it with the clever things that she does on the internet made me really appreciate her, not just as an artist, but as a business person, cultural figure, and someone who understands how to navigate and manipulate the culture,” Weiss said.

    The most common speculation centers on the wedding date, with most fans guessing the ceremony will take place this summer, before Kelce returns to NFL training camp in mid-to-late July. Drawing on Swift’s well-documented love of numerology—she has integrated her favorite number 13, a nod to her December 13 birthday, into every era of her career from track listings to tour markings—fans have floated a number of dates that add up to the iconic number. Popular guesses include June 7 (written 07-06 in the U.S., which sums to 13), June 13 (a Saturday, the traditional peak wedding date, and the number itself), and July 6 (06-07, which also adds to 13). Other theories point to July 3 or 4, tying the wedding to both the U.S.’s 250th Independence Day celebration and Swift’s annual tradition of hosting large Fourth of July parties at her Rhode Island coastal estate.

    Caitlin Curley, a marketing student at the University of Galway and member of the university’s Swiftie Society who has followed Swift since 2008’s *Fearless*, notes that any leaked date could be a deliberate decoy to protect the couple’s safety and privacy. “For safety and security reasons, if there was to be a date leaked, it might be because it’s a decoy date. It would drag people’s attention elsewhere,” Curley explained.

    Beyond the date, fans have dissected every other possible detail of the big day: from whether Swift will opt for a romantic lace traditional gown or pair a bridal look with cowboy boots as a nod to her country music roots, to whether Kelce will have a custom groom’s cake, to how Swift’s three beloved cats will be incorporated into the ceremony. Ari Perez-Mejia, a professor, podcaster and long-time Swiftie, joked that fans are already wondering if feline companions Benjamin Button or Olivia will have a role carrying the rings.

    Unlike the tabloid frenzy that has surrounded the wedding, many long-time fans emphasize that their speculation comes from a place of joy, not entitlement. Kristie Frederick Daugherty, a poet, author and Swiftie, told the BBC that across the Swift-centric forums she participates in on Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and Substack, fans overwhelmingly respect Swift’s desire for privacy. “They’re not opining out of entitlement but out of excitement for a singer who has grown up alongside her fans… conjecture has been in the spirit of joy for a person they love finally getting her happy ending,” she said.

    That respect has not stopped less restrained parties from capitalizing on the hype: online prediction markets have launched wagers on the date and location, tabloids have run conflicting anonymous reports about leaked invitations and venues, and gossip about the A-list guest list has spread wildly across social media.

    Guesses about the wedding venue have also hit fever pitch, with multiple cities and states thrown into contention. Swift owns property across multiple U.S. states, and has close personal ties to London, New York City and Nashville, all of which are frequently named as contenders. Kansas City, Missouri, where the couple first met, is also a popular guess, as are the couple’s home states of Pennsylvania (Swift’s birth state) and Ohio (Kelce’s home state).

    A recent viral rumor that Swift had paid another couple to switch their wedding date at a Rhode Island venue near her estate was debunked earlier this month, and a Rhode Island congressman confirmed the singer had “passed” on hosting the event in the state.

    So far, very few details about the guest list have been confirmed. Long-time close friends like Selena Gomez and frequent collaborator Jack Antonoff are widely expected to attend, but neither has confirmed their participation. Even public figures who have close ties to the couple, like Queer Eye star Antoni Porowski (Kelce’s brother-in-law’s friend) and BBC Radio 1 host Greg James (who was personally invited by Swift during her latest album promo), have declined to share any details. So far, only singer Benson Boone and actress Suki Waterhouse have publicly confirmed they will attend, offering no additional context. Fans are also speculating whether Blake Lively, Swift’s one-time close friend who recently drew the singer into her legal dispute with *It Ends With Us* co-star Justin Baldoni, will receive an invitation.

    Many fans hold out hope that a small number of devout long-time fans might receive invitations, pointing to Swift’s history of inviting superfans to private events at her homes. There is also widespread speculation about the bridal party, with many guessing Gomez and Swift’s childhood friend Abigail Anderson Berard, who has appeared in multiple of Swift’s music videos, will fill key roles.

    Dani Winchester, an event planner and co-host of the *Taylearning* podcast, says most fans enjoy the lighthearted speculation around the wedding, but the problem arises when people forget Swift is a private person, not a public spectacle to dissect. “We don’t mind the gamification of Taylor Swift, as it were. It can be fun to speculate – what will the dress look like, who might be a bridesmaid, how big will the wedding be?” Winchester said. “The problem is when people forget that Swift is a real person, and not a video game character.”

    To protect her privacy, many fans speculate Swift could send invitations at the last minute, potentially even notifying guests the day of the wedding to prevent details from leaking ahead of time. While wedding watchers remain skeptical that any concrete details will emerge before the event, Swift’s fanbase plans to continue hunting for clues drawing on everything they have learned about the singer over her decades-long career.

    Even so, most fans told the BBC they are perfectly happy to wait for Swift to share details on her own terms after the wedding is over. “We only enter her personal life in ways that she invites us to,” said Victoria Morton, co-founder of TSwift Dance Party Canada. Though she added that the entire global fan community remains “tremendously excited and waiting on every little detail.”

  • Argentina expands hantavirus probe, sending teams to trap and test rats in Mendoza

    Argentina expands hantavirus probe, sending teams to trap and test rats in Mendoza

    BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – In the wake of an unusual hantavirus outbreak that sickened passengers on an Atlantic cruise ship last month, Argentine health authorities announced Friday they are broadening their investigation into the origins of the virus, launching new field work in the western province of Mendoza even as they wait for critical lab results from tests in the southern city of Ushuaia.

    The rare event that hit the MV Hondius has already killed three people, infected 11 confirmed cases, and put repatriated passengers from more than 20 nations into targeted quarantine. Experts say untangling the outbreak’s origin will fill key gaps in knowledge about the little-studied Andes hantavirus, a strain carried by wild rodents that is endemic to parts of Argentina and Chile. Unique among hantaviruses, the Andes variant is the only one known to spread from person-to-person in some scenarios, making it a particularly high priority for study.

    The first known victims of the outbreak were a Dutch tourist couple who died in April, shortly after disembarking from the cruise which departed from Ushuaia, the southernmost major city on the South American continent located in Tierra del Fuego. Reconstructing the chain of infection has proven challenging, and health officials have acknowledged it may never be possible to pinpoint exactly where the couple contracted the virus before they boarded the vessel. Still, epidemiologists are combing through travel histories, activity timelines and infection data from all confirmed cases to map out how the virus moved through the ship.

    Current working hypotheses among Argentine researchers point to the male tourist being exposed to infected rodent urine or droppings during the couple’s multi-month road trip across Argentina and Chile, before the cruise departed. The standard incubation period for Andes hantavirus ranges from roughly three weeks up to two months, aligning with the timeline of the couple’s travels. The couple visited Malargüe, a city in Mendoza’s famous wine-growing region, during the final leg of their Argentine journey before traveling south to Ushuaia to catch the cruise.

    Shortly after the outbreak was confirmed, Argentina’s national Health Ministry flagged Ushuaia as a potential origin site, sending researchers from the country’s top public health laboratory, the Malbran Institute, to collect wild rodent samples from forested areas around the city. But local officials in Ushuaia — a tourism hub that brands itself as the “End of the World” — have pushed back aggressively against the suggestion. Local authorities note that while Andes hantavirus infects a few dozen people annually in Patagonian regions further north, the pathogen has never been detected in Ushuaia or the broader Tierra del Fuego archipelago. As of Friday, lab results from those Ushuaia rodent samples are still pending.

    The new phase of investigation launching next week will bring together specialists from the Malbran Institute and biologists from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who will conduct rodent trapping and testing in Malargüe, Mendoza between June 8 and 12. Malbran Institute director Claudia Perandones met with CDC representatives in Buenos Aires Friday to finalize plans for the field work. Teams will work in full protective gear to collect blood samples from captured rodents, before shipping the samples back to the main Malbran lab in Buenos Aires for analysis. Officials confirmed full test results could take up to four weeks to complete.

    Global health officials have stressed that the outbreak does not represent a major pandemic risk. The World Health Organization has stated that the overall risk of widespread sustained transmission of Andes hantavirus remains low. Even so, the variant has sparked global concern due to its mortality rate, which can reach 30% among infected people, and the current lack of specific antiviral treatments or approved vaccines for the disease.

  • I wanted to quit Eurovision twice – then won it, says Bangaranga singer Dara

    I wanted to quit Eurovision twice – then won it, says Bangaranga singer Dara

    The 2026 Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna has made history, as Dara, the Bulgarian performer behind the viral hit *Bangaranga*, delivered a landslide victory that secured Bulgaria its first ever champion title in the iconic global contest. What makes the story of this landmark win even more compelling is that Dara nearly walked away from the competition twice before stepping onto the Vienna stage, opening up in a recent interview with BBC Newsbeat about how her struggle to protect her mental health nearly cost her the historic win.

    Dara, an already established 27-year-old artist, first considered turning down the opportunity after she raised concerns over unsatisfactory terms in her initial contest contract. Even after resolving that issue, the anxiety of stepping into the Eurovision spotlight hit her immediately after she was officially announced as Bulgaria’s first contest entry since 2022. Recently diagnosed with ADHD, Dara said the pressure of the high-stakes competition left her physically overwhelmed: “I was shaking in my bed,” she recalled, adding that she spent three hours trying to calm her frayed nerves after the announcement. Fearing that the intense competition schedule would worsen her symptoms, she questioned whether she was worthy of the spot, and worried that pushing through would cause long-term damage to her mental wellbeing that she would never recover from.

    Long known as one of the most high-pressure events in global entertainment, Eurovision pushes participating artists to their limits, requiring them to navigate a grueling packed rehearsal schedule, intense public scrutiny, and a global audience of hundreds of millions. Even former contestants have highlighted the mental toll of the experience: when 2024 United Kingdom representative Olly Alexander was asked what advice he would give to future competing artists by commentator Graham Norton, he simply replied, “Get yourself a really good therapist.”

    Against this backdrop, Dara credits the professional mental health support she received after her ADHD diagnosis with giving her the tools to stay in the competition and ultimately thrive. Working closely with her therapist, she learned strategies to feel grounded in crowded, high-pressure environments, and developed a personal routine of breathing exercises, drawing, journaling, and meditation to keep herself centered amid the chaos. By the time she stepped onto the Vienna stage, that preparation had paid off: “I’ve never felt more calm on stage, more secure,” she said of her performance.

    That poised, personality-filled performance was exactly what won over global voters. Going into the contest, Dara was ranked as a little-known outside favorite, but her quirky, polished performance of *Bangaranga* — which featured sharp, clever choreography and one of the most memorable hooks in recent contest history — earned her a record-breaking points margin, delivering one of the most decisive victories in Eurovision history. Even as votes from across the continent poured in, Dara said she remained centered: “I opened my heart and just kept repeating, ‘Thank you God for putting me on that stage and for these people around me.’”

    Within days of her victory, Bulgarian national broadcaster BNT confirmed that Sofia, the country’s capital, will serve as the host city for the 2027 Eurovision Song Contest, a historic milestone for the small Eastern European nation. When Dara returned to Sofia, she was greeted by thousands of cheering fans who gathered to welcome their first Eurovision champion home. The singer will play a central role in planning and promoting next year’s host city celebrations.

    Despite the global fame and historic achievement that now cement her place in Eurovision’s hall of fame, Dara says her definition of long-term success has nothing to do with career milestones. Looking ahead, the singer says her top priorities are far more personal: “I want to have kids some day,” she said. “I want to be healthy and that is much more important than being successful in my career. Being successful as a human being is pretty big on my list.”

  • The cash-in-the-sofa saga that just won’t go away for South Africa’s president

    The cash-in-the-sofa saga that just won’t go away for South Africa’s president

    Four years after a little-noticed break-in at a private South African farm, what started as a local theft allegation has ballooned into a constitutional crisis that threatens to end the presidency of Cyril Ramaphosa. Dubbed the “Farmgate” scandal — a parallel to the U.S. Watergate affair that brought down a sitting president — this controversy has followed a years-long twisting path that has only now put Ramaphosa within reach of impeachment.

    The origins of the scandal date back to 2020, when intruders broke into Ramaphosa’s private Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo province, making off with a stash of U.S. dollars hidden inside a sofa. Ramaphosa has confirmed the stolen sum totaled $580,000, though critics have alleged the actual amount was closer to $4 million. The details of the break-in remained hidden from public view for two years, until Arthur Fraser, a former head of South Africa’s state intelligence agency and close ally of ex-president Jacob Zuma (whom Ramaphosa succeeded in office), filed an explosive dossier with police that laid out the theft and accused Ramaphosa of covering up the incident from law enforcement and tax regulators.

    Fraser’s allegations also raised questions over compliance with South Africa’s strict foreign exchange control laws, since the unreported cash was held in U.S. dollars. Initial official inquiries cleared Ramaphosa of wrongdoing: the South African Reserve Bank found no violations of exchange control legislation, and the public protector, the body tasked with investigating official abuse of power, also concluded no improper conduct had occurred. But parliamentary leaders moved forward with a formal impeachment probe, appointing an independent panel to review the claims against the president. The panel delivered damning conclusions in 2022, finding “substantial doubt about the legitimacy of the source of the currency that was stolen” and ruling that Ramaphosa had a case to answer over the allegations.

    In 2022, Ramaphosa’s party, the African National Congress (ANC), held an absolute majority in parliament, and bloc voting allowed Ramaphosa’s allies to block the panel’s report from moving forward. The president also launched a legal challenge to strike down the panel’s findings, which he dropped after parliament voted to reject the report. But that block on impeachment was overturned last month by South Africa’s Constitutional Court, which ruled that MPs had violated the constitution by halting the process. The ruling forced parliament to take the unprecedented step of forming a special cross-party committee to evaluate the charges against Ramaphosa and vote on whether to recommend impeachment.

    The political landscape has shifted dramatically since 2022. After the 2024 national election, the ANC lost its decades-long parliamentary majority, forcing Ramaphosa to form a fragile 10-party coalition government. He can no longer rely on a guaranteed bloc of ANC votes to kill the impeachment process.

    Under South African law, a sitting president can be removed from office via impeachment for one of three reasons: a violation of the constitution or national law, serious misconduct, or an inability to carry out the duties of the presidency. Ramaphosa faces accusations falling into the first two categories. If the new impeachment committee recommends moving forward with removal, a full vote of the National Assembly will be held, requiring a two-thirds majority to oust the president.

    Currently, the ANC holds 159 of the assembly’s seats, meaning Ramaphosa only needs 133 MPs to vote against impeachment to survive. Political analyst Sandile Swana told the BBC that most ANC MPs are unlikely to break ranks to remove their own party leader. “The ANC has made it clear that it is not in the business of impeaching its own president, regardless of the facts,” Swana said.

    The biggest uncertainty hangs over the voting intentions of the other parties in Ramaphosa’s governing coalition. Relations between the ANC and the coalition’s second-largest partner, the opposition-aligned Democratic Alliance (DA), have long been strained. DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis has publicly insisted that the committee’s work must proceed “without unnecessary delay.” Makashule Gana, a lawmaker from coalition partner Rise Mzansi, has already been elected to chair the impeachment committee, and has confirmed that the panel’s work will continue despite Ramaphosa’s ongoing legal challenges. A small number of junior coalition partners, including the Patriotic Alliance, have already publicly pledged their support to Ramaphosa and promised to vote against impeachment.

    The entire process could still be derailed by Ramaphosa’s revived legal challenge to the 2022 independent panel’s report, which is scheduled to be heard in court this September. Ramaphosa argues the panel “misconceived its mandate, misjudged the information placed before it and misinterpreted the four charges advanced against me.” Richard Calland, a public law professor at the University of Cape Town, said there is a “good chance” Ramaphosa will succeed in overturning the report, which he described as “flawed” and riddled with “errors in law.” Ramaphosa has said he will not block the committee’s preparatory work, but will move to halt its progress if it continues formal proceedings while his court challenge is pending.

    This impeachment process marks a historic first for South Africa: Ramaphosa is the first sitting president to face impeachment under the 2018 rules that created the independent panel and special committee structure. In 2016, Jacob Zuma survived an impeachment vote after the Constitutional Court ruled he had violated the constitution over improper use of public funds for private home upgrades, thanks to the ANC’s then-absolute majority.

    Political observers note that even if the impeachment motion ultimately fails, the process is already damaging Ramaphosa’s personal credibility and the ANC’s political standing. If the process proceeds to a vote, opposition parties know they lack the numbers to remove Ramaphosa, but “they want to harm the president and… the ANC through this process,” Calland explained. Because Ramaphosa is bound by a two-term limit and cannot run for re-election in 2029, he will not face direct electoral consequences from the scandal. But the ANC has a history of removing sitting party leaders when they become political liabilities: both Zuma and Thabo Mbeki were ousted as ANC head before their terms ended. If the scandal drags on and drags down the ANC’s poll numbers, the party could move to replace Ramaphosa as its leader as early as 2027.

  • Armenia braces for election as Russia piles pressure on pro-West government

    Armenia braces for election as Russia piles pressure on pro-West government

    As Armenia prepares for its critical parliamentary election on June 7, the small South Caucasus nation of 3 million people finds itself caught in a sharp geopolitical standoff between Moscow and the Western bloc. At the center of the contest is incumbent Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who is seeking re-election on a platform of deeper European integration, a policy that has drawn escalating economic pressure from Russia, Armenia’s longstanding largest trading partner.

    Pashinyan’s shift toward the West has defined his tenure since he rose to power in the 2018 revolution. Over his time in office, he has overseen a steady reorientation of Armenia’s foreign policy: passing legislation to launch the EU accession process, advancing a US-brokered peace deal with neighboring Azerbaijan that earned him an endorsement from former US President Donald Trump, and hosting a high-profile summit of EU leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Yerevan earlier this year. But his policy concessions to Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region have become his biggest domestic liability.

    The mountainous enclave, once home to 120,000 ethnic Armenians, was seized by Azerbaijani forces in 2023. Pashinyan’s willingness to cede control of the region and his refusal to push aggressively for the release of detained former Nagorno-Karabakh leaders has left a deep rift in Armenian politics. Recent polling shows public opinion on the peace deal is deeply split, with 44% supporting the agreement and 41% opposing it. Pashinyan’s approval rating has plummeted from 54% in 2021 to roughly 30% today, opening the door for a fragmented but formidable opposition.

    The opposition bloc is led by two former Armenian presidents, Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, both fixtures of the pre-2018 political order that maintained close alignment with Moscow. Their core platform calls for a full restoration of deep military and economic ties with Russia, framed as the only guarantee of Armenia’s national security. Pashinyan’s most high-profile challenger is Russian-based billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, who is currently under house arrest on charges of plotting to overthrow the government and is running his campaign through his nephew.

    Latest polling from the International Republican Institute puts Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party ahead with 32% of the vote, while nearly 40% of registered voters report trusting no political candidate at all. While the combined opposition could match Pashinyan’s support if unified, their fragmented structure leaves them unlikely to defeat the incumbent on election day.

    Looming largest over the vote is direct interference from the Kremlin. In the lead-up to June 7, Russian President Vladimir Putin has explicitly warned Armenia of the economic consequences of moving closer to the West, drawing a parallel to the crisis in Ukraine that he linked to EU accession efforts. Those warnings have been followed by tangible trade measures: in the two weeks before the election, Russia banned imports of key Armenian exports including flowers, cognac, mineral water, and fresh produce.

    Russia remains Armenia’s top trading partner, accounting for 36% of the country’s total foreign trade in 2025. Haykaz Fanyan, a senior analyst at the Armenian Centre for Socio-Economic Studies, confirmed that Moscow’s actions are a deliberate attempt to sway the election outcome. “The only way Russia can impact Armenia now is economic,” Fanyan explained, noting that Armenia has already dramatically reduced its dependence on Russian military equipment, with 95% of recent military imports coming from India, France, China and other partners. Still, economic leverage remains a powerful weapon for the Kremlin: Russia supplies Armenia with natural gas at $177.50 per 1,000 cubic meters, far below the European market price of more than $600 that Pashinyan would face if ties with Moscow break down completely.

    Putin has also publicly pressured Pashinyan to hold a national referendum on whether Armenia should leave the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) — a customs bloc that delivers significant economic benefits to the country — to pursue EU membership. Pashinyan has avoided the challenge, noting that Armenia has not yet secured EU candidate status and full membership remains a distant long-term goal. “We will continue to work within the EAEU until the choice between its current membership and the EU becomes unavoidable,” he said, framing the current referendum call as purely theoretical.

    The EU has not remained on the sidelines in the face of Russian pressure. Shortly before the election, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pledged €50 million in new support for Armenia, explicitly accusing Moscow of “weaponising economic relations for political pressure” and announcing that the EU would ease trade barriers for the Armenian goods targeted by Russian import bans.

    Pashinyan has centered his campaign around the slogan “Stand for Peace!”, but the election cycle has been marked by bitter domestic confrontation, most notably between the prime minister and displaced ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. One high-profile incident saw Pashinyan use offensive language against civil activist Artur Osipyan, who was subsequently arrested on charges of obstructing the campaign and launched a hunger strike in protest. Opposition figures have accused Pashinyan of increasingly authoritarian tactics, including misusing state resources to pressure civil servants into attending his rallies and spreading a climate of fear among voters. “I cannot remember any campaign as tense as this one,” said Artur Khachatryan, an opposition MP from the Armenia Alliance.

    For Pashinyan, the campaign rests on his vision of a “Real Armenia”: a country at peace with Azerbaijan, integrated into European institutions, and free from the corruption and authoritarianism that marked the pre-2018 order. While his support has fallen sharply, many voters still see him as the only alternative to a return to the old Kremlin-aligned system. For ordinary Armenian voters heading to the polls, the core question transcends simple geopolitical framing: are they willing to bear the immediate economic costs of Pashinyan’s pro-Western shift, costs that Russia has deliberately amplified, for a European future that remains years or decades away? On June 7, Armenian voters will deliver their answer.

  • Albanians protest against Kushner-backed project threatening the environment

    Albanians protest against Kushner-backed project threatening the environment

    Mass public demonstrations against a $1.6 billion luxury coastal resort development led by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner have stretched into their fourth consecutive day in Albania, fueled by widespread public anger over untransparent planning and irreversible threats to unique coastal ecosystems.

    Thousands of demonstrators have packed the capital city of Tirana all week, raising alarm over the project’s potential to destroy sensitive habitats located at the proposed construction site on Albania’s southern Adriatic coast. The development footprint encompasses the uninhabited Sazan Island, as well as the ecologically rich wetlands and coastal habitats that surround the landmass, with early groundwork already underway in recent weeks. Kushner’s private equity firm, Affinity Partners, is one of the primary backers of the large-scale tourism project.

    In a recent media interview, Ivanka Trump, Kushner’s wife and former U.S. first daughter, recalled how the pair first encountered Sazan Island during a leisure trip. “We were on a friend’s boat, and we stopped for a swim. Effectively, that’s how we found it,” she explained. “We swam to the island. We went on a hike, barefoot all the way up to the top, and we were just captivated.”

    Protestors have directed their criticism not only at Affinity Partners but also at Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama and his ruling Socialist Party administration, which has positioned itself as a vocal supporter of the development. For Rama, the resort project is a core pillar of his agenda to transform Albania into a premium international tourist destination, boost foreign direct investment, and advance the country’s bid for European Union membership. The prime minister has argued the initiative would inject an estimated $4.6 billion in total investment into Albania’s economy, generate thousands of local jobs, and upgrade critical national infrastructure. Rama won a fourth consecutive term in 2025 on a platform centered on attracting foreign investment and advancing EU accession.

    Yet more than 40 domestic environmental organizations have signed an open letter to the government demanding an immediate halt to all construction activities. The site is recognized as one of the most biologically diverse areas along the Adriatic coast, serving as a critical stopover for hundreds of migratory bird species. The coastal waters adjacent to Sazan Island are also one of the last remaining protected refuges for the critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal, while the wetlands host populations of pink flamingos and Dalmatian pelicans among more than 200 recorded bird species. Many protestors have carried cutout images of pink flamingos to rallies to highlight the threat the development poses to these vulnerable animal populations.

    Aleksandr Trajce, executive director of the Protection and Preservation of the Natural Environment in Albania (PPNEA)—the country’s leading conservation organization—told reporters the entire project process has been marked by a complete lack of public accountability. “From start to finish there has been a total lack of transparency,” Trajce said. “We have seen no public consultation or public documentation regarding permits, and so now what we are saying is, if they remove the bulldozers, remove the fence and restore the habitats to what they were, then we can start talking.”

    While Rama has stated he is open to meeting with protest representatives to discuss their concerns, he has also ruled out any possibility of canceling the project. “There is absolutely no chance that the investment will stop as long as I am here,” the prime minister confirmed this week.

    Developers involved in the initiative have pushed back against criticism, framing the project as environmentally responsible and beneficial to local communities. “Our focus remains on responsible stewardship, environmental enhancement, job creation and creating long-term value for local communities. We respect the ongoing public and institutional processes,” said Asher Abehsera, chief executive of Sazan Real Estate Development LLC, which is co-developing the project alongside Affinity Partners.

    The Albanian protests are not the first controversy surrounding Kushner’s development projects in the Balkan region. Previously, Kushner planned to build a Trump International Hotel in Belgrade, Serbia, but withdrew from the project earlier this year after a senior Serbian government minister was arrested on charges of abuse of office tied to the development’s approval process. More recently, Kushner drew widespread international criticism for announcing a proposal to develop a “New Gaza” with luxury skyscrapers, coastal tourism hubs, and dedicated commercial districts. Analysts speaking to Middle East Eye described the Gaza plan as a clear example of private actors attempting to profit from conflict and humanitarian disaster in the occupied Palestinian territories.

  • Trump keeps the door open to a call with Taiwan’s president even though China has warned against it

    Trump keeps the door open to a call with Taiwan’s president even though China has warned against it

    Aboard Air Force One, U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed Friday that a potential phone conversation with Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te remains on the table, pushing back against explicit public pressure from Beijing to scrap any direct high-level engagement between the two leaders. China has long claimed the self-governing, democratic island of Taiwan as an inalienable part of its territory, and has repeatedly warned Washington against formal interactions with Taipei’s leadership.

    The possibility of a call first emerged last month, shortly after Trump concluded his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. At that time, Trump tied the potential dialogue to his ongoing deliberation over whether to approve a $14 billion arms sales package to Taiwan, which was greenlit by the U.S. Congress earlier in the year. When pressed by reporters Friday on whether he still planned to connect with Lai, Trump responded definitively: “I’ll always talk to him.”

    A direct call between sitting U.S. and Taiwanese presidents would break a decades-long diplomatic precedent, making it a highly provocative step in the eyes of Beijing. This week, the Chinese Embassy in Washington issued a formal statement to the Associated Press warning that such a conversation would erode hard-won progress in fragile U.S.-China bilateral ties. The embassy urged the Trump administration to “handle the Taiwan question with utmost prudence” and avoid sending what it called “wrong signals” to Taipei.

    This is not the first time Trump has drawn sharp condemnation from Beijing over cross-strait interactions. Immediately after his 2016 presidential election victory and before his inauguration, Trump accepted a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan’s then-President Tsai Ing-wen, a move that immediately upended decades of unspoken diplomatic protocol around cross-strait relations.

    Today, Trump’s open discussion of a call with Lai comes amid lingering uncertainty over the fate of the pending arms deal. During his Beijing summit, Xi Jinping emphasized to Trump that the Taiwan question is the single most sensitive core issue in U.S.-China relations, warning that mismanagement of the dispute could lead to direct clashes and open conflict between the two global powers, per Chinese official readouts of the meeting. Trump has previously framed the approved arms sales as a “negotiating chip” in the administration’s broader Indo-Pacific policy strategy, leaving unclear whether he will ultimately greenlight the transfer.

    Analysts note that Trump’s willingness to consult China on the Taiwan arms sale marks a departure from longstanding U.S. policy guidelines known as the Six Assurances, first established under the Reagan administration in 1982. The second of these nonbinding principles explicitly states that the U.S. would not agree to consult the People’s Republic of China on arms sales to Taiwan. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio reaffirmed during congressional hearings earlier this week that official U.S. policy toward Taiwan remains unchanged, experts say Trump’s public rhetoric has injected unprecedented uncertainty into cross-strait dynamics.

    “Trump’s comments about framing Taiwan arms sales as a negotiating chip, combined with the uncertainty around a possible call with Lai, have created far more ambiguity than Taipei is comfortable with,” explained Craig Singleton, a China specialist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The real test will not be rhetoric — it will be whether the pending arms package moves forward, and on what timeline.”

    For his part, Lai has made clear he is prepared to take the call if it happens. The Taiwanese leader has stated that he would use the conversation to stress that cross-strait peace and stability is a critical pillar of global security, and would argue that China’s increasingly aggressive military and diplomatic moves around the island are the primary threat to regional calm. Lai would also note that Taiwan’s growing defense budget and planned purchase of U.S. arms are defensive measures designed to deter aggression and maintain cross-strait stability, he has said.

    Diplomatic context for the current standoff dates back to 1979, when the U.S. switched formal diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing under the One China policy, which acknowledges Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory. The U.S. maintains informal non-diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and has committed through the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taipei with the defensive arms needed to maintain its security, while deliberately keeping ambiguous the question of whether it would intervene militarily if China launched an invasion of the island. Past high-level U.S. engagements with Taiwanese leaders have drawn fierce pushback from Beijing: after then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a congressional delegation to Taipei in 2022, China responded with large-scale military exercises that included launching short-range ballistic missiles over the island.

    After Trump’s Friday comments, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office — Taiwan’s de facto embassy in Washington — reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining close ongoing coordination with the U.S. on arms sales and other key issues. “We will leave it up to the U.S. to announce if there’s any arrangements for President Trump to speak with President Lai,” the office said in a formal statement.

    Edgard Kagan, a former senior State Department East Asia policy official and U.S. ambassador to Malaysia who now holds the China Studies chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that Beijing views a potential Trump-Lai call as even more provocative than moving forward with the proposed arms sale. Kagan added that it is notable Trump continues to publicly float the possibility of a call even after receiving explicit warnings from Chinese leaders.

    Kagan laid out a potential strategic path forward for the administration: if Trump chooses to forgo the call, it could create diplomatic space to approve the arms sales while minimizing backlash from Beijing. “This could give him the room to announce an arms sale, defuse criticism that the U.S. is turning its back on Taiwan, and do it in a way that leaves the Chinese feeling there was some respect for their views,” Kagan explained.

    Reporter Madhani contributed reporting from Washington.

  • Chris Richards trains with U.S. team with World Cup deadline looming

    Chris Richards trains with U.S. team with World Cup deadline looming

    CHICAGO — In a hopeful development for the United States men’s national soccer team ahead of the upcoming FIFA World Cup, star central defender Chris Richards rejoined full team training Friday at the Chicago Fire’s Endeavor Health Performance Center, marking a key milestone in his rapid recovery from a serious ankle injury. The 26-year-old suffered tears to two ligaments in his left ankle during a club match with England’s Crystal Palace back on May 17, an injury that immediately cast major doubt over his ability to feature in the global tournament.

    While Richards was ruled out of the U.S. men’s national team (USMNT) pre-World Cup friendly against Germany this Saturday, coaching staff and teammates remain optimistic that he will be fit enough to take the field when the USMNT kicks off their Group D campaign against Paraguay next week. During the 15-minute segment of practice open to reporters, Richards showed no visible discomfort as he completed warm-up drills alongside the rest of the squad.

    Richards’ return comes with extra narrative weight: he was already forced to miss the 2022 Qatar World Cup after suffering a hamstring injury, making this comeback bid all the more meaningful for the team widely regarded as their best active central defender. Midfielder Weston McKennie, a core leader of the USMNT squad, emphasized the entire group is fully behind Richards’ recovery.

    “Chris Richards is on the right path to coming back and being completely with the squad,” McKennie said. “I think everyone trusts his body and what he feels, and the coaching staff as well. He’s an important piece of the group, with his energy, his leadership on and off the field. And so obviously we’re just all behind him and can’t wait to have him back out with the group.”

    USMNT head coach Mauricio Pochettino acknowledged that while Richards’ rehabilitation has progressed well, he is not yet cleared for competitive match play. With the deadline to replace injured players on the 26-man World Cup roster coming this Thursday, the coaching staff faces a rapidly approaching decision on Richards’ status. Pochettino noted that medical staff have strongly advised against Richards featuring in Saturday’s friendly, even as the defender pushes to prove his fitness ahead of the opener.

    “His training and his evolution is well, but he still is not ready to compete and to play,” Pochettino said ahead of Friday’s session. “Maybe this is the final of the World Cup, maybe he can play [Saturday], but the advice of the medical area is not to play.”

    The USMNT enters Saturday’s friendly off a tight 3-2 exhibition win over Senegal earlier this week. Beyond their opening match against Paraguay, the team will face Group D opponents Australia on June 19 and Turkey on June 25. McKennie said the pre-tournament friendly against Germany will serve as a critical test of the squad’s chemistry and new tactics heading into the competition, with a mix of inexperienced and veteran players set to feature.

    “We’ll be going into this game with a lot of players that haven’t played against them yet, and players that have,” McKennie said. “So I think the new energy, the new style, the new circumstances in general leading into a World Cup, I think it’s going to be a great test for us.”

    Saturday’s match at Chicago’s Soldier Field also marks a homecoming for former USMNT head coach Gregg Berhalter, who was hired as head coach and director of football for the Chicago Fire in October 2024, 10 months after his second stint leading the national team ended. With the USMNT hosting training at the Fire’s practice facility, Berhalter got the chance to reconnect with his former players and watch his son Sebastian, a current USMNT midfielder, train with the squad. Berhalter, who led the USMNT to the 2022 World Cup round of 16, reflected on how much the current core of players has grown since he first worked with them.

    “When I got them, they were young. They were babies and they were just learning what it takes to be a professional athlete,” Berhalter said. “And now when I see them, they’re men. They have kids. They’re adults, and they know exactly what it means to maintain themselves as professionals. And it’s an amazing thing to see.”

    Thirteen players on the current 2026 World Cup USMNT roster previously featured on Berhalter’s 2022 squad, with 11 earning game time in Qatar. For Germany, Saturday’s friendly is their final tune-up before their World Cup opener against Curacao on June 14, after which they will face Group E opponents Ivory Coast on June 20 and Ecuador on June 25.