分类： politics

President Donald Trump convened Latin American leaders at his Trump National Doral Miami golf resort on Saturday for the “Shield of the Americas” summit, aiming to reaffirm U.S. commitment to hemispheric priorities despite escalating global conflicts. The gathering occurred against the backdrop of multiple international crises, including the recent U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran that has destabilized Middle Eastern security and roiled worldwide markets.

The summit represents a strategic effort to reorient American foreign policy toward what the administration terms “America First” regional engagement. This initiative follows Trump’s audacious military operation two months prior that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on drug conspiracy charges. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth articulated the administration’s position, criticizing previous U.S. leadership for “benign neglect” of hemispheric affairs while focusing excessively on other global theaters.

Attendance included leaders from twelve nations: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago. Notably absent were regional powers Brazil and Mexico, along with Colombia—traditionally a key U.S. partner in anti-narcotics strategy.

The administration’s renewed focus includes countering Chinese economic influence, described in security documents as the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. This approach has manifested through pressure on Panama to withdraw from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and reviews of Chinese-controlled port contracts. The capture of Maduro further disrupts Beijing’s energy imports from Venezuela, one of China’s closest regional allies.

Despite these efforts, regional experts note that many nations maintain pragmatic relationships with China due to its trade-focused diplomacy addressing critical development needs. The U.S. currently offers increased militarization and immigration enforcement while reducing foreign assistance, creating complex diplomatic calculations for hemispheric partners.
President Trump’s participation was abbreviated due to his required attendance at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer of six U.S. troops killed in a Kuwait drone strike during the ongoing Iran conflict.

In a revealing interview with CNN, former US President Donald Trump articulated an unconventional perspective on Iran’s political future, stating he would welcome continued religious leadership provided such figures demonstrate fairness and align with American interests. Trump emphasized that democratic governance isn’t essential for Iran, contradicting traditional US foreign policy approaches.

“The crucial factor isn’t the system but the individual’s character,” Trump stated. “I maintain excellent relationships with numerous religious leaders. What matters is selecting a leader who will govern justly, perform effectively, and maintain positive relations with the United States, Israel, and our Middle Eastern partners.”

These comments followed Trump’s social media demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” after coordinated US-Israeli airstrikes eliminated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Despite Trump’s public encouragement for Iranians to overthrow their government, no significant uprising has materialized.

The White House subsequently clarified that “unconditional surrender” would be determined unilaterally by Trump as commander-in-chief upon assessing that Iran no longer poses threats and Operation Epic Fury objectives are fully achieved.

This stance appears inconsistent with previous administration actions, including support for Kurdish uprisings and justification of military interventions based on Iran’s human rights record during recent inflation protests. Trump additionally referenced Venezuela as precedent, noting his administration’s direct involvement in selecting leadership after Nicolás Maduro’s removal, while maintaining control over oil resources.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has meanwhile declared preparedness for potential ground invasion, asserting confidence in Iran’s defensive capabilities despite reduced long-range missile deployments in favor of targeted drone and short-range missile strikes against US bases and Gulf states.

In a controversial immigration policy shift, the UK government has imposed a sweeping ban on student visas for nationals from Sudan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Cameroon—countries grappling with severe internal conflicts. The measure, announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, aims to prevent international students from seeking asylum after completing their degrees in Britain.

The decision has drawn sharp criticism from educational advocates and human rights organizations who argue it penalizes vulnerable populations. Among those directly affected is Ibrahim Dafallah, a 23-year-old Sudanese student who secured admission to the University of Oxford’s master’s program in health service improvement. Having survived multiple displacements and family tragedies during Sudan’s devastating civil war, Dafallah viewed overseas education as crucial for rebuilding his nation’s shattered healthcare system.

Home Office data reveals that asylum claims from Sudanese students remain exceptionally low, with only 120 applications in the 2024-25 academic year—representing less than half of all Sudanese study visa holders. Myanmar nationals showed even lower rates, with just 16% of student visa holders seeking asylum.

The policy aligns with recent US restrictions under the Trump administration, which banned student visas for 19 countries including Sudan. Migrant charities warn this approach eliminates one of the few legal pathways to safety for conflict-zone residents. Dr. Abeer Abdoon, another Sudanese academic offered placement at Oxford, emphasized the generational impact: ‘This suspension prevents us from acquiring skills desperately needed for our country’s recovery.’

Experts including Robert Yates, former global health director at Chatham House, condemned the move as counterproductive to international development goals. ‘These countries desperately need to extend health coverage to their populations,’ Yates noted, highlighting how the ban undermines capacity-building in critical sectors.

The Labour government’s broader asylum overhaul includes temporary protection measures and stricter family reunification rules, signaling a hardened stance despite Britain’s traditional role as an educational haven for conflict-affected scholars.

The United States has embarked on an intensified diplomatic initiative to resolve the decades-long Western Sahara conflict, convening three clandestine meetings between Morocco and Polisario Front representatives since autumn 2023. This marks the first direct engagement between the primary antagonists in years, though Middle East Eye’s diplomatic sources indicate the process has proven more challenging than anticipated.

President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to position itself as a peacemaker in Africa, mirroring its approach to other global conflicts. Washington aims to broker a solution that satisfies Moroccan territorial claims without alienating Algeria, the key supporter of the Sahrawi independence movement.

The negotiations have occurred at the foreign minister level, with minimal progress reported. The core disagreements center on the degree of autonomy for the region and the involvement of the Sahrawi people in determining their political future.

Historical context reveals a conflict originating from Spain’s 1975 withdrawal from its last African colony. The United Nations classifies Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory, with Morocco controlling 80% of the land since a 1991 ceasefire. The sparsely populated 266,000 sqkm desert region hosts approximately 600,000 inhabitants, predominantly Moroccan soldiers, with indigenous Sahrawis numbering fewer than 50,000. An additional 165,000 Sahrawis live as refugees in Algerian camps.

Trump’s December 2020 recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara—in exchange for Morocco joining the Abraham Accords and normalizing relations with Israel—marked a significant policy shift. This position was reinforced in October 2024 through UN Resolution 2797, which endorsed autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty as a feasible solution. Russia and China abstained from voting.

Morocco’s expanded autonomy proposal, developed by royal advisers and extending to 38 pages in January 2024, forms the basis of current negotiations. US envoy Massad Boulos facilitated meetings in Washington and Madrid, attended by diplomatic representatives from Morocco, Polisario Front, Algeria, and Mauritania.

The negotiations face fundamental divisions: Morocco seeks to maintain sovereignty with limited autonomy, while the Polisario Front demands self-determination through referendum and associated state status similar to Puerto Rico’s relationship with the US. The Sahrawi delegation insists any agreement must be ratified exclusively by the Sahrawi people, while Morocco proposes constitutional reform approved by all Moroccan citizens.

Underlying tensions include concerns that successful autonomy in Western Sahara could inspire similar demands in other Moroccan regions, and Algeria’s strategic interest in maintaining influence through the Polisario Front. The US ultimately aims to reconcile Algeria and Morocco to counter Chinese influence in Africa, though no breakthrough appears imminent. No fourth meeting has been scheduled, indicating the diplomatic process remains stalled.

Israeli authorities have implemented an unprecedented closure of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan, prohibiting Friday prayers while permitting Jewish Purim celebrations to proceed elsewhere in the city. The move, justified as a security precaution amid ongoing conflict with Iran, has drawn sharp criticism from Palestinian communities and religious officials who view it as an intentional effort to empty the Islamic holy site of worshippers.

Aouni Bazbaz, director of international affairs at the Islamic Waqf which administers the mosque, warned Middle East Eye that prolonged closure risks serious consequences. “The continued closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque for a prolonged period, particularly when normalcy returns elsewhere, could carry risks and future consequences that cannot be ignored,” Bazbaz stated. He expressed concern that extended restrictions might heighten regional tensions and establish a dangerous precedent for future worship access.

The closure implemented shortly after Israel launched military operations against Iran has limited access to only a small number of mosque staff. Israeli forces have deployed at the Old City gates, preventing non-residents from entering while allowing shopkeepers and residents restricted access. This contrasts sharply with typical Ramadan periods when thousands of Palestinian worshippers crowd the mosque complex.

Jerusalem-based activist Fakhri Abu Diab challenged the official security justification, telling MEE: “The police and government do not care about protecting us—there are no bomb shelters for Palestinians in Jerusalem.” He characterized the closure as attempting to create a new reality where Israel controls access to the Islamic holy site, pushing Palestinians away from their right to worship.

The situation highlights the ongoing erosion of the international arrangement governing Al-Aqsa Mosque as an exclusively Islamic site. Since Israel’s 1967 occupation of East Jerusalem, Palestinians have witnessed gradual restrictions on Muslim access while Israeli control has expanded. Researchers specializing in Jerusalem affairs suggest the closure represents part of a broader effort to marginalize the Islamic role at the site and potentially isolate the mosque from its worshippers permanently.

International law considerations further complicate the situation, as Israel’s control over East Jerusalem violates principles stipulating that occupying powers cannot exercise sovereignty or make permanent changes in occupied territories. The Islamic Waqf has not yet issued an official statement, but concerns grow that temporary measures may evolve into permanent arrangements altering access patterns to one of Islam’s most significant religious sites.